I have an OWC TBolt hub, and I've never had a crash on my M1 Max Macbook Pro. Seems to be a problem with your hub. Now I would agree that a hub should not crash the laptop, even if it's driving video from the laptop.

And I've never had a crash from iMessage. So my mileage definitely varies...

I'm going by the blurb here, since I can't read the paywalled article. If this is an industry-wide problem, why is it (only) Amazon's job to fix? What role should the merchants who use Amazon as the marketing and delivery platform have here? What about other companies that sell on-line, independent of Amazon? Do they have the same problems?

Now I'm sure Amazon has responsibilities to merchants where they act as the delivery agent (in both directions). Of course, when something costs the merchants (including Amazon itself), those costs get passed onto consumers. But that's "cost of doing business," but if some small number of customers are disproportionately responsible for (fraudulent) returns, maybe that's where the actions should focus. I dunno, but the summary of the article raises many more questions than it answers.

(And after listening to Yet Another "investigative reporting" piece that blames an industry in Corporate America for a whole bunch of problems, some of which are definitely caused by industry practices, while others are ramifications of the business or of -public- policy, I'm getting pretty sick of the trope "corporate America is to blame, no matter what the problem." This piece was about probably bad practices in food processing, but are we ready to shut down "Big Agriculture" and pretend we have an alternative way to feed millions, if not billions of people?)

Apple iPhones and iPads have a relatively strong market for used devices, either through trade-ins with Apple, or through sales to 3rd parties.

Even the old Apple networking hardware can fetch a pretty good price in used-good condition. (I checked the price for a used Airport Express a couple months ago.)

Well, darn. My moderator points ran out. Someone mod parent up. '

That being said, moving founders out (with their proceeds from going public) is often the best thing for a newly public company. People good at startups are not necessarily good at operating (public) companies over the long run. I observed that in the small company I was in. The problem was that the venture capital people who had the plan to cash out (either going public or through a sale) were assholes, and a majority of the employee shareholders along with the founder said "we're better off with the existing management."

What bothers me a bit about this story is the idea "she didn't want her image to be used any more." So let's think through this idea a bit to other things. Should technical paper authors have the 'moral authority' to revoke their copyright assignments? Would this then require papers that cite the 'withdrawn' paper to then be withdrawn? We know there are many instances where authors have withdrawn papers (particularly including "This paper was flat out wrong."), but what should be the downstream impact of this? And what are the 'rights' of the co-authors?

I'm inclined to think this is a slippery slope.

Oh, and here's a picture I took (at Machu Picchu) for Rosco P. Coltrane http://davebert.photos/Peru09/... Raise your hand if you're offended by this image.

I sure hope not! They'd immediately lose me as a customer.

I'm curious: What acquisitions has Apple done that you would subject to this review, in a way that would prevent Apple from arriving at the situation it's at now? Seems to me most of what Apple has done has been through in-house R&D and small-scale acquisitions that wouldn't rise to the level of "If you buy this company, it will totally warp the market." (And the linkage of R&D expenditures to stock buy-backs in the DoJ lawsuit makes no sense; one could argue Apple has been incredibly efficient at its in-house R&D to produce its products. Contrast Apple's Apple Vision Pro R&D investment with Meta's R&D in the same general product line.)

Those EU actions are also subject to judicial review. See the failure of the EU actions on taxeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_EU_tax_dispute The Fat Lady has not stopped singing on this, but the EU adminstrative decisions have not done well in court.

IANAL, but a lot of the arguments in the DoJ lawsuit seem really weak. See https://appleinsider.com/artic... Clearly this case will test legal definitions and interpretations on antitrust and related law. Apple will not only hire the best talent to defend itself, but it will also seek to set precedents on the interpretation of antitrust law as matters of law. Thus I suspect the DoJ "bowl of spaghetti" will end up setting a lot of precedents in ways that a stronger, more focused action would not.

In both this case and the Apple antitrust case, it seems that the overwhelming popularity of a product gets turned into a call for government control when some decide they don't like the terms under which the product is provided. The idea that a product which gains a significant market share because of its value/utility should suddenly submit to a different set of rules to meet demands by its customers, or by those who sell on that platform to the platform's customers, sure strikes me as conceptually and legally strange.

But that's not what they did. And if you're developing software for virtualized server containers, 'physical inspection' would be a bit hard to argue.

I think you could argue it's capricious. If the job can be done on-site or remotely, but only on-site would be eligible for promotion, that could be argued as "unfair evaluation criteria" not related to actual job performance.

One possible argument would be 'unfairly changing promotion criteria to include irrelevant behaviors'. The plaintiff would have to prove to the jury that 'forced commuting to the office' is 'irrelevant', and that this change/new policy is "arbitrary and capricious".

I wonder if this could be challenged in state courts, particularly by an employee living in a state with strong labor protection laws.

I've argued for the last 10-15 years that ACM and IEEE should lead the way and go to open access models for their publications. They need to ween themselves from the addiction of publications as a revenue source. (Disclosure: I was an ACM SIG Officer for several years in the '80s and '90s, so I have an understanding of at least one SIG's finances.) Certainly there are costs that need to be accounted for, but I thought those could be managed through membership fees, sponsorship, possibly 'publication charges' for authors and their institutions, and efforts at cost avoidance through the publication program.