The basis that nearly every engineer Tesla fires goes and works for Apple. Apple isn't getting people who left Tesla, they're getting Tesla's also-rans, the people Tesla decided they didn't want.
I don't have experience with the 1st gen Magsafe, so I can't commebt on that. My rMBP just turnes 1 year old this month, though, and while I'm still on the firt spoer supply (and using the Magsafe to Magsafe 2 adapter to make use of my wife's power supplies in order to limit the overall number of failure-prone devices), the jacket has severely yellowed and recently started to brown around the last 2 inches or so of cable. The L shaped Magsafe seem to fail left and right, with the newer ones seemingly beong the least reliable; the origibal power supplyfrom my wife's now-retired 17in MBP survived longest of all, having been cut and repaired several times before internal shorting in the cable finally killed it at just over 3 years of age. We maintain 4 Mac power supplies between us, the Magsafe 2 at my desk, and an L Magsafe at her desk, in the bedroom, and in the living room. Having had 3 L Magsafe units on hand constantly for the past 4 ears, I've bought a total of 4, in addition to the 3 that came with MacBooks and MacBook Pros we've bought; we have 3 that "work" (one has had cable repairs made and another is in need, both from failing and crumbling jackets near the connector), which means we have had 4 fail. Really, we've had 6 fail, but 2 of those are still... useable. But the PC power supplies exhibit no such issues... and we have many more of those around and abuse them quite a bit.
I do think Apple could do better, as you say, with replaceable cables; however, then they would only be selling a $2 cable at an $8 markup, rather than a $10 unit at a $70 markup, which we know is certainly not the Apple way.
Magsafe chargers are the worst! I seem to need a new one every year, meanwhile I've never once replaced a PC laptop charger due to cord wear, and I use my PC and Mac laptops roughly equally. I keep spares of both around, for convenience; one at my desk, one in the bedroom, and one in the living room (and for travel), which is a really good thing since, as I said, I seem to need to replace at least one Magsafe per year.
This. If I'm not mistaken, assuming 65% conversion efficiency (about the best you can hope for with these kings of systems) at the phone, this thing would have to transmit about 3.5kW to get 10.5W (2.1A @ 5v) into the phone at 1 meter. And that's if the transmitter is 100% efficient. So, about 30A at 120v? Yikes. The average microwave can cook your dinner with 1/3 as much power.
Funny, my wife has snapped two Lightning connectors and I've snapped one, but all of my micro USB connectors outlive the cables they're attached to. Must be a quality control issue with the 50 cent cables you buy?
So they may be competing for engineers, it sure seems as though Tesla is eating Apple's lunch there so I'd put it in the same category as their "competition" in the payment processing market. Unless Tesla's business model is based on hiring second-class engineers who couldn't hack it at any of the big players, I'd say the period stands proudly.
In what market does Apple compete with Tesla, SpaceX, Zip2, PayPal (ApplePay isn't a serious competitor, nobody uses it online and PayPal is rarely seen in brick-and-mortar stores), SolayCity, Hyperloop, or OpenAI?
None. Therefore, Apple can pose no threat to any business model practiced by any of Musk's companies. Period.
And at this point it seems that T-Mobile's criteria are that it is technically feasible for you to participate and that you apply. Can you let them actually do something wrong before you seek to punish them?
No, I know the person I was replying to is no Apple lover. Clearly, you're missing my point; lack of anything (obvious to the causal observer) compelling a company to act in the best interest of their customer does not mean the company won't do so. Case in point: Apple. And, historically, T-Mobile for the past few years; they're surely not the same T-Mobile they were then I swore I'd never do business with them again after my experience with them 13 years ago; if they were, I wouldn't be doing business with them today.
Nope. T-Mobile is not modifying content, they're throttling a specific class of content and relying on your platform to provide a stream that fits into the 1.5Mbps allotment. Every legitimate document and article discussing the offering makes this very clear. That is to say, my sources include T-Mobile itself (though I can't find the link at the moment), the EFF, the report we're actually discussing here (see page 18 and the table on page 19, HTTPS is allowed, but requires further intervention by T-Mobile for participation), and a whole slew of other legitimate internet commentary.
