Where as rural areas need you to buy the 5000sq ft mcmansion that costs $1500/mo in mortgage payments on top of $5000/mo in car, fuel and maintenance costs.
No, in actual rural areas, that 5,000 sq. ft. "McMansion", as you called it, costs about $180,000. That's only $908 per month.
And nobody in rural areas spends $5,000 per month on a car. Some folks don't even spend $5,000 on a car, period. Also, gas prices are a buck a gallon lower than in California, so even if you drive half again farther, you break even. Also, your license plate costs you $27 instead of a grand.
So when it comes to resources, the planet maximum was about 4 billion. We're at 8+ Billion. We're going to start seeing wars over clean water, and we've seen first-hand what this looks like in California already, where the farmers plant highly inefficient crops (almonds) , because they're the most profitable, but suck the water supply dry. California at least has the option to use desalinized water for non-irrigation (using it on crops will reduce the size of them, and eventually render the soil useless.)
Come again? Desalinization is not used for irrigation because of the high cost, not because it damages the soil. In fact, both Spain and Israel use desalinized water for irrigation routinely, and Spain is making plans to dramatically increase their desalinization output for agricultural use.
Further, there's no reason to believe that we are anywhere near the maximum capacity of this planet. Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling something. Does this mean that population growth is zero-risk? Of course not. There's always the possibility that the world could stop trying to innovate and solve the problems that population growth causes, in which case yes, we would eventually be screwed. But realistically, that's what people do, so concluding that we're screwed basically requires completely ignoring everything that makes us human. I'm just not willing to do that, and you shouldn't, either.
AFP might make it worse, but the entire notion of essentially mounting a block device read-write over a network was bats**t crazy to begin with, and still is, even if you're doing it over SMB. The moment I heard how they were doing it, my immediate reaction was, "How can that possibly be reliable?" and here we are, ten years later, and it still isn't. And that was before I learned about how they were abusing directory hard links as an alternative for proper snapshot support.
Using automatic snapshots to repair corrupted backups is a workaround for what is, IMO, a fundamentally flawed design. The Time Capsule should have used a snapshot-based filesystem on the device itself, and the backup process should have consisted of shipping a binary diff to a daemon that patches those files on a clone of your computer's main volume and then takes a snapshot. That way, if anything went horribly wrong, it could just roll back to the previous snapshot and retry the backup. The Time Capsule should have exposed those snapshots as mountable SMB shares for restoration purposes (or as folders in a single virtual share, or whatever).
Those approaches would have been sane and well-behaved. Instead, Apple shipped something completely nuts, and then never took the time to fix it, presumably always assuming that they would get a sane, snapshot-capable filesystem eventually. I guess they didn't expect it to take an entire decade, nor did they expect that in that time, they would have gone from having actual server hardware to having only Mac Minis and Time Capsules, and subsequently to having jack squat.
You can charge at about 12kWh per hour off a 240V/50A circuit.
No, you can't. Not safely, anyway. By law, you have to de-rate circuits by 20% for continuous use like EV charging. So your 50A circuit provides 40A, which is only 9.6 kWh per hour.
If there are chargers at work, you can also charge there. Viola! Another 100 miles' range, 200mi per day.
The problem with your approach is that it doesn't scale. At 9.6 kWh per hour, in theory, you would need about four hours of charge per vehicle for that hundred-mile range. Unfortunately, that's actually a best-case estimate, because it assumes that your battery has at least a 200 mile range and is starting out empty.
In practice, lithium battery charging slows down as the battery gets closer to being full, which means that if putting 100 miles into an empty 300-mile battery would take four hours, putting 100 miles into an empty 100-mile battery would likely take closer to 6 hours. So unless your employer does some sort of staggered work hours, this effectively means that if every employee actually needed 100 miles of range each day, you would literally need one charger for each employee who owns an electric car. Providing five or ten 50A circuits per building is relatively easy. Providing 200 EV circuits per building is not.
The other big problem with your theory is the assumption that an EPA-rated 100-mile range is enough for a 50-mile round trip. That doesn't factor in things like heat in the winter, climbing hills, or the fact that smaller EV batteries lose on the order of 10% of their capacity every year. In five years, you'd better be ready to buy a new car, or else you'll find yourself not making it home.
You see, the other major advantage of a larger battery is that the larger capacity lets you leave a lot of charge in the bottom and never fully charge the cells all the way to the top. Deep discharging and full charging are hard on batteries, and avoiding both of those scenarios makes a big difference in their life expectancy.
Also, the larger capacity means that the batteries run down over 3x as many miles, which means they get a third as many cycles per mile. Those differences mean losing 5% of your charge after five years instead of 50%.
