Hundreds of millions of people disagree. A few 10s of thousands would agree with you though.
I'm not saying Jobs invented the model. I'm saying that Jobs adopting it was significant and had an affect on people. For all intents and purposes Apple invented the walled garden as it affects the hundreds of millions of people impacted by it today.
He read a headline and not an article. Only about 20% of world plastic waste comes from rivers. However that 90% figure is still right with a caveat: 90% of plastic waste coming *from rivers* comes from just 10 rivers in the world.
Every article I've seen on this topic has the headline misrepresent this fact but gets it right in the article itself: https://www.weforum.org/agenda...
Almost all the plastic trash going into the sea is coming from a handful of rivers in Asia & Africa.
Oh look this again. No no it doesn't. Stop reading just the headline and read TFA where you originally heard this fact. Only about 1/5th of the plastic in the ocean comes from Rivers. The 90% number is the amount of plastic that goes to the sea FROM RIVERS comes from just a handful of rivers, 8 in Asia, 2 in Africa.
To be clear 90% of 20% total is still a high number and it's well worth filtering those streams, but if you're going to be armed with facts at least get the facts right.
but Steve Jobs isn't to blame for the walled garden concept
He certainly is to blame. The examples you cite are from an archaic time and were limited to specific contracts between specific people. These situtations existed as corporate contracts and affected few people outside of large corporations.
Computing evolved into a more general case and the world ended up with devices at the fingertips of every normal person. Steve Jobs is to blame from introducing the walled garden concept at this general level which is orders of magnitude worse than a few ultra rich companies trying to screw each other out of service contracts.
They don't get a pass over privacy. They deliver a product and or service in return for people giving up privacy. It's like asking why Apple gets a pass for accepting money.
Past tense verb according to all dictionaries and none list them as an adjective. You are literally going against the rule book while calling out the OP for the same using (admittedly incorrectly) depreciated which as you rightly pointed out is also not an adjective.
Bottom line, the use is archaic, but it's not wrong, and at least 1 (2 if you count Google as a valid source) dictionary lists it as a synonym in the general case too.
You're acting like they claimed the boom would go on forever
Nope. Not acting anything of the like. Notice how AMD isn't being sued?
which is a failure of comprehension at best
That's an ironic given how at no point I've ever said the boom should go on forever.
They claimed that the end of the boom wouldn't hurt them.
Except it did severely damaging their supply chain.
They didn't spend money adding a bunch of production to serve the boom, because they knew it was temporary.
Except they did, and they added production and oversupplied due to the boom despite knowing it was temporary.
You're moving goalposts everywhere and declaring victory. Bullshit.
A lot of people here call you a troll, but the reality is that you just have very poor English comprehension. I cannot state this enough. Every single thing you have said has been wrong at every stage of the way.
Looks as though these folk never read that part, and now want to blame someone else
Folks read that part just fine. But when the company comes out and said our stock won't go down for reason X because we did Y, and it turns out Y was bogus and the stock crashed due to reason X that is called a "fraudulent claim to investors" and is grounds for a lawsuit.
You may notice that AMD isn't being sued despite having the same drop.
I don't know the particulars of all of these, but loot boxes are certainly not banned in Japan. There was a new rule saying that companies had to disclose exactly what was available and with what probability, so they're no longer quite the mystery boxes that they used to be, but loot boxes are still going strong there.
There were no new rules, in fact no changes in rules or laws at all. The lootbox concept was analysed and a legal opinion was issued determining that they constitute gambling. Most companies then removed the features https://www.japantimes.co.jp/l....
Just because some companies skirt the laws (as online gambling companies tend to do) it doesn't change the underlying principle that the practice was banned.
- Deprecate does not list an adjective form in any dictionary. - Deprecate is expressly listed as as "lowering value" in the Cambridge dictionary in its second form - Deprecate is defined in the Oxford dictionary in the context of "computing" (sense 1.1) to mean "to be considered outdated and best avoided, even though you can still use it, usually because it has been replaced with a newer feature" - Deprecate is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a synonym to depreciate (sense 2).
So yes in this case they can be used interchangeably. So I give your post 6/10 you passed on part marks:-)
I'm not moving the goalposts, you're just playing the wrong sport. This is a discussion about the lawsuit. The lawsuit is about NVIDIA's fraudulent statements. The GP took *half* of NVIDIA's public statements (the bit that wasn't fraudulent) and used that as a reason why he's not happy with the lawsuit. I'm pointing out the fact: yes NVIDIA did state that it was temporary, but NVIDIA also said they had contingencies that made them immune to the end of the boom.
They didn't.
They got sued for their fraudulent claim.
