Green Humanist

Norfolk Southern Settles, but for East Palestine Residents It Isn’t Over

On 5 February 2023, fifty cars of a train derailed in East Palestine, an Ohio town near the border of Pennsylvania. The train cars contained, among other things, vinyl chloride, a substance that raises the risk of developing several types of cancers. The derailment caused an enormous fire that required the evacuation of a three-square mile area surrounding the crash.

In the year and two months that have passed since the derailment and chemical burnoff, the residents of the community have been treated with indifference and disrespect by legislators and agency officials. Some of this indifference comes from the fact that East Palestine is not a wealthy community. The median household income is $46,436, compared to the US average of $67,521.

Last week, Norfolk Southern, the owner of the railway on which the train derailed, agreed to pay $600 million in a class action lawsuit from the residents who were affected. Residents of the area worry that once this amount is divided up that there will be scant money to make a difference in their lives.

Norfolk Southern certainly won’t be hurt in a major way by this lawsuit. The company made $3 billion in revenue in the first quarter of 2024, which amounted to $213 million in profit after the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, residents continue to complain of respiratory problems, unexplained rashes, and nosebleeds. Many fear that they will develop cancer in the long term from the chemicals that were burned off. Some residents have spent thousands of dollars and exhausted their savings in the process of moving away from the town, replacing contaminated belongings, and paying medical bills related to the symptoms of chemical exposure.

To add insult to injury to the residents of East Palestine, Norfolk Southern’s settlement does not include any admission of fault, liability, or wrongdoing.

The Government Accountability Project is continuing its investigation of government wrongdoing in the city. According to a press release by the non-profit organization, “Since the beginning of the investigation, we have been working with citizen whistleblower and independent scientist, Scott Smith. Since the derailment, Smith has traveled to East Palestine 25 times and has conducted 29 rounds of testing on homes, soil, and water. Very quickly, he became a strong advocate and ally of the community, garnering media attention and a documentary about his work in East Palestine tiled ‘The Guy in the Blue Shirt.’ The blue shirt he wears while testing became a symbol of this support. Smith’s testing revealed dangerous levels of dioxins and related furans in the town’s air, water, soil, and homes, which counters the EPA narrative that testing done by Norfolk Southern contractors proves it is safe to live in East Palestine.”

Meanwhile, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recently said that the burning of the vinyl chloride was completely unnecessary. This statement seems quite at odds with the settlement that involves no admission of wrongdoing by Norfolk Southern. The NTSB is investigating the cause of the crash and claims that the investigation will reach a conclusion in June, but it is unlikely that the outcome of the investigation will place any responsibility on Norfolk Southern. Finally, the EPA claims that cleanup of the town will finish this year, despite its false assertions in the past that everything was safe for the residents.

Most interesting of all will be the further investigation of the Government Accountability Project into behind-the-scenes conversations about the disaster within the government.

Oregon Passes Strong Right to Repair Law

On 27 March, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed into law one of the strongest right-to-repair laws in the US.

Similar to other bills that have passed in recent years in California and Minnesota, the law requires electronics manufacturers to give both consumers and independent electronics repair shops access to the diagnostic data needed to repair a device.

Not surprisingly, Apple was a major opponent of this bill. Apple uses a variety of techniques to make phones more difficult to repair. It might use non-standard screws or weld parts together without justification. Apple has lobbied against right-to-repair bills across the country, and quite egregiously intentionally slowed down iPhones with older batteries.

The iPhone 12 is even harder to independently repair than the iPhone 11, allowing Apple to raise repair rates for iPhones by 40% because consumers have few other repair options. Apple is not the only major phone manufacturer to engage in such practices. Samsung also intentionally makes its products difficult to repair independently, although Apple currently has 65% of the US market.

One of the stipulations that makes Oregon’s right to repair bill stand out compare to similar laws in other states is that it bans a practice called “parts pairing.” This is an insidious practice where the company programs its software not to accept replacement parts unless they are those authorized by the company.

