I think Canada has it with Novamin, while the US doesn't. The Netherlands does, and Germany doesn't. All with the same "repair & protect" name. It's puzzling. Now Germany does have it under a new "clinical repair" name, of course the "clinical" ones in the US do not, those do contain soap for some reason (sodium lauryl sulfate) which I don't think I've seen in any other country.
I'm curious if there's been any evidence Novamin actually repairs enamel or "repairs" in some other way.
IIRC, it's not allowed in the states because it's not economical to prove that it actually repairs teeth, but I think my understanding is based on some internet comments and nothing else. The studies I've seen haven't proven to effectively repair enamel, I think, but I'm also not scientifically literate enough to understand the p values they report.
I used to buy repair and protect from Canada back in 2017 but haven't used it since then. I periodically check if there is any solid evidence but I haven't seen much or I'm too stupid to understand it.
Gave a lot of insight and background into North Korean hackers, how they operate, how they live and so on. I was familiar with their operations from before, like the SWIFT hack from being in the infosec field. But I still learned a lot.
An acquaintance had a theory, though. They presumed that Apple was doing two years of regression testing on Ventura, so maybe they grabbed the latest version at the time, tested stuff for two years and shipped the version they tested.
If so, I don't blame them. Most protects are not run like mine, so they need to test for the lowest common denominator and assume that later versions will have new bugs.
It depends on the feature. For things that involve material changes to your app or a feature that you don't want Apple to be surprised about, usually you will include user credentials in your submission that have that feature enabled and give them a heads up. If's a smallish feature, you don't usually sweat app review. It's obviously not a perfect system.
Apple has a much more traditional engineering structure and traditional release cadence though. A lot of the "worst offenders" of these types of release notes are structured and work much differently. They release updates 1-2 times a week, sometimes release features weeks after the code has shipped to users, and sometimes in stretched out rollouts.
They say there if there is a will, there is a way, so in a sense I agree that these companies probably could do something about it if they really wanted to, but I also don't think it would be easy, and considering how few people actually look at release notes, I am not sure the investment is worth it.
I agree completely. I think HVAC has gotten too complex for a lot of the "hand waving" that HVAC installers have been able to get away with up until now. It actually takes a good amount of pre-planning and research in order to install the proper system that is configured correctly.
Case in point, a few years ago when I was a new homeowner I converted to natural gas from oil and got three quotes from three highly rated companies. All three companies recommended the exact same boiler. A few months ago I started to research the outdoor reset functionality that allows it to change the water temperature based on the outdoor temp. Well, I discovered that the feature is basically useless for me because both of my zones are too small to generate the minimum number of BTUs at lower temperatures. So I have a (up to) 96% efficient boiler that will never be able to reach that efficiency. I either would have needed a smaller boiler and or a buffer tank to be able to work correctly.