The bottom line is that 100-mile EVs are really quite impractical, and it isn't just because people are worried about needing to make longer trips. No improvements to the charging network can solve those fundamental problems, because you'll still be absolutely torturing their batteries. Anyone who buys a car that can't make at least three or four round trips per charge is likely to regret that decision. And if folks lease the cars instead, then the poor suckers who buy them used after three years are likely to regret their decisions even more. Building cars with such limited range just doesn't make sense.
Except you don't charge every day with a Tesla. If you have home charging capabilities, you probably only charge when on trips, and you pretty much have to eat out then anyway, so that hour isn't lost. And even if you don't have home charging capabilities and thus have to rely on the supercharger for everything, you're still likely to charge only a couple of times per week at most. The "every day" bit was based on having only a third of a Tesla's range.
Good thing is that the lithium, once mined, is recyclable. And most people drive under 50 miles a day. Which means that, with more charging stations coming online, newer electric "commuter" cars could have smaller batteries. Enough for a range of ~100 miles, not 300-400.
That's what the major car companies kept trying to shovel down consumers' throats, and nobody bought them. It has nothing to do with charging station availability. With such a short range, you don't really have much choice but to charge your car every night when you get home, because nobody wants to spend 30+ minutes every day charging. (Remember, you won't be able to charge as fast if you're filling the battery all the way to the top, and the shorter the total range, the more likely you'll be to have to fully fill the battery every day, so AFAIK, charging should take disproportionately longer per mile than with longer-range cars, assuming all else is equal.)
The thing is, Tesla's charge times (except when the supercharger is full and you have to wait behind four or five cars just to start charging, like you do in most of the Bay Area) are actually pretty much in the sweet spot, at 50-70 minutes. That's long enough to get out of the car, walk to a restaurant, eat, and come back. At 30 minutes, that isn't possible unless the charger is literally in the parking lot of the restaurant. It's too long to treat as just another minor part of your commute like a gas station fill-up would be, but it isn't long enough to comfortably get food while you wait. So IMO, no matter how ubiquitous charging stations become, unless charge times drop to almost nothing, there will never be a serious market for cars with only a 100-mile range except perhaps in California (and even then, only for the carpool lane stickers).
I've had similar corruption with Synology when using AFP. The corruption is caused by either AFP or macOS sparse disk image support, and my money is on the former. I have not yet had corruption while using SMB, though the absence of proof is not proof of absence, and all that.
I found a cure for that. Step 1 is buy a Synology NAS. Step 2 is set up Time Machine on that. Step 3 is turn on automatic snapshotting. It's unfortunate that ZFS never happened. Otherwise, the Time Capsule probably would have adopted it, and we would have had snapshotting on it nearly decade ago. Heck, we might even have gotten something sane, like automatically shipping the on-device snapshots in bulk at the user's convenience....
bummer, I really had hopes they were switching their routers over to iOS to leverage the new tech they have developed over the years as well as AirPlay2 and even the possibility of Siri home control to allow for a low cost Homepod/AirPort Express mesh router.
They already run Darwin under the hood, and have since... I think the first snow ABS. There was never anything preventing them from doing those things.
I'd be amazed if crumbs in keyboards didn't cause problems for any modern keyboard. The first time I remember encountering it was... I think the G3 iBook....
Oh, and the new keyboard itself is fine, as far as I can tell. I had a key fail already, but it was just like every previous Mac laptop I've ever owned; you can fix it by pressing at one end of the key and stroking the length of the key, depressing firmly, and repeating until whatever crumb got in there disintegrates. Then the key works again.
I thought the old keyboard felt better, and my typing accuracy does seem lower with this design, but that could be entirely my imagination.
You actually do have an escape key, but now it's on the weird LED touch bar.
Having used one of these abominations for three months now (thanks to someone stealing my previous MacBook Pro), I can now speak from experience on the matter. The problem is not the lack of the escape key. That's a red herring. There are actually three problems: the position of the escape key, the lack of pressure sensitivity on the touchbar, and the undocumented modifier-key-opens-System-Preferences behavior..
The position of the escape key is a big problem with the touchbar design. When Apple decided to put the TouchID sensor at the right end of the touchbar, they decided to go for symmetry, and made the left end of the touchbar be inset by the same distance. Unfortunately, this means that for the millions of people who hit escape by muscle memory, the current design literally has no escape key because it is inset so far to the right. You can try to hit it as many times as you want, and you'll never succeed.
