Well for most people a gas station is a mile or two away and I don't see anyone complaining.

I can fill up in five minutes at a gas station.

With a charging station, you are going to be there at least 15 minutes, but more like 20-40 minutes to fill substantially.

That's a lot of time you have to burn, that is not in the comfort of your home or likely doing anything useful.

"Tesla doesn't drive in the same conditions as humans. It doesn't even qualify for autonomy level 3 much less a full 5 and requires a human to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention for when the car fucks up or can't handle it."

Your data is faulty and therefore all your thoughts are flawed.

To your point, I must be better than Tesla's Autopilot (and the "average human" you mentioned) as I've never crashed any of my cars in 44+ years of driving several hundred thousand miles

This is obviously, and statistically, correct.

Which makes you a poor judge of how good self driven cars are. Unless you ride with other more average drivers a lot.

Autopilot *is* fewer, but some have been really bad

Almost all the worst ones have found to be caused by humans. Again, vastly better than human drivers where really bad, is REALLY bad.

Chernobyl was cheaper. How did that work out?

It wasn't cheaper. It was just super badly run. You can have the most expensive thing in the world and blow it up with bad management.

Like driving? :-)

Not sure why you put a smiley there as Tesla self-driving is already better than the average human.

More to the point, I'm sure there will *always* be things machines can't actually do cheaper, easier and/or better than humans.

Name one, and I'm sure you'll find someone online to argue the other side.

Machines may not be better at some things than the top 0.01% of people doing them. But better than "People" at just about anything, yes. And cheaper too considering the upkeep a human takes.

See, we as a species were too unruly for the World Government to fully control during the last pandemic. Some countries didn't even require masks!

So by "prepare", they plan to install Running-Man style explosive collars on every human on Earth, so that at last we will all comply.

So what's the disagreement? Well you see, some government groups want the collars to be purple, and others black. Until they can come to an agreement I guess the lot of us will have to remain sadly un-controlled.

1324123.

"Uh oh!"

Yea but anchovies will kill you. Not directly, but in the fight you'll have with the people you have to share that pizza with.

So you think they deserve 15% of anything an app makes for doing the same thing they do for free apps?

Given the reach they enable an app maker - absolutely.

I repeat, what number do YOU think is OK? Because if we agree the number is non-zero, now we are just arguing about what percentage is justified.

If they can offer it to free apps without cost

They can only do that because the paid apps subsidize the whole system, obviously.

Which is why an app maker should be OK paying a bit larger of a percentage to keep the whole ecosystem healthy.

If everyone is allowed to skip Apple's payment system the whole App Store goes away and that benefits no-one.

It is abundantly clear from those numbers that Apple deliberately designed this new scheme to make competition commercially non-viable.

Not allowing Apple to charge infrastructure fees for delivering apps (and updates) to users makes the App Store commercially non-viable.

The fact that Apple is charging a 15 percent fee on all transactions outside of their payment system

Do you think Apple deserves 0% for having all of the hosting facilities to do app updates, along with maintaining the store the app can be obtained from, along with helping find your app in search results?

Apple obviously deserves something, you think 15% is too high but why? Apple gives your application a HUGE reach it would not have otherwise if all that infrastructure were not in place.

It makes no sense that it's OK to totally escape paying Apple anything when the money you made is in part reliant on Apple's systems.

Despite Apple's implementation of the changes in January, only a small number of apps have sought approval for external payment links.

So how is this Apple's problem? Is Apple now supposed to REQUIRE that devs provide an external payment system?

What the Judge seems to fail to understand is that maybe, just maybe, a lot of devs making apps do not WANT to have to set up or manage a payment system. It's great that Apple totally handles payment taking, updating, and disputes without you having to lift a finger. Even to implement something like Stripe is a lot of additional work (including legal work) and it sucks (the work that is, no shade on Stripe which works well).

That is part of the reason was a lot of smaller devs are perfectly happy with Apple taking 15% and them not having to to any work but point Apple at a bank account it which it tosses money.

Seems to me it's enough that Apple is forced to allow external payment options for apps that really want it, and requiring some quota is just as dumb as not allowing it.

I find it really illuminating that even if anyone can add this, many do not... which shows Apple was silly to ever disallow it since most people would have just used Apple's payment system anyway.

I personally have just had a pretty annoying experience with T-Mobile.

They used to support free, low rate, international data roaming in pretty much any country I tried.

But the last time I was abroad, I found to my shock that I had zero access to wireless data, until I bought an international plan from them...

Yeah I know that's the way all other phone carriers works, but it sucks that T-Mobile has fallen to their level now - It's certainly eliminated all loyalty and goodwill I had for them, and will probably be looking around at carrier options this year.

This pricing change may make that happen sooner rather than later.. and I control four lines because I also pay for family phones.

First line of the summary: "The latest RISC-V port..."

The headline writer seemingly thought the word "port" was unnecessary or redundant. That's its own problem.