Fairbanks has a population of 32,751. This airport sees more than 839% more people come through in a single day. The two aren't anywhere near comparable.
Then with that much commerce going on it should be trivial to justify the cost of a properly designed backup power system. Especially when you consider the full costs of a shutdown at such a major airport.
Atlanta is so special that their rich people on a plane are more important than daily life for Puerto Ricans?
Of course they aren't but let's be honest. Atlanta is one of the busiest airports in the world and interrupted flight operations there have literally global effects on our transportation network. Puerto Rico is a tragedy but of a completely different sort. Just because Puerto Rico is a sad situation doesn't mean we should overlook current news until that issue is fixed. This isn't an either/or scenario.
Utter first world problem.
Puerto Rico is literally a territory of the United States and so by definition is part of the First World. You are being quite condescending towards the people of Puerto Rico to pretend otherwise.
If you think this story is more important than the Puerto Rico story, you might need some perspective and some time at church to get your caring and love back.
Nobody was arguing it is more important. Methinks you are trolling.
Maybe now they'll pay attention and revamp Hartsfield's operations so that it doesn't fuck everyone plans up.
That's mighty optimistic of you. I'm reasonably confident they will do a good approximation of absolutely nothing and have the exact same problem again in the future. I really try to avoid that particular airport as much as I can. I've flown through Atlanta Hartsfield quite a few times and the number of times I've gotten through that airport without some flight operations fiasco occurring might be 20-30% of the time. There always seems to be at least a minor delay and I've been stranded there overnight more than once. Maybe just my bad luck but it seems to happen way to consistently to just be me.
A power outage at the world's busiest airport left thousands of passengers stranded in dark terminals and in planes sitting on the tarmac, amid a nationwide ground stop. Incoming and outgoing flights at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport were halted indefinitely as crews worked to restore power, leading to hundreds of flight delays and cancellations. Atlanta is the heart of the US air transport system, and what happens there has the potential to ripple through the country.
Have airports ever heard of something called a standby generator? Yes it would have to be a big one for an airport but it only really has to power operationally critical systems. If the starbucks is without power for a few hours, who cares? I have a hard time believing they cannot cost justify some sort of power redundancy to keep flight operations going for several hours at minimum.
Yes I read the bit about a substation being damaged. If a fire to a single substation screws up the backup power then it wasn't actually a backup. The entire point of a backup is to eliminate single points of failure. Backup power has to come from a physically independent source for anything larger than a UPS on a PC and the only common transmission should be the final few feet to the point of use in most cases.
Plenty of news sites/publications have an "on the lighter side" section.
So what? This still isn't news even of the lighter variety. This is either an idiot or a troll. Either way he should be ignored.
In this case, many find it amusing to see the lengths a flat earther will take their beliefs and for those of us with any science education it's seeing the 101 glaring problems with his plan. It's an amusing distraction.
Maybe if you have a truly perverse sense of humor. I don't see anything funny about this. We're already dealing with a presidency that is more anti-science than any in my lifetime. We don't need to be giving the lunatics the microphone. I'm not outraged but his 15 minutes of fame should be in the rear view mirror except jackasses keep giving him the attention he desires.
If you don't get it that's fine, feel free to be outraged.
There is nothing to get. He's a moron and an attention whore. It sounds like you are part of the problem.
Flat-Earthers make me feel the way I'm sure I make climate alarmists feel, but I believe in science (the process), and I'm willing to put a few bucks towards an independent verification.
And who exactly do you think is qualified to perform your "independent verification"? You do realize that climate scientists actually have more to gain by proving the consensus wrong than they do in going along with it? They ARE the independent verification. Only people engaged in confirmation bias pretend otherwise.
In any case the science has already been done on this (both flat earth and climate change) and there is no need to rehash what is out there unless you want to either confirm an experiment yourself or have new evidence to present.
And maybe a bigger factor is that if a schmuck like this can get to space, that can only mean the day is getting closer when I can too.
This idiot isn't going into space. Please tell me you aren't actually dumb enough to believe anything this moron claims.
A Maine alternative newsweekly just interviewed self-taught rocket scientist "Mad" Mike Hughes...
Why is anyone giving this lunatic the time of day? More specific to here, how exactly is this news for nerds or stuff that matters? If this lunatic wants to become a Darwin Award recipient, let him and spare us the details. All the media are doing is giving a lunatic a bullhorn to infect other idiots with his stupidity. He's not even an entertaining species of lunatic.
