You cherry-picked your quote. When TFS explicitly says "that's not allowed, presumably because Apple doesn't want iOS to serve as a drone controller", I don't think you can really accuse the GP of cherry-picking to make his point.

So Apple really just doesn't want you to use an iPhone as the onboard GPS controlled brain of an autonomous drone, which is a shame, because it would be perfect for that.

None of this would be an issue if Apple would allow for alternative stores. Even these could be filtered to some point.

Apple can run their store however they want, but having to jailbreak my phone to install a competitor to iTunes seems like anti competitive behavior.

This would explain why there's 500 flashlight/text-scrolling/mirror apps.

Good staff knows how to upsell. That extra appetizer, dessert, beer, etc. Will it be as effective as static ads on UIs?

At a drive through, being able to fire up an app, hit "send" and have the actual order I want would be nice. I tend not to hit fast foot places, but it would be nice to get something that is somewhat close to what I ordered at the pickup window

...when referring to connected/connectable devices as IoT dies.

Restricting to females isn't going nearly far enough. It should be restricted to skinny little oriental anorexic females.

That is, of course, for a given radiation dose, which is independent of body cross section - which is relevant in real-world scenarios. If we assume an isotropic radiation exposure profile, an average male height of 174cm, an average female height of 161 cm, and asssume an equivalent profile, then a man presents a 17% higher profile to radiation.

If you are selling cat toys, it's not that hard to select people that own/are interested in cats.

The difference between Facebook and Amazon, with Facebook, you are the product, not the customer; with Amazon, you are the customer, not the product being sold.

What's underwhelming about it? That it can only print with PLA? The build volume? What do you mean by "more capable"?