I've been designing computer hardware for about 40 years. ANY hardware design that allows a program to damage or corrupt memory is just flat wrong.

Forced diversity hiring has resulted in lower standards and competence. Many good controllers with years of experience have quit or retired early because of this.

"The series uses photons — tiny particles that travel at the speed of light [...]" Or waves...

This. I've seen electricity go from $100/mo to $300/mo, fire insurance from $1500/yr to $6000+/yr, gas $3+/gal to $5+/gal, propane $1.50/gal to $3+/gal, etc, etc.

The Supreme Court operates with a rather rigid code of ethics. It's just not the same as yours.

The fact that you can't perceive the difference is a little disturbing.

Really? Really?
I miss the old /.

And does not look anything like Honda built in the 80's.

I have 4 Roku's scattered around the house. Most were bought on-sale and it's hard to imagine that Roku made any significant profit on the sales. We don't have any use for Roku's programming, getting all of our content from Prime, Youtube TV, Netflix and Hulu. Unless Roku gets a kickback from those services for brokering them, I can't see any profit stream from a customer like us.

Photo of the watercraft:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7EKVleWEAcDXQV?format=jpg&name=large

Virtually all California CCW permit requests submitted without "special handling" were rejected because the applicant could not demonstrate a need for the the permit. The Supreme Court decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen found that need was not sufficient reason to deny a permit request. As a result pretty much all California CCW issuing authorities are granting permits to those that otherwise qualify.

The Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, ruled that concealed carry permit applicants no longer have to show a need in order to qualify for a permit. As a result, thousands of Californians have been approved and issued concealed carry permits.

The bribery ultimately accomplished nothing other than getting someone a felony accusation and Apple bad publicity.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Make sure the majority of the programmers can actually understand it and use it.

When evidence produced by their product is introduced in court. Doesn't the accused have the right to question the accuracy and legality of the process?

Having watched my 30-something daughter and her husband convert to iPhones a couple of years ago, I can make these observations:

The promise of something New and Shiny.
The promise of low monthly payments for that Bright and Shiny Thing.
The promise of being able to shoot movies with the Bright and Shiny Thing.
The promise of an integrated audio and video post production with the bytes from the Shiny Thing.