Maybe the market analyst folks expected the sales of the iPhone X to be way higher than reported . . . ?
As long as Apple doesn't break down sales by product, we'll never know what the sales numbers actually are.
That's what happens when you don't give investors the information they need: They make things up. And different groups make up numbers in different ways to suit their own interests. And the company's stock suffers. Apple used to provide a lot more data. Then at some point in 2005 or so, their product categories got a lot bigger to the point of being almost meaningless. They really should go back to that level of detail.
No, what I mean is that a good DBA can make the difference between needing to store everything on an SSD and needing only to store indices and frequently accessed data, and the rest of the performance problems can be handled with sharding for a lot less than the cost of storing everything on an SSD.
The extrapolated cost of this 30TB drive is less than the burdened monthly cost of a single engineer.
And if your company is small enough that a single 30 TB SSD is enough to meet your entire storage needs, then you probably aren't big enough to be so desperate for speed that you would buy a 30 TB SSD. I'm expecting most of these will be used for the most frequently accessed data for companies that are Google-scale, not companies whose total data capacity needs are rivaled only by my home RAID array.:-)
Furthermore, if disk I/O is your bottleneck, then moving your DB from HDD to SDD is likely to give you far more speedup than fiddling with your schema.
But "fiddling with your schema" so that tables that get hit frequently are indexed on SSDs or DRAM drives (and, if necessary, stored in their entirety on those drives) means you get most of the speed win without the expense of storing your *entire* data collection on an SSD. The more you can separate out the frequently accessed data from the rarely accessed data, the easier it is to keep your costs sane. And the bigger your total storage needs, the more that design decision matters.
No, but a lot of folks in enterprise will not by it based on its price compared with spinning rust. You can afford to spend a lot of time structuring your databases and similar so that frequently accessed data stays warm in a cache and still come out cheaper than the price of moving all your company's data to SSDs.
Yes, your users have to work at making a lasting relationship. I think there are very few people who don't understand that on some level. But if people are finding your site/app less useful than meeting people through their hobbies, you're probably doing something wrong.
Actually, that's a pretty high bar. People you meet through your hobbies are more likely to have common interests, which makes them much more compatible than randomly selected people using almost any other metric.
One big problem is that the dating sites don't take hobbies into account nearly enough, and don't let you provide detailed enough information about hobbies. Worse, most people don't provide information about more than maybe one or two of their hobbies and interests, which means the data needed to get a good match just isn't there.
Also watch out for clauses in the contract that prohibit you from working for anybody else in the industry for N years after quitting at their company.
This is one reason why it's good to be in California, where those clauses are always explicitly illegal.
Some employers even add clauses forbidding you to work on any FOSS projects at all. That is bad because FOSS projects are a good way to satisfy the kind of employer that wants you to provide code samples.
Most people don't regularly write open source software, so if an employer wants you to provide code samples, IMO that's a big red flag; it means that one of the following is probably true:
They are trying to steal other companies' code.
They are trying to dodge age discrimination laws by asking for something that only new college hires can realistically provide.
They are completely incompetent.
Any of these things is a fairly strong indication that you really don't want to work there.
I agree that programming is drastically easier to learn today, but I think the article may also have a good point. Most computer users these days will never have an obvious incentive to program, whereas most of us did 20+ years ago.
Sure they do. A six-figure starting salary. I'm not saying it's a good incentive, as it tends to attract a lot of people who can't code along with the people who can, but it is at least an incentive.:-)
Wow, it's almost like the FCC repeal of Net Neutrality rules didn't end the Internet, nor enforcement of stuff like this by companies big enough to hire a team of lawyers.
FTFY. The purpose of net neutrality laws was never to prevent companies from suing other companies for abusive behavior, but rather to provide a regulatory framework by which the FCC could crack down on companies for abusive behavior even if the only people affected are small companies and individuals that are not readily able to hire a team of lawyers big enough to extract a meaningful settlement from companies the size of Charter.
This. Concerns escalating to the level of discouraging kids from getting involved in tackle sports is a good thing, ranking right up there in common sense with discouraging kids from boxing.
That said, any any sport, a concussion can occur after an accidental fall or whatever, not to mention car wrecks, bicycle accidents, etc. So this is certainly interesting and useful even if the only thing you do outdoors is walk across the street to get lunch.
Not all photographers work that way. Many photographers do flat-fee photography as a work for hire, where they charge you a flat fee for the amount of time spent, and you own the results. The ones that don't do that are mostly portrait photographers. They do the sitting significantly below cost, and in exchange, they require that you buy any copies of the photo through them in the hopes of making up the difference.
