From the article and video, looks like the requirements are a thin tube and a block of translucent material to focus light onto the tube. And presumably the tube needs to be the right length, to give it enough sun time to react at a given flow speed.
I would guess that while the leaf shape in particular is not required, the loose space-filling curve is a good shape for the tube to get the most use out of the block. Could it perhaps be slightly more space-efficient with a rectangle and a heater-coil shape? Maybe, but I'd expect not by much, and I would expect other resource constraints (the reactants) to matter before you've filled all available sunny spots and need to maximize medicine-per-square-meter, if only because sunny rooftops are not exactly high-demand space.
Clyde Mandelin has done something similar, https://legendsoflocalization.com/wanderbar/ , but without claiming "AI" and by producing HTML in a sidebar instead of voice or screen-alteration.
(also useful for non-translation things. needs per-game plugins for e.g. what memory area to look at. on the other hand, reading memory directly instead of using OCR means much less processing to to to get it running live instead of needing a button-press per-frame.)
Apple is already charging a premium for their stuff. Selling a more-expensive-than-the-competition product by pushing hard on style and branding is what they do.
Ten minutes, maybe five minutes if the school is small enough physically to get between rooms in that time. The break is definitely not meant to be long enough for more than "get to your next class" - and that's from someone from a relatively well-off suburban school district.
Elementary school gets recess, don't remember how long. Middle school I don't remember very well; high school you just get lunch (but are perhaps not restricted to one room to have it, at least).
Well, the three times there make about a second for one light-change. So let's say it makes two light-changes, to be sure, for three images (it does say "multiple images", not "two"). That's two seconds, and then say there's another second for processing. Not too unreasonable, especially if (as it says) single-image systems also take about three seconds overall.
If I only took work that I enjoyed, life would be a lot shorter. Uninteresting but better-compensated work allows for free time outside of work to do things I enjoy, and the theoretical possibility of saving enough for an eventual sabbatical or early retirement.
"Single digit profit margins" is in terms of percentages. I'm talking absolutes: However low the profit margin is as a percentage, as long as it's positive and the owner makes more than enough to live on, it could be made lower by a pay increase.
No? Even if only the employees of one particular company get a wage increase, that's however-many-people-work-there who now have more money to spend. It might not be a very large number of people, depending on the company, but it doesn't have to happen across the board for the people to exist.
"Low margin" is relative. If the owner is taking home more money than the employees, there's room to shift things. I would bet quite a lot that most Burger Kings are in that position.
Worker wages could go up without increasing the cost of a burger (or other food item), it would just mean the owners make less money per sale. If the decreased stress leads to Burger King workers being more productive (and/or more pleasant to customers), that could mean more sales and more money for everyone involved.
The list seems likely to be important, but I note that no form of material compensation is listed, and even people who don't particularly care for material wealth will probably put food-and-shelter above most or all of that list (with a possible exception for point 8, with people and companies that have a particularly strong Cause).
New entrypoints are a change; they're just a change that takes a while to develop fully. More people get into electronic music who otherwise mightn't've, and they bring their perspectives with them.
Well, this isn't that. The interpretation may vary slightly, but there are definitely established meanings for "platform" and "utility" for a judge to work from (though "platform" might be only the plain-English meaning, "utilities" such as power and water companies are a regulated category which can be used for reference if nothing else).
More of the same is definitely something people want sometimes -- but other people want something new (or more-of-the-same of something else that hasn't been done as much, e.g. a sequel in a smaller series). The article is about (among other things) the stagnation and general tendency of big developers towards increasingly-stale safe bets.
Mario Kart is an example of that: Nintendo is perfectly willing to make more-of-the-same for Mario Kart, but when asked in interviews about the possibility of a new F-Zero, the answer has generally been "we don't want to just release more of the same, we want to come up with some new twist on it". It's not about novelty (or if it is, their standards for novelty are inconsistent), it's about one being a cash cow and the other not.
That's... not an argument I've heard before, but I suppose it does follow. At that point the issue becomes the question of whether anyone feels it's worth the effort of pursuing the issue in court. If Spotify wins this one, they might! I do know that back in the 80s, Activision was making Atari 2600 games without any sort of license, and Atari lost its suit attempting to prevent that -- Activision was the first third-party game developer. Not sure whether the change since then (all console games being licensed) is legal or just practical.