More to the point, the worst thing that can possibly happen to a non-participating provider who uses HTTPS or a protocol that makes it impossible for T-Mobile to determine that the data is a video stream is... nothing. T-Mobile can't determine that the data is a video stream and, so, does not throttle it. Simple as pie. (as an aside, this explains why I'm able to stream 1080p from YouTube with Binge-On enabled, so I'm glad I actually read the full report and learned something new and interesting; you should, perhaps, try it)
If you have a source for your information, identify and link to it; otherwise, kindly stop spreading FUD, your UID is low enough that you should know better.
The reality is that the providers are required to comply with net neutrality laws, except at the request of their customers. A customer is free to ask their ISP to throttle a certain class of data and the ISP is then free to do so; that is all that is happening here.
Actualy, no. The providers themselves get to decide whether they want to participate. If they do, they make sure they meet the technical requirements and apply. If they don't, they don't. If they apply and they meet the technical requirements, they can participate; otherwise they can not (either because they didn't apply or they technically cannot participate); they can always fix what's broken with their service and apply again. It's even free to do so.
There isn't anything compelling Apple to support iPhones for longer than Google's legally binding 2 year major version and 3 year (or 18mo from removal from Google Store, whichever is longer) security update policy, but Apple fans are allowed to pull that out every time it comes up. And we let it stand because Apple has, historically, done just that. Until T-Mobile denies a legitimate application (and we'll surely hear about it if they ever do), we must either allow the "T-Mobile allows anyone to apply" argument or cease to allow the "Apple supports their phones longer" argument, because they're based on the exact same standard.
disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online
Yes, very quickly, in fact. Dial #264# (#BNG#) to check your Binge-On status, #263# (#BOF#) to turn it off, and #266# (#BON#) to turn it on. Yes, really, it's that simple.
The biggest problem was how T-Mobile rolled it out.
I've been with T-Mobile since they rolled out their Simple Choice plans and I've been a bleeding-edge adopter of every add-on and benefit service they've offered since (with the exception of JUMP! since I had just upgraded my phone and wasn't eligible until I was due for another upgrade; I'm using that too, now, as it costs less than the insurance I previously had and includes a few subscriptions I was previously paying for) and I have to say how T-Mobile rolls things out is always their biggest problem. Without fail, it's 3 months of service and/or billing issues with anything new from them, then they sort it out, credit the account, and give me a free month of service (or, as in one case, a free year of unlimited LTE in the form of a $240 bill credit, back when that would have cost $20/mo). And the credits and freebies, above and beyond refunding any billing error, are always given of their own volition, never at my request.
As much as I can complain about their seeming inability to roll out a new service smoothly, I can't complain about their compensation program at all.
The only barrier to entry is filling out a form and making a few phone calls to register your streaming service. They don't even charge a registration fee for fuck's sake. That's some huge barrier right there, eh?
T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base.
Technically incorrect (admittedly the worst kind). T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt in for this and gauges which services to reach out to based on demand of its customer base.
You don't have to wait for T-Mobile to come to you, it's a form and a few phone calls and yes, you can register even your personal video collection as a streaming service (and your music collection for their zero-rated music streaming offering, as well).
And there's nothing wrong with beta. The beta we got from Dice was horrid, but that doesn't mean betas in general are. If they stick to the operational specs, minus the few things we're complaining about, and keep the same look and feel, with the few commonly requested tweaks (e.g. reversions to the pre-Dice design), beta should literally just be a "make sure it works right" proposition that can then be used to test incremental changes out on the general community (who volunteer to use it) before broader release. Provided our new masters listen to us, which it looks like they're set to do, it can work without ending up like Dice beta, which was the result of, seemingly, doing the opposite of what we said we wanted.
Yes, it *should* be, and I wasn't saying it shouldn't. You know what you can do on a huge high-res display? See what something looks like at a lower resolution. Know what you can't do on your typical 1080p or smaller display? See what something looks like at a higher resolution.
I'd like them to keep it usable on a 4" display, as well, but that doesn't mean I should desire it not to be made more comfortably usable on a 4k display. CSS has these things called @media queries that allow differing styles to overlay based on a number of external factors, including screen resolution (DPI), physical size, and pixel size; perhaps you haven't heard of them, they've only had browser support for about 7 years, 5 if you count IE.
Slashdot Mirror
The basis that nearly every engineer Tesla fires goes and works for Apple. Apple isn't getting people who left Tesla, they're getting Tesla's also-rans, the people Tesla decided they didn't want.