IMO, the best approach is to offer both models, at the customer's option. If the customer wants to own the photos, he or she can pay the hourly cost of everyone involved for the full value of their time up front, and then the customer owns the photos. Or if the customer just wants to choose a few photos to get printed, knowing that he or she will have to pay for any future copies, the customer gets an up-front discount, but doesn't retain any rights to the photos.
Note, there is a thing called 'Good Design' that actually marries looks and functionality, but apple hasn't had a horse in that race for a good long time.
The pinnacle of good functional design was the Pismo (PowerBook G3 series). It had dual removable battery bays, one of which could also hold an optical drive. You could use the device on battery power indefinitely if you had enough batteries. Thus, with three batteries, I consistently got more battery life with the Pismo than I do even with their current laptops almost two decades later.
And even that design was marred by a high rate of optical drive failures, plus inadequate case rigidity that, when combined with inadequate clearance for the airport antenna, resulted in the antenna connector rubbing through the insulation on the video cable and frying the motherboard. But those defects would have been solved if the overall design had survived one or two more generations.
Unfortunately, their design has been steadily going downhill since then. First, they removed one battery bay, thus forcing you to stop what you're doing, put the machine to sleep, and flip it upside down to change the battery. Not enough people complained, so then they removed the capacitor that kept the machine running during battery swaps, and when they didn't get enough bad reviews about that, they removed the ability to swap batteries entirely. Now, if I want to use a laptop all day, I have to be tethered to an outlet. (No amount of power management helps when the things you use a laptop for predominantly involve either continuously running a CoreAudio pipeline, heavily using the GPU for image processing, or compiling code using multiple processors.)
It's still better than Windows, but I would kill to be able to buy a copy of OS X without any "Apple hardware only" restrictions so I could legally run it on arbitrary Intel hardware without deliberate interference by Apple. That way, I could choose the hardware that best meets my needs, rather than being limited to whatever limited options Apple chooses to sell. What I want is a ruggedized machine with a rubber exterior, no glass on the screen, and dual battery bays on the sides, with each battery pack at the FAA limit for a single battery, ensuring that I don't ever have to stop working before I'm ready to do so.
The law says the court must consider if it's commercial (he was selling them for $20) as opposed to nonprofit educational.
And that clause has been interpreted very broadly, to include things like transformativeness. But no, he was not selling them for $20, or if he was, that information isn't in the summary or the original article.
It's reasonable to figure some of them would otherwise pay $25 for a genuine Windows.
No, it really isn't. If the article is accurate in saying that Microsoft came up with that number when asked how much he could potentially sell the discs for, then that means there was no proof of intent to actually sell them at that price, and the number likely represents an artificially inflated damage number so that the prosecutor could try to get jail time for the defendant, which is a strong indication of prosecutorial abuse.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts have a duty to assume innocence—that is, to assume that defendant's claims that this was not a money-making scheme are true, and therefore that he intended to sell them at cost (pennies). Thus, apart from good will (leading to future purchases, and thus largely unquantifiable), he had no financial incentive to produce those discs versus sticking a piece of paper with the URL in with every purchase. As such, it is completely unreasonable to assume that any of the purchasers would have instead paid any significant amount of money for a genuine copy of Windows rather than reading the sheet of paper and downloading it for free.
Companies making up numbers and getting the government to prosecute what should have been a civil matter is not what copyright law is supposed to be about. So if those allegations are correct, then this case represents a gross abuse of the system by a company that can afford to do its own dirty work.
Legally, IMO, the only thing Microsoft should have been able to claim is statutory damages. And given the nature of the infringement (innocent infringement, with no intent to cost Microsoft any money, done purely to save time and effort for his customers), the minimum allowable penalty is reasonable. Therefore, he should have walked out of court with a $200 fine. Every dollar above that limit strongly suggests either judicial or prosecutorial abuse, and prison time doubly so.
Had they waited until he actually started selling the discs before prosecuting instead of jumping the gun, and had he actually sold them at $20, then they would deserve a hefty judgement. Because the prosecution was so absurdly overzealous, IMO it would have been entirely appropriate for the judge to slap the prosecution for their gross overreach by giving him a $200 fine minus restitution for jail time served, thus likely resulting in the government paying the defendant. That's the way the justice system is supposed to work.