For example, if you replace your iPhone’s battery yourself, you might get a persistent message that keeps popping up: “Unable to verify this iPhone has a genuine Apple battery.” You also lose access to the health information on your battery. Parts pairing causes users of a device to lose features and functionality if they repair it themselves or take it to an independent shop.

Right to repair laws benefit consumers financially, and are also positive news for the environment. The world has a growing e-waste problem, and manufacturing a new smartphone takes more energy than using one for ten years. Right to repair laws help consumers hold onto their devices for longer and prevent them from being thrown away when they could be fixed.

Oregon’s law is set to take effect next year, although enforcement will not happen until 2027. After 2027, the state will be able to fine manufacturers for noncompliance in civil penalties of up to $1000 per day.

Apple Anti-Trust Lawsuit; Julian Assange’s Extradition Paused

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice announced that it was filing a lawsuit against Apple over the tech company’s monopolistic practices. Among these monopolistic practices are making it difficult for iPhone users to switch to other brands of smartphones and limiting the ability of competitors to build rival software. Previously, the EU has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple for preventing rival providers from accessing the iPhone’s contactless NFC payment ability.

Similarly, the DOJ has also taken issue with Apple’s control over tap-to-pay transactions, saying that it limits innovation. More than a dozen states have joined the DOJ in this lawsuit against the company.

According to the press release put out by the DOJ on 21 March 2024, “Apple has blocked the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for expensive smartphone hardware [], made the quality of cross-platform messaging worse, less innovative, and less secure for users so that its customers have to keep buying iPhones [], [and] limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches so that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not keep buying iPhones.”

The iPhone currently makes up 65% of the US smartphone market. One challenge that the DOJ will have in this case is the un certainty of what products would have developed if Apple had not engaged in these practices. Apple has denied all the allegations made in the lawsuit, and will likely argue against the DOJ that consumers simply prefer its devices over competitors. While the success of the lawsuit is highly uncertain in this early stage, the government has not ruled out breaking up Apple or changing the grounds of competition among apps as a remedy of the lawsuit.

This antitrust lawsuit is certainly one to follow as it unfolds. It is also not the only interesting bit of news in the past few days. There has also been an update in Julian Assange’s case.

From 20-21 February, a High Court in the UK debated whether Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States. A UK court decided to extradite him back in 2022, and Assange’s lawyers have been fighting the decision since then.

This case is a landmark for freedom of speech and rule of law. Since 2010, the US has been after Assange for revealing the crimes of the US government on WikiLeaks. It cannot be stated often enough that Assange is an Australian citizen who has been held as a political prisoner by another country for years.

Last week, there was an update in the Assange case.

The High Court has decided to adjourn the decision as of last week, saying that it seeks further assurance from the US that Assange will be treated humanely when he is tried in the US. The Court says that it will make a final decision on 20 May. This decision shows that the judges on the court are aware of the torture or ill-treatment that Assange will receive when or if he is eventually extradited to the US.

The delay in making the final decision might also be a ploy suggested by the US to try to delay Assange’s extradition to the US until after the US election in the fall. The Biden administration already faces fallout over the US abetting of the slaughtering of Palestinians. Having another contentious issue come up in the same time frame would be very inconvenient, so some officials in government might want to keep Assange out of America until the end of the year.

Either way, the delay in proceedings ensures that Assange’s time in a high-security prison will continue. His health is in decline after years of psychological torture, and the US is determined to set an example for other journalists around the world who reveal inconvenient information about the American government.

The Supreme Court’s Arguments on Online Censorship

In May of 2022, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a lawsuit against Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci, Jen Psaki, several other high-ranking individuals in the current administration, the CDC, and the NIH. The AG’s claim is that there was collusion between the government and big tech to bring about censorship, that officials in the Biden administration worked together with major tech companies to censor stories such as Hunter Biden’s laptop and the efficacy of vaccines in stopping the spread.