The lack of pressure sensitivity is also problematic. As far as I can tell, touchbar doesn't care if you touch the middle of the button or the bottom edge, and doesn't care about the amount of pressure used. As a result, the touchbar has an extremely high error rate in applications where the user holds down any of the modifier keys while pressing any of the number-row keys (for example, a popular music editing app called Finale). The result is that the touch bar randomly causes unexpected things to happen. It might be possible to fix this in firmware, but I wouldn't count on it.
The modifier-key-opens-system-preferences behavior makes the above problem worse. Sure, it is bad to accidentally change your brightness, but at least that mistake is easily corrected. Unfortunately, if you're holding down the option key while you touch various controls, the touchbar opens up the most closely related System Preferences pane, taking you out of the app entirely. Because touchbar buttons are extremely easy to trigger accidentally when pressing option-0 through option-9, the result has been absolute nonstop torture for me.
This is what happens when you don't beta test your "pro" hardware designs on actual power users. You get an abomination that as far as I can tell, power users almost universally hate. Apple should end this failed experiment NOW before it pisses off any more of their users. Or at an absolute minimum, they should make it an entirely optional feature (not "the low end model is available in both configurations", but rather "EVERY configuration is available with your choice of top case"). Then we'll see if anybody actually likes this thing.
It says 'they' are embarrassed by the unreasonable approval rates that were revealed after the election. The judges are _now_ doing their jobs, not rubber stamping.
Or it says that the quality of the requests is significantly lower, or that the rate of requests is significantly higher, or both.
I agree. I may not agree with Trump doing it, but IMO, he definitely has the right to do so. Of course, any judge also has the right to stay such an order by issuing a preliminary injunction, if such an order would cause undue hardship, until such time as the order can be reviewed for constitutionality, but in the end, it seems obvious that he has the right to do so (though the argument that the teardown is being done in a way that is arbitrary and capricious is not entirely without merit, in which case it might be necessary to tear things down in a different way, such as a gradual tear-down over time).
Realistically, I view the legal challenge (and the government's decision to not request permission to stop accepting applications in the interim) as little more than a way to delay implementation in the courts long enough to get Congress to actually pass the law that they should have passed a decade ago, while keeping the burner turned on under Congress's backsides. I'm not entirely convinced that Trump wants DACA to go away, given the way they've handled this, though it's hard to say for sure. There's certainly reason to suspect that this may all be a ploy to force Congress's hand on an issue that they keep punting down the road.
What part of the Constitution do you think DACA violates? Congress makes the laws. The President controls their execution. Absent the executive branch actually breaking a law that explicitly requires them to do something, they are under no obligation to enforce laws 100% of the time.
More to the point, prosecutorial authority (and thus, prosecutorial discretion) is the only power that lies exclusively with the executive branch. It is the executive branch's sole responsibility to determine who should or should not be prosecuted for violation of the law. Thus, this is arguably the President's *primary* job, with vetoing legislation being secondary, because leading the executive and setting policies that are followed by groups within the executive is the only task that isn't shared in any way with any other branch of government. (Leadership of the military is shared by Congress's ability to declare war, and overruling bad legislation is shared with the judiciary.)
You literally cannot take away the President's authority to create policies like DACA without eliminating the executive branch or stripping it of its power, which would require a complete rewrite of the Constitution. Creating executive branch policies like DACA is precisely what the founding fathers intended for the executive branch to do.
It all depends on what you use the display for when it comes to what aspect ratio is best.
What I'd like is a screen that rotates into portrait orientation, kind of like what you'd get if the iPad had a second lightning connector on its long side, except with a real, full-sized keyboard, a trackpad, and the ability to run real Mac apps instead of the watered-down apps that are available for iOS. That way, when I'm working on something vaguely page-shaped, I can have a tall screen, and when I'm working on something that isn't, I can have a wide screen.
I think the 16:10 aspect ratio is a pretty ideal screen size, because it is only slightly less than ideal for a wide range of uses, some of which would be better with a more square ratio and some of which would be better with a wider ratio. For example, when watching TV and movies, it is roughly midway between 16:10 and 4:3, so both old and new content look acceptable. I wish actual widescreen TVs were built that way.
I was referring to the pack balancing circuitry. Why would that be useless on a bicycle?
It wouldn't be. I interpreted the GGP post to be saying that the cells should behave similarly on a bicycle already, and was explaining why Tesla's battery management tech matters. (That said, as a previous poster noted, there may not be enough cells in the pack for it to make any difference.)
The bigger problem is that there are four different batteries represented here: the 75kW, 85kW, 90kW, and 100 kW packs. And that's not even counting all of the silent upgrades to those batteries over time. From what I've read on the various Tesla-related forums, the early 90kW batteries lose their capacity much faster than other models.