I don't have experience with the 1st gen Magsafe, so I can't commebt on that. My rMBP just turnes 1 year old this month, though, and while I'm still on the firt spoer supply (and using the Magsafe to Magsafe 2 adapter to make use of my wife's power supplies in order to limit the overall number of failure-prone devices), the jacket has severely yellowed and recently started to brown around the last 2 inches or so of cable. The L shaped Magsafe seem to fail left and right, with the newer ones seemingly beong the least reliable; the origibal power supplyfrom my wife's now-retired 17in MBP survived longest of all, having been cut and repaired several times before internal shorting in the cable finally killed it at just over 3 years of age. We maintain 4 Mac power supplies between us, the Magsafe 2 at my desk, and an L Magsafe at her desk, in the bedroom, and in the living room. Having had 3 L Magsafe units on hand constantly for the past 4 ears, I've bought a total of 4, in addition to the 3 that came with MacBooks and MacBook Pros we've bought; we have 3 that "work" (one has had cable repairs made and another is in need, both from failing and crumbling jackets near the connector), which means we have had 4 fail. Really, we've had 6 fail, but 2 of those are still... useable. But the PC power supplies exhibit no such issues... and we have many more of those around and abuse them quite a bit.
I do think Apple could do better, as you say, with replaceable cables; however, then they would only be selling a $2 cable at an $8 markup, rather than a $10 unit at a $70 markup, which we know is certainly not the Apple way.
Magsafe chargers are the worst! I seem to need a new one every year, meanwhile I've never once replaced a PC laptop charger due to cord wear, and I use my PC and Mac laptops roughly equally. I keep spares of both around, for convenience; one at my desk, one in the bedroom, and one in the living room (and for travel), which is a really good thing since, as I said, I seem to need to replace at least one Magsafe per year.
This. If I'm not mistaken, assuming 65% conversion efficiency (about the best you can hope for with these kings of systems) at the phone, this thing would have to transmit about 3.5kW to get 10.5W (2.1A @ 5v) into the phone at 1 meter. And that's if the transmitter is 100% efficient. So, about 30A at 120v? Yikes. The average microwave can cook your dinner with 1/3 as much power.
Funny, my wife has snapped two Lightning connectors and I've snapped one, but all of my micro USB connectors outlive the cables they're attached to. Must be a quality control issue with the 50 cent cables you buy?
So they may be competing for engineers, it sure seems as though Tesla is eating Apple's lunch there so I'd put it in the same category as their "competition" in the payment processing market. Unless Tesla's business model is based on hiring second-class engineers who couldn't hack it at any of the big players, I'd say the period stands proudly.
In what market does Apple compete with Tesla, SpaceX, Zip2, PayPal (ApplePay isn't a serious competitor, nobody uses it online and PayPal is rarely seen in brick-and-mortar stores), SolayCity, Hyperloop, or OpenAI?
None. Therefore, Apple can pose no threat to any business model practiced by any of Musk's companies. Period.
After a few weeks without a shower he does get quite shiny. I kid, of course; I idolize the man's technical genius.
And at this point it seems that T-Mobile's criteria are that it is technically feasible for you to participate and that you apply. Can you let them actually do something wrong before you seek to punish them?
No, I know the person I was replying to is no Apple lover. Clearly, you're missing my point; lack of anything (obvious to the causal observer) compelling a company to act in the best interest of their customer does not mean the company won't do so. Case in point: Apple. And, historically, T-Mobile for the past few years; they're surely not the same T-Mobile they were then I swore I'd never do business with them again after my experience with them 13 years ago; if they were, I wouldn't be doing business with them today.
Nope. T-Mobile is not modifying content, they're throttling a specific class of content and relying on your platform to provide a stream that fits into the 1.5Mbps allotment. Every legitimate document and article discussing the offering makes this very clear. That is to say, my sources include T-Mobile itself (though I can't find the link at the moment), the EFF, the report we're actually discussing here (see page 18 and the table on page 19, HTTPS is allowed, but requires further intervention by T-Mobile for participation), and a whole slew of other legitimate internet commentary.
More to the point, the worst thing that can possibly happen to a non-participating provider who uses HTTPS or a protocol that makes it impossible for T-Mobile to determine that the data is a video stream is... nothing. T-Mobile can't determine that the data is a video stream and, so, does not throttle it. Simple as pie. (as an aside, this explains why I'm able to stream 1080p from YouTube with Binge-On enabled, so I'm glad I actually read the full report and learned something new and interesting; you should, perhaps, try it)
If you have a source for your information, identify and link to it; otherwise, kindly stop spreading FUD, your UID is low enough that you should know better.
