This could be a crucial argument in that it distinguishes between the essential freedom of device owners to decide what software to run, and the freedom of device manufacturers to decide which apps to sell in their stores and at what terms (still subject to anti-trust laws).
Unfortunately, the $99 annual fee per developer account nullifies any possible mass-market sideloading possibilities. (Imagine what could happen if sideloading apps from source was free just highly impractical, and HEY turned their rage into a free Apple developer account management & sideloading SaaS offering.)
It's actually way simpler than that: the owners of a company facing crisis have the choice between providing it with additional liquidity or putting its future (and thus their stake) at risk. This is the one core manifestation of the risk they are bearing, and for which they allegedly deserve the dividends in the first place.
Getting a dividend for last year's performance is the opposite of providing liquidity. If they get the cash because it was scheduled, they need to immediately put it back.
If they take the cash and run, they failed to act in their own interest, and do not deserve to have their investment protected.
Problem with implants is that they cause compressive stress to the bone, which causes bone to deteriorate.
Teeth are held by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpey%27s_fibres. This converts the forces acting on the tooth to
tensile stress on the bone, which causes it to grow more dense.
Source: I was in the industry and Free Software movement at the time.
More background: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...