The argument Schmitt is making in the lawsuit (Murthy v Missouri) is that the government infringed on people’s freedom of speech by getting Facebook and Twitter to censor such stories, label them as misinformation, or remove users from their platforms for communicating about certain topics. Since Schmitt originally filed the lawsuit, concrete evidence has come out via the Twitter files and other leaks that demonstrates that the US government was indeed colluding with tech platforms to censor certain speech.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments related to the question of whether the US government can pressure tech companies to censor topics or users. Although the case is still pending, the court seemed to be leaning towards saying that the government is acting in its right to tell tech companies to take down posts or content on social media that it finds problematic.

The majority of the justices, including conservative justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, have made statement in support of the government’s ability to collude with social media platforms and other tech companies to remove content. When there is bipartisanship among those in government, 99% of the time it is on something that will negatively impact the American people in some way. This upcoming Supreme Court ruling, as it appears now, is one of those times.

The fact that most of the conservative justices are supportive of this attack on free speech demonstrates their own hypocrisy, since members of the Republican party often claim to be the sole upholders of Americans’ right to expression. And at the same time, liberal justice Kentaji Brown Jackson joined in on the pro-censorship side of the court, claiming that the First Amendment is hamstringing the government and should not be “operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective.” This statement shows a gross misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented earlier this year when a lower court lifted the restrictions in communication between public officials and tech companies for content removal. Alito wrote, “Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing.”

Although social media outlets like Facebook and X are private companies, they function as the modern public square. When government officials tell these companies what speech to allow on their platforms, that is the equivalent of violating someone’s first amendment rights.

The pro-censorship arguments from both the liberal and conservative members of the Supreme Court assume that the government is always in the right. They paint the government as the valiant savior, coming to save the American people from deadly misinformation. Yet moneyed interests have thoroughly corrupted the government and helped to elect officials that will serve only the wealthiest members of society. Such an institution cannot be trusted to select what is truth and what is falsehood.

But even in a theoretical world where we have a virtuous government that truly is looking out for the good of the American people, such censorship would be a grave violation of the right to free speech.

Is there any person you would trust in the world to decide what you could or could not see online? You may love and trust your friends and family members, but would you feel comfortable appointing any one of them as the ultimate arbiter of truth for you? I would hope that the answer is no. Then why trust the government with that same task?

In his 1859 book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote:

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

The opinions expressed by many Supreme Court justices on the case of Murthy v Missouriare just such a “peculiar evil.”

The Bill to Ban TikTok

Last week, the House of Representatives voted 352-65 on a bill that could ban TikTok in the US. This bill has been advanced under the guise of national security, when in fact the law represents a serious threat to freedom of speech.

If the bill ends up passing the Senate, ByteDance, the Chinese-owned parent company of TikTok, will be forced to sell TikTok within five months, or else it will be illegal for the app to be available for download in US stores.

Currently there are almost 170 million active US users on TikTok each month, with most of these individuals between the ages of 18-34. Although I would not make the claim that TikTok is the ultimate bastion for advancing democracy, there are still important topics that get attention on TikTok that are largely ignored by outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or The New York Times.

New media outlets like TikTok, despite their many flaws, allow news to go viral that would have been ignored by legacy media. Political candidates who are shunned by major outlets can rely on media apps to get their message out. In the US, there is already an extreme level of media consolidation. Just 6 companies – AT&T, Comcast, Disney, News Corporation, Sony, ViacomCBS – control 90% of the media market, although Amazon and Netflix are rising competitors.

Such media consolidation is the result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton. This Act drastically weakened FCC relations on ownership of multiple media companies, creating the beginnings of a wave of mergers. Some US media companies have expressed an interest in buying TikTok, but this would only add to the problem of media consolidation within the US.

The bill, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, claims that its purpose is “To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.”

But it would be naïve to assume that this bill will only be used to ban TikTok. Once this bill is passed, it gives the president the authority to ban any apps or news services from entities designated as “foreign adversaries.” The bill is written so broadly that it is clear that it can be applied to a variety of different media outlets.