A few years ago it was not even a question that the zero lower bound on interest rates made perfect sense.
That is a different question. Please stay on topic.
You put too much faith in economists.
So I should put faith in you instead? No thanks. If you understand these issues better than economists then publish your findings and collect your Nobel prize.
That suggests, to me, that you find prevalent economic theories useful to your political leanings
That's a curious argument since you have no idea what my political leanings might actually be nor what I consider to be prevalent economic theories. I follow the evidence wherever it may lead. My political belief have no relevance and I will change them readily in the face of compelling evidence about a subject. I have little use for ideology when it comes to economic theory.
Most economics is just apology for one or another political agenda.
I'll return the favor because that sounds like confirmation bias to me. That's a nice attempt to frame the issue but I think it says more about you than it does about me.
Without a set of truth observations to evaluate the technique, there actually isn't a way to know that one method produces better results than another.
Not true at all. First off the methods used are actually based on evidence and methods we actually understand quite well. Second, when you have multiple methods you can compare them and when multiple methods give similar answers you gain confidence in the results. There are some logical inferences at times but always based on observations. Astrophysicists aren't idiots making stuff up out of thin air.
Verification is practically impossible.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that you need to be able to put something on a scale to know it's actual weight. Fortunately physics provides quite a lot more tools than that and some people much smarter than you or I understand how to use them.
If I was a full-time conspiracy theorist instead of just a part-timer, I'd say that the recent destruction of Net Neutrality in America was accomplished with this Disney acquisition in mind.
I'm sure Disney places no particular value on Net Neutrality because they are large enough to not have to care too much. I'm not sure how much they care but I doubt they are worried too much about it.
I'm just waiting for the next extension to copyright right around the time Mickey Mouse should enter the public domain sometime before 2024.
Fox has ten times the revenue and FORTY FIVE times the profit of Netflix.
Which won't mean dick if they have the wrong business model. I'm not pretending I can pick the winner here or making any sort of assertion about either companies chances but I think it would be foolish to underestimate Netflix. They've already put at least one much larger competitor in the grave (Blockbuster).
The stock market isn't the economy, most of what happens to it is only relevant to it's investors.
Only an ignorant fool believes that what happens in the stock market has no effect outside of investors.
Come back when you have empiric evidence that deflation is bad to common people.
For a recent and relevant example I refer you to Japan for the last 20 years or so. Seriously, among people who actually study this stuff for a living it's not even a question that deflation is bad for economies. And 20 seconds of searching would provide all the evidence you need about why deflation is bad for the "common people".
There is no empirical evidence that 1% inflation is a 'good' thing for the economy - it's just a random target that seems justifiable easily.
There is plenty of evidence and quite a lot of experience. We have centuries of real world data from the effects of various amounts of inflation and deflation on economies and every bit of evidence we have shows that a modest (1-3%) amount of inflation is the least worst option in most circumstances. Grossly oversimplified explanation: Deflation is almost always bad because it dis-incentivizes investment and creates perverse incentives. (why invest if your money will grow in value without the risk?) High amounts of inflation are bad because economic growth and wage growth cannot keep up and it wipes out the value of assets. Modest amounts of inflation force people to take reasonable risks to stay ahead of inflation but its low enough that economic growth can keep pace or get ahead. Maintaining zero inflation is as a practical matter essentially impossible and trying will result in dipping into deflation now and then which is worse for society than a small amount of inflation.
Any inflation mostly benefits investors with debts and basically constitutes a wealth transfer from savers to investors (~ from poorer to richer).
A wildly over simplified analysis if I've ever read one. There is quite a lot more to it than that.
Not really. You don't have any concept of sustainable personal income unless a profit is being made somewhere. A personal income is merely another form of profit.
People often dislike profit, but are completely fine with personal income.
You're entitled to your opinion but I doubt many will agree with it. Rotten Tomatoes scores in order were 97%, 98% and 46%. While Rotten Tomatoes has its problems it's a pretty good gauge of public opinion about a movie like this one. Alien 3 was not a particularly good movie in my opinion and it seems the majority share that opinion.
I thought Return of the Jedi was worthy as well, it has everything a good SW story needs... could have done without the damn Ewoks though.
RotJ could have been great but they made a left turn at cute and missed the mark. Some parts of the movie were excellent and it's still pretty watchable 30 years later. RotJ is a good example of what happens when a producer gets too excited about merchandising without considering the impact on the story and the health of the franchise. R2D2 is cute and fun but an implausible army of ewoks beating (supposedly) elite imperial troops is just clueless pursuit of short term money.
