@Ron Resnick , in your experience did you see instances where regulations were re-defined in practice (not modified in writing) by both parties after a little experience with implementation? What I've observed over time, is that when the pendulum swings there can be posturing, but the practical day-to-day implementation brings the pendulum nearer to equilibrium. In other words, practice can point out impracticalities with procedures as written. That doesn't mean everything stops.
No, I did not see this. Both the regulators and the regulated need to be clear about the "rules of the road." Everybody needs to be able to look at the same printed rule.
It would sow great confusion if some market participants had one, informally-modified understanding of the rules, and other market participants had a different understanding of the rules based on the actual text of the rules.
Regulated companies need to have comfort that the advice they are receiving from the regulators is in writing and can be referred to by both future regulators and by future employees at the regulated companies. It wouldn't work if over time regulations became modified by informal practice or by lore.
I agree with the equilibrium and pendulum swinging concepts. Sometimes regulators do go too far and in the course of practice and application of the rules they back off a little bit. But this typically would be effected and documented by "no action" letters, and not by informal, specialized understandings. "No action" letters are a great way for the regulator to communicate regulatory relief to all market participants simultaneously.
I agree with the equilibrium and pendulum swinging concepts. Sometimes regulators do go too far and in the course of practice and application of the rules they back off a little bit. But this typically would be effected and documented by "no action" letters, and not by informal, specialized understandings. "No action" letters are a great way for the regulator to communicate regulatory relief to all market participants simultaneously.
sounds great! I hope X provides a diagnostic for my setup so that I know where the different forms of noise are coming from and how to mitigate them.
Let's be happy for now. Once X makes us batteries, we will no longer remember these good times. On the other hand, audiophile batteries will receive 24/7 surround sound based upon the very best low power set + horns distortion profile. Some here will then never take the red [non-political meaning of red, as in the color red] pill.
Interesting reading what the people on the California Costal Commissions said in their speeches (I read their actual speeches) for reasons denying Musk the right to launch more rockets after his spectacular success with the come-back of the rocker earlier this week.
It certainly gives credence to the people who've voiced concerns on this thread about rampant abuse regardless of what the government bureaucrats are supposed to be focusing on or not.
I'm sure when they created the CCC people never thought that the commission would so clearly violate the law and veer from their authority and focus yet here we are....
Once you let the genie out of the bottle, there is no putting it back in.
I can see how this regulation could be birthed from the increased frictionless environment of social media: i.e. Tiktok, Instagram etc., where reviews can be created and viewed by millions without the oversight of a media company or other guide rails of traditional journalism. I think it definitely applies to audio reviews just as well as Teslas. I don't as a consumer have a problem with these regulations overall. It is just coloring in things that have been left to editorial committees. As a nascent reviewer, I like having clear rules around ethics. I think the FTC will use this for large actions like the FTX enforcement etc.
I am not clear on how these rules will affect civil law. Can I bring a suit against a company based on the perceived violation of these rules and win?