They didn't get sued for taking advantage of crypto mining, they didn't get sued because the boom was temporary, they are getting sued for making a claim that was false to investors. No goalposts have been moved in the making of this argument, they are still in the same place as they are in TFA and TFLawsuit.
Nvidia was crystal clear that the crypto boom was temporary.
NVIDIA was crystal clear that they knew it was temporary and had measures in place to ensure a continuity of sales and not oversupply the channel. Except they didn't.
They'll probably settle it and waste money that could go to making better and cheaper cards.
As opposed to wasting money oversupplying the channel for something they *knew* was temporary?
Nvidia is being sued for not being fortune tellers?
No NVIDIA is being sued for pretending to be fortune tellers. If they had done nothing then there would be no grounds to sue but instead they said: "We can see this coming and we've put mitigation in place, it won't affect us." And then it did affect them.
That is called making a fraudulent statement to investors.
100 or so years ago one of the first economic crises of overproduction characterized as such hit Europe.
Instead of selling their farm stock cheap farmers chose to destroy their products. Giving stuff away costs distribution money, destroying them costs less.
This is interesting but not the problem here. The thing here is that there is no oversupply of GPU cards. There is only an oversupply of GPUs in the upper end of the supply chain. The mining crash and the desire not to further drop prices on already purchased units by OEMs mean that these aren't being sold. The retail market is sitting quite happily at the RRP and there's no incentive for them to drop.
Farming equivalence: An oversupply of wheat does not mean that there are mountains of bread laying around being sold for bargain prices.
If by mining gear you mean GPUs that don't thermally cycle and are more than likely to have spent their life undervolted and are thus in excellent condition then yes you'd be right.
Suing your partners to make up for your own ignorant investments
They aren't suing partners to make up for ignorant investments. They are suing partners who made fraudulent comments about the investment to investors. The only ignorance anywhere in this story is in your comment.
To my knowledge, the only country which has done anything like what you're describing is Belgium
That's okay, knowledge can be built on: Belgium - banned. Netherlands - actively called out what components of it make it gambling and some of the industry has responded by customising how it works in the NL. UK - not banned but formally recognised as a form of gambling by the UK gambling commission. On hearing this the Isle of Man banned them. Australia - regulated under gambling laws but recognised difficulty in enforcement. China - regulated under gambling laws. Japan - banned. South Korea - regulated under gambling laws. Singapore - banned. France - Star Wars Battlefront II's loot boxes were deemed not to be gambling, but the decision noted that it does not apply to any other game. Sweden - Tabled a law to regulate them as a lottery.
In the United States I believe that the legal precedent was set quite some time ago over baseball cards
The United States has not yet looked into loot boxes and the nature of gambling laws mean that individual iteration of loot boxes needs to be individually assessed. The FTC is in the process of doing that now for some games. We covered this on Slashdot.
so visa is 1/200th as energy-consumptive than bitcoin. that's two orders of magnitude plus a factor of two.
By what metric? In total usage yes, but that ignores utility. Bitcoin processes 1/600th of the transactions every day compared to Visa with their current 1/200th energy consumption.
Therefore Visa is actually as 1/120000th as energy-consumptive for achieving the same goal, moving money from point A to B.
It is clear the world will not achieve net zero carbon emissions for energy generation, so reducing consumption should be a great part of the focus. I agree with your sentiment that banning should be considered.
Yet more YouTube "stars" that I've never heard of before this article.
Do you know all the stars around the world on various platforms? I'm sure there's plenty more for you to discover out there. The internet is a big place with lots of people on them. You should start keeping a list.
By the way what's with the use of the quotes? Angry jealousy that someone like "Ricegum" has over 10 million subscribers and makes an average of $16000 per video he uploads?
You're comparing them to things that are being classified as gambling and are being banned the world over.
Saying it's "not gambling, it's like lootboxes" is the equivalent of saying "it's not gambling, it's gambling" in pretty much every country which has had a legal inquiry into the practice.
Also, the median income in China is 18,371 Yuan, or roughly $2,674 per year. You're kidding yourself if you believe the Chinese would be buying $1000 iPhones if it weren't for the availability of cheap knockoffs.
The median income in a country of 1bn people many of which are 3rd world is not very interesting. Based on telecom activation figures there are only 100million activated iPhones in China, not all of them current, not all of them top of the line. They are very much toys for the rich.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah and? This is a good thing.
without a meaningful difference
Hundreds of millions of people disagree. A few 10s of thousands would agree with you though.
I'm not saying Jobs invented the model. I'm saying that Jobs adopting it was significant and had an affect on people. For all intents and purposes Apple invented the walled garden as it affects the hundreds of millions of people impacted by it today.
Rational people also understand that you don't fix problems by attacking the wrong country
Oh? I thought you were the most powerful country in the world. How far you seem to have fallen.