Thus, if a media outlet owned by a company outside the US is publishing information inconvenient to the US government, the president has the authority to ban it. Similar to the Patriot Act, the new act to ban TikTok gives sweeping powers to the government, authority that will not be relinquished easily, if ever. Ask yourself: would you be comfortable with giving any US president the authority to ban media outlets and apps, keeping in mind that the president might be your ideological opposite?

New media outlets like TikTok play an important role in publicizing information about everything from white collar crimes to genocide. The attempt to ban TikTok in the US has nothing to do with national security. It is a measure to bury information that the US government wants to hide.

Commentary on the New Beyond Burger

This spring, the company Beyond Meat is going to release a new version of its Beyond Burger and Beyond Beef. This move is an attempt to increase sales in the US, as revenue from plant-based meat sales has not increased as much as expected.

The new version of these Beyond products will include avocado oil, remove the use of coconut and canola oils, and simplify the ingredient list. These changes will result in the burger having 60% less saturated fat than the original and 30% less sodium.

The alterations to the burger’s recipe also come in response to critics of vegan meats who want to portray these options as unhealthy. Indeed, comparisons between real beef and vegan meats abound, usually focusing only on ingredient number and sodium content, both of which are higher in plant-based meat.

Yet when we ask whether something is healthy, we should ask healthy compared to what? A bowl of brown rice and vegetables with a low-sodium sauce is healthier than a Beyond Burger, but what about when Beyond Burgers are compared to real meat?

Critics of the Beyond Burger rarely mention that plant-based meats contain no cholesterol, so they lack the capacity of real meat to raise cholesterol and increase someone’s risk of heart disease.

They never mention that the Beyond Burger has fiber, a nutrient only found in plant products and of which 95% of Americans don’t eat enough.

Nor do those who want to portray vegan meats in a bad light mention that animal protein is linked to several types of cancer, and this carcinogenic link is not limited to processed meats like bacon and lunch meats. Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), both carcinogens, are created by the cooking or grilling of meat, regardless of whether it is processed or not.

And that’s not all. Consumption of animal protein increases levels of IGF-1 in the blood, higher levels of which are associated with several types of cancers. Animal protein also contains both glycotoxins and a disproportionate amount of the amino acid leucine (which stimulates fat uptake into cells), with both compounds contributing to type II diabetes.

And finally, the methionine disproportionately found in animal proteins also has an oxidating effect on the body, and researchers have noted methionine reduction is a way to extend one’s lifespan (although to be fair to beef in this instance, chicken and fish have somewhat higher levels of this amino acid than meat from cows). Many types of cancer cells are methionine-dependent, so restricting consumption of this amino acid will prevent proliferation of the cancer cells while not harming normal cells in the body.

The misinformation from the meat industry that vegan products are deathly and real meat is life-affirming has no doubt stymied the growth of plant-based meats within the US. And companies like Beyond Meat have not done a good job at refuting these claims. Although the newer version of the Beyond Burger may garner more interest in this brand of vegan meat, Beyond and other companies need to step up their communication skills if they want to counter meat industry claims about the relative health of vegan meats.

CalTech’s Bionic Jellyfish

Jellyfish lack hearts, and have two nervous systems instead of a centralized brain (although they still have a rudimentary memory despite the lack of a central brain). Many species have no eyes, and must digest their food very quickly so that they can maintain their flotation. Certain types of jellyfish are bioluminescent, and others are capable of killing humans with their stinging tentacles, with the sea wasp jellyfish alone having killed 5,568 people since 1954.

Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) are attempting to modify these fascinating creatures for deep sea exploration. Despite their apparently fragile outer appearance, jellyfish are found at astonishing depths in the ocean. These animals can live as much as 23,000 feet (7000 meters) below the ocean surface. This video shows one magnificent specimen in the Marianas Trench.

This ability to withstand tremendous pressures could be harnessed for the purpose of deep sea exploration. Jellyfish are also among the most efficient swimmers in the ocean, another property that makes them a good candidate for potential use as data gatherers for human purposes.