With that "transformative" bit, you grossly misrepresented one of the four pillars of fair use. The law actually says that one of the factors that must be considered is the purpose and character of the use. The transformative nature of that use is just one of many possible purposes and characters that copying can involve. By narrowing that pillar to a fraction of its actual size, you're fairly seriously understating the types of use that can constitute fair use.
If the content is truly available for them to download already from the manufacturer, then arguably the person merely provided an offline cache of the content, which otherwise the customer would have been forced to download and burn him/herself. You might even argue that he was merely serving as an agent of the purchaser, which would entirely relieve him of any responsibility for the copying. It is laughable to argue that it is not a copyright violation for the end owner to download the content, burn it to a disc, install the OS, keep the disc, and later sell the computer with the disc to someone else, but that it somehow becomes a copyright violation if someone skips the installation and forces the person who buys the machine to do that part. This fails on grounds of reductio ad absurdum. Yet unless I'm misunderstanding, that's exactly the finding in this case.
You're also grossly misrepresenting the effect on the value of the work. From a legal perspective, making a backup copy of software is a right. Therefore, the original owner of that hardware had a legal right to make a backup, and because OEM licenses are not transferrable to new hardware, that right is automatically transferred to any subsequent owner of the hardware.
The fact that the original disc was lost, and that the backup was made from someone else's physical copy of that disc is immaterial from a legal perspective, as copyright law generally does not specify any requirements about how a backup must be made (with the exception of DMCA nonsense). If I can make an identical copy by scraping the bits off a DVD-ROM or downloading the file from somewhere on the Internet, one act cannot reasonably be legal while the other is not unless the person never had a license to possess a copy of that software in the first place. Such an interpretation of the law would, again, be utterly prima facie absurd.
The fact that some users might not know they have the right to make a backup copy of their operating system, and therefore might be tricked into paying for something that they already legally owned is also immaterial, as the exact same impact on Microsoft's sales could be caused by instead including a piece of paper that says, "Did you know that you have a legal right to download a copy of Windows from [insert website], burn it to a disk, and install it on this machine?" which is absolutely not a copyright violation. Therefore, the additional impact of the copyright violation is precisely zero, and thus, the total financial impact to Microsoft from this person's actions is also precisely zero.
IMO, this being fair use really should be inarguable, at least in any sane universe. The judge is simply interpreting the law incorrectly, in a way that, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads to some bafflingly absurd consequences.
Apparently, the GP is part of the hip crowd. Stealing marketshare from somebody else en masse is what happens right before a social network dies. Recall the life cycle of social networks (and communications networks in general):
First, they attract the hip crowd.
Then, they start attracting their parents.
Then the hip crowd flees to a new social network.
Then, they steadily decline until the only people still using them are over 60.
Facebook losing significant marketshare to Snapchat marks the transition from stage 3 to stage 4, and also puts Snapchat squarely at the transition from stage 2 to stage 3.
What sort of Frenchman would put ultra processed rubbish in their mouths? Unlike the English, the French care about what they eat. Not for health (heaven forbid) but for pleasure. They think that there is more to eating than just filling the gut.
Counterpoint. I have one word for you: snails. When is the last time anyone from England looked down at something slimy that crawls on the ground and thought, "I bet that would go great with butter and shallots?"
Besides, the French invented canning (appertisation), which is practically the foundation of modern processed foods.
If there's a culinary moral high ground, I'm pretty sure the French aren't standing on it any more than the Brits or us Yanks. Just saying.:-)
What makes this curious, at least in my mind, is that breast cancer and prostate cancer risk are actually somewhat correlated with each other familially. A marked increased risk in breast cancer with no effect on prostate cancer, therefore, sounds a bit suspicious to me. It isn't impossible or anything, given that breast tissue is mostly fat, and thus has the potential for storing fat-soluble contaminants in ways that the prostate really doesn't, but it still seems... odd. I'll be curious to see whether these results can be reproduced in studies performed in other countries.
That itself implies their actions are at least in part, if not THE cause.
I think you missed the "or something else altogether" part. For an example of a way that it could be something else entirely, I would point out that people living below the poverty line are less likely to be able to afford to buy fresh foods. Therefore, they almost by definition eat more processed foods. Poverty is correlated with a higher rate of a lot of diseases. Therefore, you would expect an increase in processed food consumption to be correlated with a higher risk of those diseases unless poverty is explicitly corrected for.
iOS 11 badly broke Bluetooth power management, too. When I play Amazon Prime content over Bluetooth, as soon as I hit the "next" button to jump to the next episode of a TV show, the Bluetooth stack disconnects, and it takes ten or fifteen seconds to reconnect, resulting in a terrible user experience. This problem began after "upgrading" to iOS 11.