He read a headline and not an article. Only about 20% of world plastic waste comes from rivers. However that 90% figure is still right with a caveat: 90% of plastic waste coming *from rivers* comes from just 10 rivers in the world.
Every article I've seen on this topic has the headline misrepresent this fact but gets it right in the article itself: https://www.weforum.org/agenda...
Almost all the plastic trash going into the sea is coming from a handful of rivers in Asia & Africa.
Oh look this again. No no it doesn't. Stop reading just the headline and read TFA where you originally heard this fact. Only about 1/5th of the plastic in the ocean comes from Rivers. The 90% number is the amount of plastic that goes to the sea FROM RIVERS comes from just a handful of rivers, 8 in Asia, 2 in Africa.
To be clear 90% of 20% total is still a high number and it's well worth filtering those streams, but if you're going to be armed with facts at least get the facts right.
but Steve Jobs isn't to blame for the walled garden concept
He certainly is to blame. The examples you cite are from an archaic time and were limited to specific contracts between specific people. These situtations existed as corporate contracts and affected few people outside of large corporations.
Computing evolved into a more general case and the world ended up with devices at the fingertips of every normal person. Steve Jobs is to blame from introducing the walled garden concept at this general level which is orders of magnitude worse than a few ultra rich companies trying to screw each other out of service contracts.
get a pass over privacy
They don't get a pass over privacy. They deliver a product and or service in return for people giving up privacy. It's like asking why Apple gets a pass for accepting money.
1) deprecated
Past tense verb according to all dictionaries and none list them as an adjective. You are literally going against the rule book while calling out the OP for the same using (admittedly incorrectly) depreciated which as you rightly pointed out is also not an adjective.
Bottom line, the use is archaic, but it's not wrong, and at least 1 (2 if you count Google as a valid source) dictionary lists it as a synonym in the general case too.
And they do.
And they didn't.
You're acting like they claimed the boom would go on forever
Nope. Not acting anything of the like. Notice how AMD isn't being sued?
which is a failure of comprehension at best
That's an ironic given how at no point I've ever said the boom should go on forever.
They claimed that the end of the boom wouldn't hurt them.
Except it did severely damaging their supply chain.
They didn't spend money adding a bunch of production to serve the boom, because they knew it was temporary.
Except they did, and they added production and oversupplied due to the boom despite knowing it was temporary.
You're moving goalposts everywhere and declaring victory. Bullshit.
A lot of people here call you a troll, but the reality is that you just have very poor English comprehension. I cannot state this enough. Every single thing you have said has been wrong at every stage of the way.
You really need to work on this.
Looks as though these folk never read that part, and now want to blame someone else
Folks read that part just fine. But when the company comes out and said our stock won't go down for reason X because we did Y, and it turns out Y was bogus and the stock crashed due to reason X that is called a "fraudulent claim to investors" and is grounds for a lawsuit.
You may notice that AMD isn't being sued despite having the same drop.
I don't know the particulars of all of these, but loot boxes are certainly not banned in Japan. There was a new rule saying that companies had to disclose exactly what was available and with what probability, so they're no longer quite the mystery boxes that they used to be, but loot boxes are still going strong there.
There were no new rules, in fact no changes in rules or laws at all. The lootbox concept was analysed and a legal opinion was issued determining that they constitute gambling. Most companies then removed the features https://www.japantimes.co.jp/l....
Just because some companies skirt the laws (as online gambling companies tend to do) it doesn't change the underlying principle that the practice was banned.
[Citation Required] In many ways:
- Deprecate does not list an adjective form in any dictionary.
- Deprecate is expressly listed as as "lowering value" in the Cambridge dictionary in its second form
- Deprecate is defined in the Oxford dictionary in the context of "computing" (sense 1.1) to mean "to be considered outdated and best avoided, even though you can still use it, usually because it has been replaced with a newer feature"
- Deprecate is defined in the Oxford dictionary as a synonym to depreciate (sense 2).
So yes in this case they can be used interchangeably. So I give your post 6/10 you passed on part marks :-)
I'm not moving the goalposts, you're just playing the wrong sport. This is a discussion about the lawsuit. The lawsuit is about NVIDIA's fraudulent statements. The GP took *half* of NVIDIA's public statements (the bit that wasn't fraudulent) and used that as a reason why he's not happy with the lawsuit. I'm pointing out the fact: yes NVIDIA did state that it was temporary, but NVIDIA also said they had contingencies that made them immune to the end of the boom.
They didn't.
They got sued for their fraudulent claim.