Researchers in the lab of John Dabiri at first tried to create a robot that would mimic a jellyfish to explore the deep ocean. But when the robotic versions never came close to the efficiency and speed of the real thing, the researchers decided to use actual jellyfish as the potential vehicles of exploration.

These scientists created a cap for the jellyfish that is waterproof and mutually buoyant to make the creature even more streamlined and increase its swimming efficiency further. Because jellyfish lack a brain or central nervous system, attaching the device doesn’t have the ethical concerns of working with larger mammals like whales, and also doesn’t interfere with the jellyfish’s life. The particular subspecies of jellyfish that the lab works with is called a moon jelly, which is found in a variety of different temperatures and depths, and also does not have stingers that can affect humans.

Previous work at Dabiri’s lab also implanted jellyfish with an electronic pacemaker to change the rate at which they swim. With the pacemaker and cap in place, the jellyfish can swim up to 4.5 times their normal speed.

The end goal of Dabiri’s research is to create a steerable jellyfish. This goal is certainly within the realm of possibility. Scientists have already built remote controlled cockroaches that can be steered wherever the “driver” wishes. In the future, jellyfish may be our eyes in the deep ocean, allowing us to collect data on regions that we a humans cannot easily venture.

Tren Transísmico

The Panama Canal is a well-known corridor through central American that allows the cheap transportation of goods from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean. Opened back in 1914 and preceded by the Panama Canal Railway in the 1800s, this water channel through a narrow strip of central America is key to delivering goods for the global supply chain.

But in recent years, the Panama Canal has faced issues with drought, where getting enough water to maintain the channel and get ships through has been a challenge. It takes 200 million litres of freshwater to move a single cargo ship through the canal, and last year water shortages forced operators to reduce the ships crossing through the canal.

Furthermore, the canal has reached saturation: ships are going as fast as they can be transported, but there remain far more goods that companies would like to see transported cheaply across the land barrier.

This dilemma has introduced an opportunity to Mexico: offer a railway that is an alternative to the Panama Canal. After being announced by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2020, the Tren Transísmico was opened in December of 2023. The train runs from the port of Coatzacoalacos on the Gulf of Mexico to the port of Salina Cruz on the Pacific Ocean. The length of the railway is 303 km (188 miles) and it stretches across the relatively narrow isthmus of Tehuantepec.

The Tren Transísmico transports both passengers and freight and makes the journey in about 3 hours. It is hoped that the railway will help bring jobs to communities that border it. The railway is also not an entirely new construction. In the early 1900s, Mexico began a transoceanic railway, but once the Panama Canal opened in 1914 the railway was abandoned.

Because the Tren Transísmico is just one rail line, some are skeptical of how much freight it will be able to move compared to the Panama Canal, a question that remains to be seen in its first year of operation. Calculations by the Financial Times suggest that at maximum capacity, the Tren Transísmico could only ferry 10.5% of the annual cargo shipped through the Panama Canal. Nevertheless, officials hold out hope that the railway will be a path towards economic growth in Mexico and more international trade cooperation. Throughout this year, various branches of the Tren Transísmico are also expected to reach completion. The total cost of the main branch of the railway was $2.8 billion dollars.

Day X Approaches: High Court to Decide on Extradition for Julian Assange

From 20-21 February, a High Court in the UK will decide whether Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States. A UK court decided to extradite him back in 2022, and Assange’s lawyers have been fighting the decision up until now. The court decision this upcoming week will decide Assange’s fate.

This case is a landmark for freedom of speech and rule of law. Since 2010, the US has been after Assange for revealing the crimes of the US government on WikiLeaks.

Over the years, WikiLeaks has revealed US war crimes in Iraq (where the US Department of Justice reluctantly realized they couldn’t prosecute Assange for the leak without also prosecuting the NYT and other papers that published the information), the extent of the CIA’s abilities to spy on Americans through smartphones and other devices, the US admitting to using the IMF as a tool for economic warfare on other countries, and the operating manual to Guantanamo Bay Prison.