Well, I'm sure there's a decent percentage of people who would agree with that, though probably not that many among people who have ever worked at Apple. But I think the main problem is their hiring practices. The company grew way too quickly after the iPhone, mostly by bringing in new college hires. Thus, the percentage of junior engineers went through the roof starting in about 2007. There's only so much cat herding that the senior people can do, so at some point, the quality was bound to suffer.
In fact, Apple's policy, from which they have not deviated, is to support all hardware with updates for a minimum of 5 full years.
That simply isn't true. The usual expectation is a minimum of three years from the date of last sale, not five. But there are exceptions even then. The 5th generation iPod touch (2012), for example, was still sold until 2015, and they dropped support in 2016, barely a year after it was discontinued.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as Apple doesn't break down sales by product, we'll never know what the sales numbers actually are.
That's what happens when you don't give investors the information they need: They make things up. And different groups make up numbers in different ways to suit their own interests. And the company's stock suffers. Apple used to provide a lot more data. Then at some point in 2005 or so, their product categories got a lot bigger to the point of being almost meaningless. They really should go back to that level of detail.
No, what I mean is that a good DBA can make the difference between needing to store everything on an SSD and needing only to store indices and frequently accessed data, and the rest of the performance problems can be handled with sharding for a lot less than the cost of storing everything on an SSD.
And if your company is small enough that a single 30 TB SSD is enough to meet your entire storage needs, then you probably aren't big enough to be so desperate for speed that you would buy a 30 TB SSD. I'm expecting most of these will be used for the most frequently accessed data for companies that are Google-scale, not companies whose total data capacity needs are rivaled only by my home RAID array. :-)
But "fiddling with your schema" so that tables that get hit frequently are indexed on SSDs or DRAM drives (and, if necessary, stored in their entirety on those drives) means you get most of the speed win without the expense of storing your *entire* data collection on an SSD. The more you can separate out the frequently accessed data from the rarely accessed data, the easier it is to keep your costs sane. And the bigger your total storage needs, the more that design decision matters.
640 kilobytes, but to be fair, that ought to be enough for anybody.
No, but a lot of folks in enterprise will not by it based on its price compared with spinning rust. You can afford to spend a lot of time structuring your databases and similar so that frequently accessed data stays warm in a cache and still come out cheaper than the price of moving all your company's data to SSDs.
Actually, that's a pretty high bar. People you meet through your hobbies are more likely to have common interests, which makes them much more compatible than randomly selected people using almost any other metric.
One big problem is that the dating sites don't take hobbies into account nearly enough, and don't let you provide detailed enough information about hobbies. Worse, most people don't provide information about more than maybe one or two of their hobbies and interests, which means the data needed to get a good match just isn't there.
This is one reason why it's good to be in California, where those clauses are always explicitly illegal.
Most people don't regularly write open source software, so if an employer wants you to provide code samples, IMO that's a big red flag; it means that one of the following is probably true:
Any of these things is a fairly strong indication that you really don't want to work there.
Sure they do. A six-figure starting salary. I'm not saying it's a good incentive, as it tends to attract a lot of people who can't code along with the people who can, but it is at least an incentive. :-)
<drevil>One meeeeeeeeelion dollars!</drevil>
FTFY. The purpose of net neutrality laws was never to prevent companies from suing other companies for abusive behavior, but rather to provide a regulatory framework by which the FCC could crack down on companies for abusive behavior even if the only people affected are small companies and individuals that are not readily able to hire a team of lawyers big enough to extract a meaningful settlement from companies the size of Charter.
You can use TurboTax on the web for nearly all use cases.
This. Concerns escalating to the level of discouraging kids from getting involved in tackle sports is a good thing, ranking right up there in common sense with discouraging kids from boxing.
That said, any any sport, a concussion can occur after an accidental fall or whatever, not to mention car wrecks, bicycle accidents, etc. So this is certainly interesting and useful even if the only thing you do outdoors is walk across the street to get lunch.
Not all photographers work that way. Many photographers do flat-fee photography as a work for hire, where they charge you a flat fee for the amount of time spent, and you own the results. The ones that don't do that are mostly portrait photographers. They do the sitting significantly below cost, and in exchange, they require that you buy any copies of the photo through them in the hopes of making up the difference.