Yes, and the internet is a lot more than the web; pushing-robot's point stands.
The reality is that the providers are required to comply with net neutrality laws, except at the request of their customers. A customer is free to ask their ISP to throttle a certain class of data and the ISP is then free to do so; that is all that is happening here.
Actualy, no. The providers themselves get to decide whether they want to participate. If they do, they make sure they meet the technical requirements and apply. If they don't, they don't. If they apply and they meet the technical requirements, they can participate; otherwise they can not (either because they didn't apply or they technically cannot participate); they can always fix what's broken with their service and apply again. It's even free to do so.
There isn't anything compelling Apple to support iPhones for longer than Google's legally binding 2 year major version and 3 year (or 18mo from removal from Google Store, whichever is longer) security update policy, but Apple fans are allowed to pull that out every time it comes up. And we let it stand because Apple has, historically, done just that. Until T-Mobile denies a legitimate application (and we'll surely hear about it if they ever do), we must either allow the "T-Mobile allows anyone to apply" argument or cease to allow the "Apple supports their phones longer" argument, because they're based on the exact same standard.
disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online
Yes, very quickly, in fact. Dial #264# (#BNG#) to check your Binge-On status, #263# (#BOF#) to turn it off, and #266# (#BON#) to turn it on. Yes, really, it's that simple.
The biggest problem was how T-Mobile rolled it out.
I've been with T-Mobile since they rolled out their Simple Choice plans and I've been a bleeding-edge adopter of every add-on and benefit service they've offered since (with the exception of JUMP! since I had just upgraded my phone and wasn't eligible until I was due for another upgrade; I'm using that too, now, as it costs less than the insurance I previously had and includes a few subscriptions I was previously paying for) and I have to say how T-Mobile rolls things out is always their biggest problem. Without fail, it's 3 months of service and/or billing issues with anything new from them, then they sort it out, credit the account, and give me a free month of service (or, as in one case, a free year of unlimited LTE in the form of a $240 bill credit, back when that would have cost $20/mo). And the credits and freebies, above and beyond refunding any billing error, are always given of their own volition, never at my request.
As much as I can complain about their seeming inability to roll out a new service smoothly, I can't complain about their compensation program at all.
The only barrier to entry is filling out a form and making a few phone calls to register your streaming service. They don't even charge a registration fee for fuck's sake. That's some huge barrier right there, eh?
T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base.
Technically incorrect (admittedly the worst kind). T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt in for this and gauges which services to reach out to based on demand of its customer base.
You don't have to wait for T-Mobile to come to you, it's a form and a few phone calls and yes, you can register even your personal video collection as a streaming service (and your music collection for their zero-rated music streaming offering, as well).
T-Mobile doesn't charge per gigabyte for metered data, they give you unlimited 2g speeds and an LTE allotment, or unlimited LTE.
And there's nothing wrong with beta. The beta we got from Dice was horrid, but that doesn't mean betas in general are. If they stick to the operational specs, minus the few things we're complaining about, and keep the same look and feel, with the few commonly requested tweaks (e.g. reversions to the pre-Dice design), beta should literally just be a "make sure it works right" proposition that can then be used to test incremental changes out on the general community (who volunteer to use it) before broader release. Provided our new masters listen to us, which it looks like they're set to do, it can work without ending up like Dice beta, which was the result of, seemingly, doing the opposite of what we said we wanted.
Yes, it *should* be, and I wasn't saying it shouldn't. You know what you can do on a huge high-res display? See what something looks like at a lower resolution. Know what you can't do on your typical 1080p or smaller display? See what something looks like at a higher resolution.
I'd like them to keep it usable on a 4" display, as well, but that doesn't mean I should desire it not to be made more comfortably usable on a 4k display. CSS has these things called @media queries that allow differing styles to overlay based on a number of external factors, including screen resolution (DPI), physical size, and pixel size; perhaps you haven't heard of them, they've only had browser support for about 7 years, 5 if you count IE.
Natalie Portman is now known as bacon and eggs? Hmm... Interesting.
HNNG! Great, now I need a towel.
f you don't like justice and/or progress
ah...
we-must-force-girls-to-like-coding
...that doesn't sound very just or progressive to me.