So this would bring Deadpool, the Xmen, Wolverine, The Fantastic Four, Star Wars: A New Hope, and a large catalog of other content under the Disney brand. I think the only major Marvel property they wouldn't own would be Spiderman which Sony has the rights to and Sony is playing nice.
Of course there is a lot of other content and assets owned by Fox.
Let me give it a shot: Force Awakens was pretty bad
I thought Force Awakens was a decent enough film and quite a nostalgic one. The problem with it was that I had already seen that film way back in 1977. It was in far too many ways nearly a shot for shot remake of A New Hope and not even subtly so. I have no complaints about the film production quality. Not brilliant but fine as a popcorn film like all Star Wars movies. (except Empire which might actually be brilliant) It was far better than any of the prequels though that is the very definition of damning with faint praise.
Rogue One was really good
I liked Rogue One overall except for the uncanny valley problems. I was acutely aware for the CGI remakes of familiar characters and unfortunately while they were good they weren't good enough.
This is just more garbage from Disney designed to sell franchise crap.
Star Wars was about selling "franchise crap" from day one. I'm old enough to have seen the first Star Wars movies in a theater in 1977. Star Wars was all about moving merchandise right out of the gate. Star Wars action figures and toys were HUGE when I was younger. Disney is just better at it than Lucasfilm was on its own. Anyone who thought Disney wasn't in this to make a buck is delusional. You just hope that the stories are entertaining along the way as well.
I get the distinct feeling they're not actually making these movies for the sake of making movies anymore. It's entirely and utterly driven by profit, and very little else.
It's adorable that you ever thought that the movie industry wasn't all about making money. Yes sometimes some good art got made along the way. But the movie industry has been ruthlessly profit driven as long as there has been a movie industry. There is a reason hollywood accounting is a thing.
SW8 feels like a movie that was designed by a committee and approved by Disney to have the maximum impact on merchandising sales and franchise licensing after the fact. It's basically just a gigantic commercial for their beloved IP.
Are you familiar with any Disney products? That has been their MO since Snow White was released back in 1937. This should not be astonishing to you.
And remember that SW1-3 (the prequels) were clearly NOT designed by committee and the shitty results prove it. The only reason the original trilogy was good was because there were smart people who could limit the amount of damage George Lucas could do to the material.
If only they would make the one thing I'm interested in:
I could say that about nearly every PC maker in addition to Apple. No company can be or should try to be all things to all people. I understand why you want what you want but Apple has never pretended to try to serve every market niche. Users such as yourself who seeking expandibility are comparatively rare and it's pretty clear that they aren't the market segment Apple is targeting.
The good news is that there are good options out there that aren't from Apple.
And if customers ask for a new Mac Pro because they DO know what they want, Apple tells them to fuck off.
So does every other PC maker. No company can be all things to all people and Apple knows this better than most. Apple has never even pretended to try to accommodate every market niche. If you want something they don't offer then seek it elsewhere. I own some Apple products but I also own several PCs and other non-Apple devices based on what best suits my needs.
This isn't the 1980's. The PC industry is a mature market, and Macs are not competing with horses, they are competing with other PCs built out of the same damn hardware.
So if you like something else then buy that. Why is Apple under any obligation to make a product specific to your desires? Just because you think something is a good idea doesn't mean there is enough margin in it for Apple to make it worth their while.
I bought a Mac Mini a while ago, and it indeed sounds like a jet when it gets hot.
I have one too. Yes the fan does get louder when under load. Personally I prefer this to throttling the speed of the computer (or worse failure) all other things being equal. In practice it is seldom an issue for me. If it did it a lot I'd buy something faster but 99.9% of the time it's a non issue for me.
I don't understand how a person can come to wield financial power of the scale required to launch something like new smartphone hardware, and yet be so clueless as to the market.
There are LOTS of people who have achieved fame and fortune due to fortuitous circumstances which they are incapable of repeating. It's not hard to come up with examples. Also remember that Rubin didn't do it by himself. It's kind of like being the lead singer of a successful band who cannot replicate the success of the band as a solo artist. You have to have the right team under the right circumstances to succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Fairbanks has a population of 32,751. This airport sees more than 839% more people come through in a single day. The two aren't anywhere near comparable.
Then with that much commerce going on it should be trivial to justify the cost of a properly designed backup power system. Especially when you consider the full costs of a shutdown at such a major airport.