By combining every pack version into a single number, it masks any design flaws in any single model of pack, resulting an average that doesn't reflect anyone's actual experience; if the 90D packs really are significantly worse than average, then for most users, the experience will be much better than these numbers suggest, and for those unlucky few, the experience will likely be much worse.
A more useful way to summarize this data would be something more like "X% of 90D battery packs were projected to have 90% of their life or more at XXX,000 miles." at several different mileages.
Those use pretty much the same kind of batteries, donâ(TM)t they? You might not get 500k miles out of them on a bike, but in terms of capacity after x charge/discharge cycles they might well be similar.
I doubt you would even get close, realistically, for two reasons:
Tesla vehicles use a heat pump to keep the battery within a narrow operating temperature range to minimize battery degradation during both regenerative braking and normal charging.
Tesla vehicles contain additional pack balancing circuitry to ensure that each cell gets charged as much as possible even if it is surrounded by weaker cells, and to ensure that cells can discharge as much as possible before the pack fails.
A bicycle is not likely to do either of those things. It probably isn't even physically possible to usefully put a heat pump into something the size of a bicycle—a motorcycle, maybe, but not a bicycle.
Sorry for the silliness above, but exactly what can be done to stop a Yellowstone eruption, if one is immanent?
If by imminent, you mean in a year or less, there's nothing we can do but evacuate half the country. If you mean in a hundred years, quite a bit. We can:
Use drills and sonar to map the faults and figure out where parts of the ground above magma pockets are about to fail, so that we can determine which magma pockets are most at risk of exploding violently, thus allowing us to avoid building significant numbers of buildings on top of them.
Measure the magma pressure by continuously monitoring those pockets to see if they are expanding (and, consequently, if the rock around them is getting compressed) to determine when those pockets are likely to explode violently, so that we can warn people to evacuate even before the earth starts shaking.
Use boring machines to dig pressure relief tunnels to within a few hundred feet of those magma pockets so that the spot that is most likely to fail explosively is one in which the magma will flow harmlessly through an open channel to some largely unpopulated valley or even all the way to the ocean itself.
We can put explosives in those tunnels so that if things go wrong and some other spot fails first, we can blow up the rock walls between the tunnels and the magna pockets to ensure that most of the magma flows harmlessly through a safe channel.
There are probably many more mitigation strategies that I haven't thought of. Those are just the first four off the top of my head.
Which is also why the "I've been an Apple customer since 1845, but the headphone dongle has led me to abandon all things Apple and sell all my stock too." makes me a bit skeptical.
*shrugs*. I've been an Apple customer since the mid 1980s (Apple IIgs), and I have a decent amount of Apple stock, which I have not dumped over the dongles. That doesn't mean they don't piss me off.
On the other hand, I also have a Pixel for work. It uses a USB-C connector for charging, and I keep thinking about how nice it will be when all my external peripherals also have USB-C, so that I only need to carry one cable plus a spare with me instead of half a dozen non-interchangeable cables. The Lightning cable is just one more cable that I'd rather not have to carry. So my reasons for wanting the iPhone to dump Lightning for USB-C go far beyond the headphone compatibility issue. That's just the most absurd problem that Lightning causes.
Given that 9 out of every 10 iOS device owners do not own a Mac, I don't think this is the crisis you make it out to be.
I never said it was a crisis. Most bad decisions don't cause a company to collapse in a day. They fester just beneath the surface, causing people to lose trust in the brand a little bit at a time, every time they try to do something and regret their decision to upgrade because of some road block. The key to being a successful tech company is to ensure that the "Wow!" moments greatly exceed the "Why can't my new [computer, phone,...] to what my old one could?" moments. For me, losing the headphone jack would be disruptive enough that there's no way any upgrade could realistically wow me enough to make up for it unless there's an adequate wired replacement; just to clarify, adequate in this context means "using the same connector on my laptop and phone," or at a bare minimum, "requiring an adapter only on my laptop, not on my phone."
That said, you're completely missing the mark with that statistic. It doesn't matter that only 10% own a Mac. What matters is what percentage also own a computer of any kind. I seem to recall that number actually being fairly high, like in the neighborhood of ninety percent. Even among millennials, I think it's in the neighborhood of 80%. And eventually, all computers on the market (within the margin of error) will have USB-C, so that benefit will exist eventually whether the iPhone user is one of the 10% who own a Mac or the 80% who own a Windows machine.
Of the 1 out of 10 that _do_ own a Mac, I doubt many of them are constantly switching headphones between devices.
Macs have always been very popular among musicians, and at least for those users, you're wrong.