IMO, the best approach is to offer both models, at the customer's option. If the customer wants to own the photos, he or she can pay the hourly cost of everyone involved for the full value of their time up front, and then the customer owns the photos. Or if the customer just wants to choose a few photos to get printed, knowing that he or she will have to pay for any future copies, the customer gets an up-front discount, but doesn't retain any rights to the photos.
You would think that the bird-shaped smudges on the exterior windows would prevent bird strikes, too, but apparently not. :-)
The pinnacle of good functional design was the Pismo (PowerBook G3 series). It had dual removable battery bays, one of which could also hold an optical drive. You could use the device on battery power indefinitely if you had enough batteries. Thus, with three batteries, I consistently got more battery life with the Pismo than I do even with their current laptops almost two decades later.
And even that design was marred by a high rate of optical drive failures, plus inadequate case rigidity that, when combined with inadequate clearance for the airport antenna, resulted in the antenna connector rubbing through the insulation on the video cable and frying the motherboard. But those defects would have been solved if the overall design had survived one or two more generations.
Unfortunately, their design has been steadily going downhill since then. First, they removed one battery bay, thus forcing you to stop what you're doing, put the machine to sleep, and flip it upside down to change the battery. Not enough people complained, so then they removed the capacitor that kept the machine running during battery swaps, and when they didn't get enough bad reviews about that, they removed the ability to swap batteries entirely. Now, if I want to use a laptop all day, I have to be tethered to an outlet. (No amount of power management helps when the things you use a laptop for predominantly involve either continuously running a CoreAudio pipeline, heavily using the GPU for image processing, or compiling code using multiple processors.)
It's still better than Windows, but I would kill to be able to buy a copy of OS X without any "Apple hardware only" restrictions so I could legally run it on arbitrary Intel hardware without deliberate interference by Apple. That way, I could choose the hardware that best meets my needs, rather than being limited to whatever limited options Apple chooses to sell. What I want is a ruggedized machine with a rubber exterior, no glass on the screen, and dual battery bays on the sides, with each battery pack at the FAA limit for a single battery, ensuring that I don't ever have to stop working before I'm ready to do so.
And that clause has been interpreted very broadly, to include things like transformativeness. But no, he was not selling them for $20, or if he was, that information isn't in the summary or the original article.
No, it really isn't. If the article is accurate in saying that Microsoft came up with that number when asked how much he could potentially sell the discs for, then that means there was no proof of intent to actually sell them at that price, and the number likely represents an artificially inflated damage number so that the prosecutor could try to get jail time for the defendant, which is a strong indication of prosecutorial abuse.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts have a duty to assume innocence—that is, to assume that defendant's claims that this was not a money-making scheme are true, and therefore that he intended to sell them at cost (pennies). Thus, apart from good will (leading to future purchases, and thus largely unquantifiable), he had no financial incentive to produce those discs versus sticking a piece of paper with the URL in with every purchase. As such, it is completely unreasonable to assume that any of the purchasers would have instead paid any significant amount of money for a genuine copy of Windows rather than reading the sheet of paper and downloading it for free.
Companies making up numbers and getting the government to prosecute what should have been a civil matter is not what copyright law is supposed to be about. So if those allegations are correct, then this case represents a gross abuse of the system by a company that can afford to do its own dirty work.
Legally, IMO, the only thing Microsoft should have been able to claim is statutory damages. And given the nature of the infringement (innocent infringement, with no intent to cost Microsoft any money, done purely to save time and effort for his customers), the minimum allowable penalty is reasonable. Therefore, he should have walked out of court with a $200 fine. Every dollar above that limit strongly suggests either judicial or prosecutorial abuse, and prison time doubly so.
Had they waited until he actually started selling the discs before prosecuting instead of jumping the gun, and had he actually sold them at $20, then they would deserve a hefty judgement. Because the prosecution was so absurdly overzealous, IMO it would have been entirely appropriate for the judge to slap the prosecution for their gross overreach by giving him a $200 fine minus restitution for jail time served, thus likely resulting in the government paying the defendant. That's the way the justice system is supposed to work.
With that "transformative" bit, you grossly misrepresented one of the four pillars of fair use. The law actually says that one of the factors that must be considered is the purpose and character of the use. The transformative nature of that use is just one of many possible purposes and characters that copying can involve. By narrowing that pillar to a fraction of its actual size, you're fairly seriously understating the types of use that can constitute fair use.