They didn't get sued for taking advantage of crypto mining, they didn't get sued because the boom was temporary, they are getting sued for making a claim that was false to investors. No goalposts have been moved in the making of this argument, they are still in the same place as they are in TFA and TFLawsuit.
Nvidia was crystal clear that the crypto boom was temporary.
NVIDIA was crystal clear that they knew it was temporary and had measures in place to ensure a continuity of sales and not oversupply the channel.
Except they didn't.
They'll probably settle it and waste money that could go to making better and cheaper cards.
As opposed to wasting money oversupplying the channel for something they *knew* was temporary?
Nvidia is being sued for not being fortune tellers?
No NVIDIA is being sued for pretending to be fortune tellers. If they had done nothing then there would be no grounds to sue but instead they said: "We can see this coming and we've put mitigation in place, it won't affect us." And then it did affect them.
That is called making a fraudulent statement to investors.
100 or so years ago one of the first economic crises of overproduction characterized as such hit Europe.
Instead of selling their farm stock cheap farmers chose to destroy their products. Giving stuff away costs distribution money, destroying them costs less.
This is interesting but not the problem here. The thing here is that there is no oversupply of GPU cards. There is only an oversupply of GPUs in the upper end of the supply chain. The mining crash and the desire not to further drop prices on already purchased units by OEMs mean that these aren't being sold. The retail market is sitting quite happily at the RRP and there's no incentive for them to drop.
Farming equivalence: An oversupply of wheat does not mean that there are mountains of bread laying around being sold for bargain prices.
If by mining gear you mean GPUs that don't thermally cycle and are more than likely to have spent their life undervolted and are thus in excellent condition then yes you'd be right.
Suing your partners to make up for your own ignorant investments
They aren't suing partners to make up for ignorant investments. They are suing partners who made fraudulent comments about the investment to investors. The only ignorance anywhere in this story is in your comment.
To my knowledge, the only country which has done anything like what you're describing is Belgium
That's okay, knowledge can be built on:
Belgium - banned.
Netherlands - actively called out what components of it make it gambling and some of the industry has responded by customising how it works in the NL.
UK - not banned but formally recognised as a form of gambling by the UK gambling commission. On hearing this the Isle of Man banned them.
Australia - regulated under gambling laws but recognised difficulty in enforcement.
China - regulated under gambling laws.
Japan - banned.
South Korea - regulated under gambling laws.
Singapore - banned.
France - Star Wars Battlefront II's loot boxes were deemed not to be gambling, but the decision noted that it does not apply to any other game.
Sweden - Tabled a law to regulate them as a lottery.
In the United States I believe that the legal precedent was set quite some time ago over baseball cards
The United States has not yet looked into loot boxes and the nature of gambling laws mean that individual iteration of loot boxes needs to be individually assessed. The FTC is in the process of doing that now for some games. We covered this on Slashdot.
so visa is 1/200th as energy-consumptive than bitcoin. that's two orders of magnitude plus a factor of two.
By what metric? In total usage yes, but that ignores utility. Bitcoin processes 1/600th of the transactions every day compared to Visa with their current 1/200th energy consumption.
Therefore Visa is actually as 1/120000th as energy-consumptive for achieving the same goal, moving money from point A to B.
It is clear the world will not achieve net zero carbon emissions for energy generation, so reducing consumption should be a great part of the focus. I agree with your sentiment that banning should be considered.
Yet more YouTube "stars" that I've never heard of before this article.
Do you know all the stars around the world on various platforms? I'm sure there's plenty more for you to discover out there. The internet is a big place with lots of people on them. You should start keeping a list.
By the way what's with the use of the quotes? Angry jealousy that someone like "Ricegum" has over 10 million subscribers and makes an average of $16000 per video he uploads?
You're comparing them to things that are being classified as gambling and are being banned the world over.
Saying it's "not gambling, it's like lootboxes" is the equivalent of saying "it's not gambling, it's gambling" in pretty much every country which has had a legal inquiry into the practice.
Cheers for the explanation.
Also, the median income in China is 18,371 Yuan, or roughly $2,674 per year. You're kidding yourself if you believe the Chinese would be buying $1000 iPhones if it weren't for the availability of cheap knockoffs.
The median income in a country of 1bn people many of which are 3rd world is not very interesting. Based on telecom activation figures there are only 100million activated iPhones in China, not all of them current, not all of them top of the line. They are very much toys for the rich.
That said there's a lot to choose from in the iPhone lookalike category, but this all has zero to do with "stealing technology" as much as it is buying the same screen and camera module and throwing it in a case and slapping Android on it:
http://www.oukitel.com/product...
https://www.goophoneshops.com/...
http://www.blackview.hk/blackv...
The only parts Apple makes are the A10 processor
The A10 is made by TSMC. Apple designed it, but they do not make them.