Atlanta is so special that their rich people on a plane are more important than daily life for Puerto Ricans?
Of course they aren't but let's be honest. Atlanta is one of the busiest airports in the world and interrupted flight operations there have literally global effects on our transportation network. Puerto Rico is a tragedy but of a completely different sort. Just because Puerto Rico is a sad situation doesn't mean we should overlook current news until that issue is fixed. This isn't an either/or scenario.
Utter first world problem.
Puerto Rico is literally a territory of the United States and so by definition is part of the First World. You are being quite condescending towards the people of Puerto Rico to pretend otherwise.
If you think this story is more important than the Puerto Rico story, you might need some perspective and some time at church to get your caring and love back.
Nobody was arguing it is more important. Methinks you are trolling.
Maybe now they'll pay attention and revamp Hartsfield's operations so that it doesn't fuck everyone plans up.
That's mighty optimistic of you. I'm reasonably confident they will do a good approximation of absolutely nothing and have the exact same problem again in the future. I really try to avoid that particular airport as much as I can. I've flown through Atlanta Hartsfield quite a few times and the number of times I've gotten through that airport without some flight operations fiasco occurring might be 20-30% of the time. There always seems to be at least a minor delay and I've been stranded there overnight more than once. Maybe just my bad luck but it seems to happen way to consistently to just be me.
A power outage at the world's busiest airport left thousands of passengers stranded in dark terminals and in planes sitting on the tarmac, amid a nationwide ground stop. Incoming and outgoing flights at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport were halted indefinitely as crews worked to restore power, leading to hundreds of flight delays and cancellations. Atlanta is the heart of the US air transport system, and what happens there has the potential to ripple through the country.
Have airports ever heard of something called a standby generator? Yes it would have to be a big one for an airport but it only really has to power operationally critical systems. If the starbucks is without power for a few hours, who cares? I have a hard time believing they cannot cost justify some sort of power redundancy to keep flight operations going for several hours at minimum.
Yes I read the bit about a substation being damaged. If a fire to a single substation screws up the backup power then it wasn't actually a backup. The entire point of a backup is to eliminate single points of failure. Backup power has to come from a physically independent source for anything larger than a UPS on a PC and the only common transmission should be the final few feet to the point of use in most cases.
What's the difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman?
The car salesman knows when he is lying to you.
Plenty of news sites/publications have an "on the lighter side" section.
So what? This still isn't news even of the lighter variety. This is either an idiot or a troll. Either way he should be ignored.
In this case, many find it amusing to see the lengths a flat earther will take their beliefs and for those of us with any science education it's seeing the 101 glaring problems with his plan. It's an amusing distraction.
Maybe if you have a truly perverse sense of humor. I don't see anything funny about this. We're already dealing with a presidency that is more anti-science than any in my lifetime. We don't need to be giving the lunatics the microphone. I'm not outraged but his 15 minutes of fame should be in the rear view mirror except jackasses keep giving him the attention he desires.
If you don't get it that's fine, feel free to be outraged.
There is nothing to get. He's a moron and an attention whore. It sounds like you are part of the problem.
Flat-Earthers make me feel the way I'm sure I make climate alarmists feel, but I believe in science (the process), and I'm willing to put a few bucks towards an independent verification.
And who exactly do you think is qualified to perform your "independent verification"? You do realize that climate scientists actually have more to gain by proving the consensus wrong than they do in going along with it? They ARE the independent verification. Only people engaged in confirmation bias pretend otherwise.
In any case the science has already been done on this (both flat earth and climate change) and there is no need to rehash what is out there unless you want to either confirm an experiment yourself or have new evidence to present.
And maybe a bigger factor is that if a schmuck like this can get to space, that can only mean the day is getting closer when I can too.
This idiot isn't going into space. Please tell me you aren't actually dumb enough to believe anything this moron claims.
A Maine alternative newsweekly just interviewed self-taught rocket scientist "Mad" Mike Hughes...
Why is anyone giving this lunatic the time of day? More specific to here, how exactly is this news for nerds or stuff that matters? If this lunatic wants to become a Darwin Award recipient, let him and spare us the details. All the media are doing is giving a lunatic a bullhorn to infect other idiots with his stupidity. He's not even an entertaining species of lunatic.
A few years ago it was not even a question that the zero lower bound on interest rates made perfect sense.
That is a different question. Please stay on topic.
You put too much faith in economists.
So I should put faith in you instead? No thanks. If you understand these issues better than economists then publish your findings and collect your Nobel prize.