The warmongers in the US government responsible for the destruction of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide and the countries they live in will face no consequences. Yet the person who reveals information about these atrocities is persecuted by the US government with the help of its allies such as the UK. As Edward Snowden has remarked, “When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.”

For the past few years, Assange has been imprisoned in a maximum-security prison, an extraordinary violation of human rights and freedom of speech that most in the journalist class are entirely indifferent too.

The Australian government – let us not forget that Assange is an Australian, not American citizen – has been remarkably silent throughout this entire ordeal.

Last week, Prime Minister of Australia Anthony Albanese commented on the upcoming trial of Assange, “I hope this can be resolved. I hope it can be resolved amicably. It’s not up to Australia to interfere in the legal processes of other countries, but it is appropriate for us to put our very strong view that those countries need to take into account the need for this to be concluded.”

Although Albanese’s full remarks were more extensive, they were nowhere near the truly appropriate response to the situation. The Australian government should have been heavily lobbying the US and UK government since 2010 and doing what it could to create an international campaign to bring Assange home years ago. Although there have been some Australian MPs who have spoken out strongly on behalf on Assange, they are few.

A series of protests is planned for Day X, the period of the final court hearings, although it is too early to estimate how extensive these protests will be. If Assange is extradited to the US, he will likely die in prison. In an interesting publicity stunt, one artist has pledged to destroy $45 million in art, including a Picasso and Rembrandt, if Assange dies in prison.

But even if the court decides that Assange will not be extradited to the US, the message that powerful world actors have sent is still clear: expose our crimes, and we will destroy you.

The non-profit Reporters without Borders has put together a short article correcting some common perceptions about the Assange case.

Maine’s Right to Repair Law for Vehicles

In November of 2023, Maine residents were asked to cast their votes on a ballot measure that read as follows:

“Do you want to require vehicle manufacturers to standardize on-board diagnostic systems and provide remote access to those systems and mechanical data to owners and independent repair facilities?”

This question means that automakers must make the diagnostics for a vehicle available to both owners and independent mechanics. The information must be available remotely and wirelessly. This measure is a part of the “right to repair” movement that has been growing across the nation, with Massachusetts passing a similar law to the one on Maine’s 2023 ballot back in 2020. Other states such as New York have recently passed laws for general right to repair of all electronics, although New York’s bill was compromised at the last moment with a few amendments that took the teeth out of it.

Technology in newer cars and trucks has made it more difficult for automobile owners to either fix their vehicle themselves or take it to an independent shop to fix. Many newer vehicles wirelessly transmit diagnostic and repair information to their manufacturers, limiting the ability of consumers to resolve mechanical issues on their own. This ballot initiative gives consumers the right to access all diagnostic data generated by their vehicles.

The ballot initiative passed with 84% support from Maine residents. It was opposed by auto manufacturers and dealerships, which is unsurprising considering that 50% of dealership profits come from servicing the vehicles bought there. Opponents of the law claim that it would expose automobile systems to hacking and could give away proprietary information of automobile companies.

Currently, Maine’s right to repair law is facing obstacles in its implementation. Technically, consumers and automobile manufacturers now have the right to access information. But similar to the right to “access” healthcare, this doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is able to pay for the service. Automobile manufacturers can charge fees for accessing this information, and they may be cost-prohibitive to individual owners or independent mechanics.

To address this issue, the state of Maine is trying to create a database of all diagnostic repair data and forming a board that will oversee manufacturers’ compliance in making their data available in this database. The database might not be available until 2025. Some Maine lawmakers are now considering additional laws to “clarify” the original right to repair law. Given the state’s history of thwarting popular referenda (such as Governor Janet Mills vetoing a ballot measure on converting Maine’s largest utilities to be consumer-owned), it is likely that these clarifications to the right to repair law will only serve to weaken it. Compared to consumers and independent mechanics, automotive dealers have a great deal more power to wield over lawmakers.

Negotiations between stakeholders in the debate, including representatives of the Maine Right to Repair Coalition, continue. But for now, the intended effects of the law that voters overwhelmingly approved last November have yet to have much of a real-world impact.