And for those with that particular need, Airpods are a much nicer solution than wired headphones.
Please tell me you're kidding. Airpods are a great solution if you're the sort of person who likes to use a cell phone while jogging for an hour every day, but for folks who use earbuds less frequently, they're approximately the least nice solution you could come up with. The main advantage of wired earbuds is that they are very cheap. That means you can toss a set in your laptop bag, keep a set in your dresser drawer, keep a set in your car, keep a set in your pocket, etc. If you lose a set every so often or they go through the laundry, you're only out ten bucks. And none of them ever have to be charged, so they're always ready to go when you need them, whether it is tomorrow or a month from now, whether you're using them for five minutes or five hours. Airpods are the opposite of that.
Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of folks who use them and love them, but they're not a good choice for everyone.
Not sure why Apple should trade Lightning for the USB C mess. Cables that physically look the same but aren't interchangeable with one another, and a market full of junky noncompliant devices - no thanks.
For the most part, USB-C cables are interchangeable. The only real exceptions are:
Thunderbolt 3 cables
Laptop charging cables
Thunderbolt 3 cables are their own animal ($$) and are generally not compatible with USB-C peripherals (except for charging), and vice versa. Although that could be confusing, in theory, in practice, it isn't. Few people will ever encounter either Thunderbolt cables or peripherals, and even if they do, most Thunderbolt peripherals tend not to be moved around much, which means their cables tend to stay attached to the equipment. So the small bit of confusion arising out of Thunderbolt 3 using the same connector is mostly theoretical.
This leaves charging cables as the only real sticking point. USB-C cables can declare how much power they can accept, and chargers won't provide more amperage than they can handle. Reali
Slashdot Mirror
No, in actual rural areas, that 5,000 sq. ft. "McMansion", as you called it, costs about $180,000. That's only $908 per month.
And nobody in rural areas spends $5,000 per month on a car. Some folks don't even spend $5,000 on a car, period. Also, gas prices are a buck a gallon lower than in California, so even if you drive half again farther, you break even. Also, your license plate costs you $27 instead of a grand.
Come again? Desalinization is not used for irrigation because of the high cost, not because it damages the soil. In fact, both Spain and Israel use desalinized water for irrigation routinely, and Spain is making plans to dramatically increase their desalinization output for agricultural use.
Further, there's no reason to believe that we are anywhere near the maximum capacity of this planet. Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling something. Does this mean that population growth is zero-risk? Of course not. There's always the possibility that the world could stop trying to innovate and solve the problems that population growth causes, in which case yes, we would eventually be screwed. But realistically, that's what people do, so concluding that we're screwed basically requires completely ignoring everything that makes us human. I'm just not willing to do that, and you shouldn't, either.
AFP might make it worse, but the entire notion of essentially mounting a block device read-write over a network was bats**t crazy to begin with, and still is, even if you're doing it over SMB. The moment I heard how they were doing it, my immediate reaction was, "How can that possibly be reliable?" and here we are, ten years later, and it still isn't. And that was before I learned about how they were abusing directory hard links as an alternative for proper snapshot support.
Using automatic snapshots to repair corrupted backups is a workaround for what is, IMO, a fundamentally flawed design. The Time Capsule should have used a snapshot-based filesystem on the device itself, and the backup process should have consisted of shipping a binary diff to a daemon that patches those files on a clone of your computer's main volume and then takes a snapshot. That way, if anything went horribly wrong, it could just roll back to the previous snapshot and retry the backup. The Time Capsule should have exposed those snapshots as mountable SMB shares for restoration purposes (or as folders in a single virtual share, or whatever).
Those approaches would have been sane and well-behaved. Instead, Apple shipped something completely nuts, and then never took the time to fix it, presumably always assuming that they would get a sane, snapshot-capable filesystem eventually. I guess they didn't expect it to take an entire decade, nor did they expect that in that time, they would have gone from having actual server hardware to having only Mac Minis and Time Capsules, and subsequently to having jack squat.
*shrugs*
No, you can't. Not safely, anyway. By law, you have to de-rate circuits by 20% for continuous use like EV charging. So your 50A circuit provides 40A, which is only 9.6 kWh per hour.
The problem with your approach is that it doesn't scale. At 9.6 kWh per hour, in theory, you would need about four hours of charge per vehicle for that hundred-mile range. Unfortunately, that's actually a best-case estimate, because it assumes that your battery has at least a 200 mile range and is starting out empty.