That suggests, to me, that you find prevalent economic theories useful to your political leanings
That's a curious argument since you have no idea what my political leanings might actually be nor what I consider to be prevalent economic theories. I follow the evidence wherever it may lead. My political belief have no relevance and I will change them readily in the face of compelling evidence about a subject. I have little use for ideology when it comes to economic theory.
Most economics is just apology for one or another political agenda.
I'll return the favor because that sounds like confirmation bias to me. That's a nice attempt to frame the issue but I think it says more about you than it does about me.
Without a set of truth observations to evaluate the technique, there actually isn't a way to know that one method produces better results than another.
Not true at all. First off the methods used are actually based on evidence and methods we actually understand quite well. Second, when you have multiple methods you can compare them and when multiple methods give similar answers you gain confidence in the results. There are some logical inferences at times but always based on observations. Astrophysicists aren't idiots making stuff up out of thin air.
Verification is practically impossible.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that you need to be able to put something on a scale to know it's actual weight. Fortunately physics provides quite a lot more tools than that and some people much smarter than you or I understand how to use them.
Does that mean we can expect X-men: The Rip-off
It was called X-Men The Last Stand.
If I was a full-time conspiracy theorist instead of just a part-timer, I'd say that the recent destruction of Net Neutrality in America was accomplished with this Disney acquisition in mind.
I'm sure Disney places no particular value on Net Neutrality because they are large enough to not have to care too much. I'm not sure how much they care but I doubt they are worried too much about it.
I'm just waiting for the next extension to copyright right around the time Mickey Mouse should enter the public domain sometime before 2024.
Fox has ten times the revenue and FORTY FIVE times the profit of Netflix.
Which won't mean dick if they have the wrong business model. I'm not pretending I can pick the winner here or making any sort of assertion about either companies chances but I think it would be foolish to underestimate Netflix. They've already put at least one much larger competitor in the grave (Blockbuster).
The stock market isn't the economy, most of what happens to it is only relevant to it's investors.
Only an ignorant fool believes that what happens in the stock market has no effect outside of investors.
Come back when you have empiric evidence that deflation is bad to common people.
For a recent and relevant example I refer you to Japan for the last 20 years or so. Seriously, among people who actually study this stuff for a living it's not even a question that deflation is bad for economies. And 20 seconds of searching would provide all the evidence you need about why deflation is bad for the "common people".
There is no empirical evidence that 1% inflation is a 'good' thing for the economy - it's just a random target that seems justifiable easily.
There is plenty of evidence and quite a lot of experience. We have centuries of real world data from the effects of various amounts of inflation and deflation on economies and every bit of evidence we have shows that a modest (1-3%) amount of inflation is the least worst option in most circumstances. Grossly oversimplified explanation: Deflation is almost always bad because it dis-incentivizes investment and creates perverse incentives. (why invest if your money will grow in value without the risk?) High amounts of inflation are bad because economic growth and wage growth cannot keep up and it wipes out the value of assets. Modest amounts of inflation force people to take reasonable risks to stay ahead of inflation but its low enough that economic growth can keep pace or get ahead. Maintaining zero inflation is as a practical matter essentially impossible and trying will result in dipping into deflation now and then which is worse for society than a small amount of inflation.
Any inflation mostly benefits investors with debts and basically constitutes a wealth transfer from savers to investors (~ from poorer to richer).
A wildly over simplified analysis if I've ever read one. There is quite a lot more to it than that.
Is it good for healthy societies to have one or two giant for-profit companies controlling most of the news people see?
No but that's hardly some new problem. Currently there are about 6 companies" that control roughly 90% of the media. It is these companies that are funding opposition to net neutrality since they own much of the content and distribution.
Google if anything is something of a disruptive influence.
Profit and personal income are different.
Not really. You don't have any concept of sustainable personal income unless a profit is being made somewhere. A personal income is merely another form of profit.
People often dislike profit, but are completely fine with personal income.
Such people are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
What? The third Alien movie is by far the best.
You're entitled to your opinion but I doubt many will agree with it. Rotten Tomatoes scores in order were 97%, 98% and 46%. While Rotten Tomatoes has its problems it's a pretty good gauge of public opinion about a movie like this one. Alien 3 was not a particularly good movie in my opinion and it seems the majority share that opinion.
I thought Return of the Jedi was worthy as well, it has everything a good SW story needs... could have done without the damn Ewoks though.