If the content is truly available for them to download already from the manufacturer, then arguably the person merely provided an offline cache of the content, which otherwise the customer would have been forced to download and burn him/herself. You might even argue that he was merely serving as an agent of the purchaser, which would entirely relieve him of any responsibility for the copying. It is laughable to argue that it is not a copyright violation for the end owner to download the content, burn it to a disc, install the OS, keep the disc, and later sell the computer with the disc to someone else, but that it somehow becomes a copyright violation if someone skips the installation and forces the person who buys the machine to do that part. This fails on grounds of reductio ad absurdum. Yet unless I'm misunderstanding, that's exactly the finding in this case.
You're also grossly misrepresenting the effect on the value of the work. From a legal perspective, making a backup copy of software is a right. Therefore, the original owner of that hardware had a legal right to make a backup, and because OEM licenses are not transferrable to new hardware, that right is automatically transferred to any subsequent owner of the hardware.
The fact that the original disc was lost, and that the backup was made from someone else's physical copy of that disc is immaterial from a legal perspective, as copyright law generally does not specify any requirements about how a backup must be made (with the exception of DMCA nonsense). If I can make an identical copy by scraping the bits off a DVD-ROM or downloading the file from somewhere on the Internet, one act cannot reasonably be legal while the other is not unless the person never had a license to possess a copy of that software in the first place. Such an interpretation of the law would, again, be utterly prima facie absurd.
The fact that some users might not know they have the right to make a backup copy of their operating system, and therefore might be tricked into paying for something that they already legally owned is also immaterial, as the exact same impact on Microsoft's sales could be caused by instead including a piece of paper that says, "Did you know that you have a legal right to download a copy of Windows from [insert website], burn it to a disk, and install it on this machine?" which is absolutely not a copyright violation. Therefore, the additional impact of the copyright violation is precisely zero, and thus, the total financial impact to Microsoft from this person's actions is also precisely zero.
IMO, this being fair use really should be inarguable, at least in any sane universe. The judge is simply interpreting the law incorrectly, in a way that, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads to some bafflingly absurd consequences.
Apparently, the GP is part of the hip crowd. Stealing marketshare from somebody else en masse is what happens right before a social network dies. Recall the life cycle of social networks (and communications networks in general):
Facebook losing significant marketshare to Snapchat marks the transition from stage 3 to stage 4, and also puts Snapchat squarely at the transition from stage 2 to stage 3.
What part of "familially" did you miss? I'm saying that there are overlapping genetic causes.
Counterpoint. I have one word for you: snails. When is the last time anyone from England looked down at something slimy that crawls on the ground and thought, "I bet that would go great with butter and shallots?"
Besides, the French invented canning (appertisation), which is practically the foundation of modern processed foods.
If there's a culinary moral high ground, I'm pretty sure the French aren't standing on it any more than the Brits or us Yanks. Just saying. :-)
What makes this curious, at least in my mind, is that breast cancer and prostate cancer risk are actually somewhat correlated with each other familially. A marked increased risk in breast cancer with no effect on prostate cancer, therefore, sounds a bit suspicious to me. It isn't impossible or anything, given that breast tissue is mostly fat, and thus has the potential for storing fat-soluble contaminants in ways that the prostate really doesn't, but it still seems... odd. I'll be curious to see whether these results can be reproduced in studies performed in other countries.
I think you missed the "or something else altogether" part. For an example of a way that it could be something else entirely, I would point out that people living below the poverty line are less likely to be able to afford to buy fresh foods. Therefore, they almost by definition eat more processed foods. Poverty is correlated with a higher rate of a lot of diseases. Therefore, you would expect an increase in processed food consumption to be correlated with a higher risk of those diseases unless poverty is explicitly corrected for.
iOS 11 badly broke Bluetooth power management, too. When I play Amazon Prime content over Bluetooth, as soon as I hit the "next" button to jump to the next episode of a TV show, the Bluetooth stack disconnects, and it takes ten or fifteen seconds to reconnect, resulting in a terrible user experience. This problem began after "upgrading" to iOS 11.
Well, I'm sure there's a decent percentage of people who would agree with that, though probably not that many among people who have ever worked at Apple. But I think the main problem is their hiring practices. The company grew way too quickly after the iPhone, mostly by bringing in new college hires. Thus, the percentage of junior engineers went through the roof starting in about 2007. There's only so much cat herding that the senior people can do, so at some point, the quality was bound to suffer.
That simply isn't true. The usual expectation is a minimum of three years from the date of last sale, not five. But there are exceptions even then. The 5th generation iPod touch (2012), for example, was still sold until 2015, and they dropped support in 2016, barely a year after it was discontinued.