In practice, lithium battery charging slows down as the battery gets closer to being full, which means that if putting 100 miles into an empty 300-mile battery would take four hours, putting 100 miles into an empty 100-mile battery would likely take closer to 6 hours. So unless your employer does some sort of staggered work hours, this effectively means that if every employee actually needed 100 miles of range each day, you would literally need one charger for each employee who owns an electric car. Providing five or ten 50A circuits per building is relatively easy. Providing 200 EV circuits per building is not.
The other big problem with your theory is the assumption that an EPA-rated 100-mile range is enough for a 50-mile round trip. That doesn't factor in things like heat in the winter, climbing hills, or the fact that smaller EV batteries lose on the order of 10% of their capacity every year. In five years, you'd better be ready to buy a new car, or else you'll find yourself not making it home.
You see, the other major advantage of a larger battery is that the larger capacity lets you leave a lot of charge in the bottom and never fully charge the cells all the way to the top. Deep discharging and full charging are hard on batteries, and avoiding both of those scenarios makes a big difference in their life expectancy.
Also, the larger capacity means that the batteries run down over 3x as many miles, which means they get a third as many cycles per mile. Those differences mean losing 5% of your charge after five years instead of 50%.
The bottom line is that 100-mile EVs are really quite impractical, and it isn't just because people are worried about needing to make longer trips. No improvements to the charging network can solve those fundamental problems, because you'll still be absolutely torturing their batteries. Anyone who buys a car that can't make at least three or four round trips per charge is likely to regret that decision. And if folks lease the cars instead, then the poor suckers who buy them used after three years are likely to regret their decisions even more. Building cars with such limited range just doesn't make sense.
Except you don't charge every day with a Tesla. If you have home charging capabilities, you probably only charge when on trips, and you pretty much have to eat out then anyway, so that hour isn't lost. And even if you don't have home charging capabilities and thus have to rely on the supercharger for everything, you're still likely to charge only a couple of times per week at most. The "every day" bit was based on having only a third of a Tesla's range.
That's what the major car companies kept trying to shovel down consumers' throats, and nobody bought them. It has nothing to do with charging station availability. With such a short range, you don't really have much choice but to charge your car every night when you get home, because nobody wants to spend 30+ minutes every day charging. (Remember, you won't be able to charge as fast if you're filling the battery all the way to the top, and the shorter the total range, the more likely you'll be to have to fully fill the battery every day, so AFAIK, charging should take disproportionately longer per mile than with longer-range cars, assuming all else is equal.)
The thing is, Tesla's charge times (except when the supercharger is full and you have to wait behind four or five cars just to start charging, like you do in most of the Bay Area) are actually pretty much in the sweet spot, at 50-70 minutes. That's long enough to get out of the car, walk to a restaurant, eat, and come back. At 30 minutes, that isn't possible unless the charger is literally in the parking lot of the restaurant. It's too long to treat as just another minor part of your commute like a gas station fill-up would be, but it isn't long enough to comfortably get food while you wait. So IMO, no matter how ubiquitous charging stations become, unless charge times drop to almost nothing, there will never be a serious market for cars with only a 100-mile range except perhaps in California (and even then, only for the carpool lane stickers).
I've had similar corruption with Synology when using AFP. The corruption is caused by either AFP or macOS sparse disk image support, and my money is on the former. I have not yet had corruption while using SMB, though the absence of proof is not proof of absence, and all that.
I found a cure for that. Step 1 is buy a Synology NAS. Step 2 is set up Time Machine on that. Step 3 is turn on automatic snapshotting. It's unfortunate that ZFS never happened. Otherwise, the Time Capsule probably would have adopted it, and we would have had snapshotting on it nearly decade ago. Heck, we might even have gotten something sane, like automatically shipping the on-device snapshots in bulk at the user's convenience....
They already run Darwin under the hood, and have since... I think the first snow ABS. There was never anything preventing them from doing those things.
I'd be amazed if crumbs in keyboards didn't cause problems for any modern keyboard. The first time I remember encountering it was... I think the G3 iBook....
Oh, and the new keyboard itself is fine, as far as I can tell. I had a key fail already, but it was just like every previous Mac laptop I've ever owned; you can fix it by pressing at one end of the key and stroking the length of the key, depressing firmly, and repeating until whatever crumb got in there disintegrates. Then the key works again.
I thought the old keyboard felt better, and my typing accuracy does seem lower with this design, but that could be entirely my imagination.
Having used one of these abominations for three months now (thanks to someone stealing my previous MacBook Pro), I can now speak from experience on the matter. The problem is not the lack of the escape key. That's a red herring. There are actually three problems: the position of the escape key, the lack of pressure sensitivity on the touchbar, and the undocumented modifier-key-opens-System-Preferences behavior..