RotJ could have been great but they made a left turn at cute and missed the mark. Some parts of the movie were excellent and it's still pretty watchable 30 years later. RotJ is a good example of what happens when a producer gets too excited about merchandising without considering the impact on the story and the health of the franchise. R2D2 is cute and fun but an implausible army of ewoks beating (supposedly) elite imperial troops is just clueless pursuit of short term money.
So this would bring Deadpool, the Xmen, Wolverine, The Fantastic Four, Star Wars: A New Hope, and a large catalog of other content under the Disney brand. I think the only major Marvel property they wouldn't own would be Spiderman which Sony has the rights to and Sony is playing nice.
Of course there is a lot of other content and assets owned by Fox.
Let me give it a shot: Force Awakens was pretty bad
I thought Force Awakens was a decent enough film and quite a nostalgic one. The problem with it was that I had already seen that film way back in 1977. It was in far too many ways nearly a shot for shot remake of A New Hope and not even subtly so. I have no complaints about the film production quality. Not brilliant but fine as a popcorn film like all Star Wars movies. (except Empire which might actually be brilliant) It was far better than any of the prequels though that is the very definition of damning with faint praise.
Rogue One was really good
I liked Rogue One overall except for the uncanny valley problems. I was acutely aware for the CGI remakes of familiar characters and unfortunately while they were good they weren't good enough.
This is just more garbage from Disney designed to sell franchise crap.
Star Wars was about selling "franchise crap" from day one. I'm old enough to have seen the first Star Wars movies in a theater in 1977. Star Wars was all about moving merchandise right out of the gate. Star Wars action figures and toys were HUGE when I was younger. Disney is just better at it than Lucasfilm was on its own. Anyone who thought Disney wasn't in this to make a buck is delusional. You just hope that the stories are entertaining along the way as well.
I get the distinct feeling they're not actually making these movies for the sake of making movies anymore. It's entirely and utterly driven by profit, and very little else.
It's adorable that you ever thought that the movie industry wasn't all about making money. Yes sometimes some good art got made along the way. But the movie industry has been ruthlessly profit driven as long as there has been a movie industry. There is a reason hollywood accounting is a thing.
SW8 feels like a movie that was designed by a committee and approved by Disney to have the maximum impact on merchandising sales and franchise licensing after the fact. It's basically just a gigantic commercial for their beloved IP.
Are you familiar with any Disney products? That has been their MO since Snow White was released back in 1937. This should not be astonishing to you.
And remember that SW1-3 (the prequels) were clearly NOT designed by committee and the shitty results prove it. The only reason the original trilogy was good was because there were smart people who could limit the amount of damage George Lucas could do to the material.
If only they would make the one thing I'm interested in:
I could say that about nearly every PC maker in addition to Apple. No company can be or should try to be all things to all people. I understand why you want what you want but Apple has never pretended to try to serve every market niche. Users such as yourself who seeking expandibility are comparatively rare and it's pretty clear that they aren't the market segment Apple is targeting.
The good news is that there are good options out there that aren't from Apple.
And if customers ask for a new Mac Pro because they DO know what they want, Apple tells them to fuck off.
So does every other PC maker. No company can be all things to all people and Apple knows this better than most. Apple has never even pretended to try to accommodate every market niche. If you want something they don't offer then seek it elsewhere. I own some Apple products but I also own several PCs and other non-Apple devices based on what best suits my needs.
This isn't the 1980's. The PC industry is a mature market, and Macs are not competing with horses, they are competing with other PCs built out of the same damn hardware.
So if you like something else then buy that. Why is Apple under any obligation to make a product specific to your desires? Just because you think something is a good idea doesn't mean there is enough margin in it for Apple to make it worth their while.
I bought a Mac Mini a while ago, and it indeed sounds like a jet when it gets hot.
I have one too. Yes the fan does get louder when under load. Personally I prefer this to throttling the speed of the computer (or worse failure) all other things being equal. In practice it is seldom an issue for me. If it did it a lot I'd buy something faster but 99.9% of the time it's a non issue for me.
I don't understand how a person can come to wield financial power of the scale required to launch something like new smartphone hardware, and yet be so clueless as to the market.
There are LOTS of people who have achieved fame and fortune due to fortuitous circumstances which they are incapable of repeating. It's not hard to come up with examples. Also remember that Rubin didn't do it by himself. It's kind of like being the lead singer of a successful band who cannot replicate the success of the band as a solo artist. You have to have the right team under the right circumstances to succeed.