The position of the escape key is a big problem with the touchbar design. When Apple decided to put the TouchID sensor at the right end of the touchbar, they decided to go for symmetry, and made the left end of the touchbar be inset by the same distance. Unfortunately, this means that for the millions of people who hit escape by muscle memory, the current design literally has no escape key because it is inset so far to the right. You can try to hit it as many times as you want, and you'll never succeed.
The lack of pressure sensitivity is also problematic. As far as I can tell, touchbar doesn't care if you touch the middle of the button or the bottom edge, and doesn't care about the amount of pressure used. As a result, the touchbar has an extremely high error rate in applications where the user holds down any of the modifier keys while pressing any of the number-row keys (for example, a popular music editing app called Finale). The result is that the touch bar randomly causes unexpected things to happen. It might be possible to fix this in firmware, but I wouldn't count on it.
The modifier-key-opens-system-preferences behavior makes the above problem worse. Sure, it is bad to accidentally change your brightness, but at least that mistake is easily corrected. Unfortunately, if you're holding down the option key while you touch various controls, the touchbar opens up the most closely related System Preferences pane, taking you out of the app entirely. Because touchbar buttons are extremely easy to trigger accidentally when pressing option-0 through option-9, the result has been absolute nonstop torture for me.
This is what happens when you don't beta test your "pro" hardware designs on actual power users. You get an abomination that as far as I can tell, power users almost universally hate. Apple should end this failed experiment NOW before it pisses off any more of their users. Or at an absolute minimum, they should make it an entirely optional feature (not "the low end model is available in both configurations", but rather "EVERY configuration is available with your choice of top case"). Then we'll see if anybody actually likes this thing.
Or it says that the quality of the requests is significantly lower, or that the rate of requests is significantly higher, or both.
I agree. I may not agree with Trump doing it, but IMO, he definitely has the right to do so. Of course, any judge also has the right to stay such an order by issuing a preliminary injunction, if such an order would cause undue hardship, until such time as the order can be reviewed for constitutionality, but in the end, it seems obvious that he has the right to do so (though the argument that the teardown is being done in a way that is arbitrary and capricious is not entirely without merit, in which case it might be necessary to tear things down in a different way, such as a gradual tear-down over time).
Realistically, I view the legal challenge (and the government's decision to not request permission to stop accepting applications in the interim) as little more than a way to delay implementation in the courts long enough to get Congress to actually pass the law that they should have passed a decade ago, while keeping the burner turned on under Congress's backsides. I'm not entirely convinced that Trump wants DACA to go away, given the way they've handled this, though it's hard to say for sure. There's certainly reason to suspect that this may all be a ploy to force Congress's hand on an issue that they keep punting down the road.
What part of the Constitution do you think DACA violates? Congress makes the laws. The President controls their execution. Absent the executive branch actually breaking a law that explicitly requires them to do something, they are under no obligation to enforce laws 100% of the time.
More to the point, prosecutorial authority (and thus, prosecutorial discretion) is the only power that lies exclusively with the executive branch. It is the executive branch's sole responsibility to determine who should or should not be prosecuted for violation of the law. Thus, this is arguably the President's *primary* job, with vetoing legislation being secondary, because leading the executive and setting policies that are followed by groups within the executive is the only task that isn't shared in any way with any other branch of government. (Leadership of the military is shared by Congress's ability to declare war, and overruling bad legislation is shared with the judiciary.)
You literally cannot take away the President's authority to create policies like DACA without eliminating the executive branch or stripping it of its power, which would require a complete rewrite of the Constitution. Creating executive branch policies like DACA is precisely what the founding fathers intended for the executive branch to do.
What I'd like is a screen that rotates into portrait orientation, kind of like what you'd get if the iPad had a second lightning connector on its long side, except with a real, full-sized keyboard, a trackpad, and the ability to run real Mac apps instead of the watered-down apps that are available for iOS. That way, when I'm working on something vaguely page-shaped, I can have a tall screen, and when I'm working on something that isn't, I can have a wide screen.
I think the 16:10 aspect ratio is a pretty ideal screen size, because it is only slightly less than ideal for a wide range of uses, some of which would be better with a more square ratio and some of which would be better with a wider ratio. For example, when watching TV and movies, it is roughly midway between 16:10 and 4:3, so both old and new content look acceptable. I wish actual widescreen TVs were built that way.
It wouldn't be. I interpreted the GGP post to be saying that the cells should behave similarly on a bicycle already, and was explaining why Tesla's battery management tech matters. (That said, as a previous poster noted, there may not be enough cells in the pack for it to make any difference.)
Yikes. Not sure how I made that mistake once, much less five times.
*hangs head in shame*
The bigger problem is that there are four different batteries represented here: the 75kW, 85kW, 90kW, and 100 kW packs. And that's not even counting all of the silent upgrades to those batteries over time. From what I've read on the various Tesla-related forums, the early 90kW batteries lose their capacity much faster than other models.
By combining every pack version into a single number, it masks any design flaws in any single model of pack, resulting an average that doesn't reflect anyone's actual experience; if the 90D packs really are significantly worse than average, then for most users, the experience will be much better than these numbers suggest, and for those unlucky few, the experience will likely be much worse.
A more useful way to summarize this data would be something more like "X% of 90D battery packs were projected to have 90% of their life or more at XXX,000 miles." at several different mileages.
Tesla batteries have an eight year warranty. Tell us another one.
That is so totally an exaggeration. No WAY can you fit a Prius. A Ducati, maybe.
I doubt you would even get close, realistically, for two reasons:
A bicycle is not likely to do either of those things. It probably isn't even physically possible to usefully put a heat pump into something the size of a bicycle—a motorcycle, maybe, but not a bicycle.
If by imminent, you mean in a year or less, there's nothing we can do but evacuate half the country. If you mean in a hundred years, quite a bit. We can:
There are probably many more mitigation strategies that I haven't thought of. Those are just the first four off the top of my head.
*shrugs*. I've been an Apple customer since the mid 1980s (Apple IIgs), and I have a decent amount of Apple stock, which I have not dumped over the dongles. That doesn't mean they don't piss me off.
On the other hand, I also have a Pixel for work. It uses a USB-C connector for charging, and I keep thinking about how nice it will be when all my external peripherals also have USB-C, so that I only need to carry one cable plus a spare with me instead of half a dozen non-interchangeable cables. The Lightning cable is just one more cable that I'd rather not have to carry. So my reasons for wanting the iPhone to dump Lightning for USB-C go far beyond the headphone compatibility issue. That's just the most absurd problem that Lightning causes.
I never said it was a crisis. Most bad decisions don't cause a company to collapse in a day. They fester just beneath the surface, causing people to lose trust in the brand a little bit at a time, every time they try to do something and regret their decision to upgrade because of some road block. The key to being a successful tech company is to ensure that the "Wow!" moments greatly exceed the "Why can't my new [computer, phone, ...] to what my old one could?" moments. For me, losing the headphone jack would be disruptive enough that there's no way any upgrade could realistically wow me enough to make up for it unless there's an adequate wired replacement; just to clarify, adequate in this context means "using the same connector on my laptop and phone," or at a bare minimum, "requiring an adapter only on my laptop, not on my phone."
That said, you're completely missing the mark with that statistic. It doesn't matter that only 10% own a Mac. What matters is what percentage also own a computer of any kind. I seem to recall that number actually being fairly high, like in the neighborhood of ninety percent. Even among millennials, I think it's in the neighborhood of 80%. And eventually, all computers on the market (within the margin of error) will have USB-C, so that benefit will exist eventually whether the iPhone user is one of the 10% who own a Mac or the 80% who own a Windows machine.
Macs have always been very popular among musicians, and at least for those users, you're wrong.
Please tell me you're kidding. Airpods are a great solution if you're the sort of person who likes to use a cell phone while jogging for an hour every day, but for folks who use earbuds less frequently, they're approximately the least nice solution you could come up with. The main advantage of wired earbuds is that they are very cheap. That means you can toss a set in your laptop bag, keep a set in your dresser drawer, keep a set in your car, keep a set in your pocket, etc. If you lose a set every so often or they go through the laundry, you're only out ten bucks. And none of them ever have to be charged, so they're always ready to go when you need them, whether it is tomorrow or a month from now, whether you're using them for five minutes or five hours. Airpods are the opposite of that.
Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of folks who use them and love them, but they're not a good choice for everyone.
For the most part, USB-C cables are interchangeable. The only real exceptions are:
Thunderbolt 3 cables are their own animal ($$) and are generally not compatible with USB-C peripherals (except for charging), and vice versa. Although that could be confusing, in theory, in practice, it isn't. Few people will ever encounter either Thunderbolt cables or peripherals, and even if they do, most Thunderbolt peripherals tend not to be moved around much, which means their cables tend to stay attached to the equipment. So the small bit of confusion arising out of Thunderbolt 3 using the same connector is mostly theoretical.
This leaves charging cables as the only real sticking point. USB-C cables can declare how much power they can accept, and chargers won't provide more amperage than they can handle. Reali
There's a solution for that. Buy the large pill and cut it into quarters. Then give the patient a quarter of the dose at the original price.