Clearly it's the latter.

I'm in the UK. Busy take-away food places also ask for names when they are busy, and you will have to wait for the food. And I'm not talking about ones that are US franchises.

But sure the culture probably did start in the US, as did the whole fast food and large-cup-coffee shops thing.

European style is to sit at a table and be served by a waiter.

What lie are you referring to?

This has been studied, and the studies have been posted previously on Slashdot. People talking on phones are annoying. More annoying than people having conversations. Both because people on phones tend to raise their voices in the belief that they need to to be heard on the other end of the phone. And because half a loud conversation draws attention - the brain scambles to work out what's being said, because the brain is a pattern machine machine and it's being presented with a missing element. The voice COULD be trying to raise the alarm.

Ignoring isn't an entirely controllable thing. Would that it were. One person may be ignoring something, whilst another is driven to distraction. This isn't because the one being annoyed chose to be annoyed.

You obviously haven't been to many coffee shops. Starbucks usually use names for customers as do plenty of other coffee shops.

So he's one of the 6 people who have bent iPhones. Amazing.

How's the unemployment going?

Before this CR report the HTX One had been held up as a example of the robustness that the iPhone 6 Plus didn't have.

Also, previously, Apple not having a "phablet" sized phone was held up as a weakness. Now it has one, it's being criticised for being too big.

Apple derangement syndrome.

Funnily enough in the comments in the previous story of the iPhone 6 being bendy, the HTC One was held up as an example of a sturdy Android phone that the iPhone was worse than.

Was there a slashdot hissy fit about the HTC One being bendy when it came out? No. Of course not. Apple derangement syndrome isn't set off by HTC product releases.

That's your opinion and belief of some myths. Unfortunately it doesn't account for the success of Apple - the most successful technology company in the world. And it's that successful because most Apple products are far more desirable than anyone else's.

What have you done that makes you think you know better?

It's funny you should mention the HTC One. Consumer reports did proper scientific stress testing of a number of phones inluding both iPhone 6s and the HTC One. ANd both the iPhones outperformed the HTC One.

Would you have the decency to admit you were taken in by a myth, or are you going to go quiet now?

"All the phones we tested showed themselves to be pretty tough. The iPhone 6 Plus, the more robust of the new iPhones in our testing, started to deform when we reached 90 pounds of force, and came apart with 110 pounds of force. With those numbers, it slightly outperformed the HTC One (which is largely regarded as a sturdy, solid phone), as well as the smaller iPhone 6, yet underperformed some other smart phones."
http://www.consumerreports.org...

What a stupid thing to say.

First of all because you are repeating things you heard whilst Swift was in beta. It got a lot faster. Comments were made based on non-optimised compilations.

Secondly, for most purposes being correct is far more important than being faster. We've had decades of experience of the bugs and security vulnerabilities that Cs unchecked nature gives.

Thirdly if you don't want the checks you just switch them off in the compiler options. The norm of course being to have more checks in debug builds than release builds.

And Fourthly, having a way to express more invariants to a compiler, such as whether or not a pointer can be nil, results in FASTER code because better optimisations can be done. e.g. For correct C code you very often need to write manual checks on whether a supplied pointer is nil. In Swift this is not normally necessary for the programmer nor the compiler to do.

If you have a link to some benchmarks of the released version of Swift vs C, with appropriate optimisations, then we can see if there's any truth in it for v1.0 of Swift. And even then we don't know how much faster Swift will get in future releases. It certainly isn't impossible for it to be faster than C. Your assumption is wrong.

That's much less true with XCode 6. On the one hand it's now very easy to incorporate your own custom controls in IB, such that you can actually see what you're going to get. And on the other hand dealing with constraints and size classes in code rather than IB is no fun at all.

Yes,that's definitely one to avoid. Perhaps better to stick with xibs rather than storyboards when an app is being worked on by a team. Shouldn't be too difficult to arrange to only have a single coder working on a particular view at a time. (In closed source environments.)

You know not what you speak of.

Interface Builder doesn't generate any Obj-C code. Interface builder creates XML .XIB files which are compiled into object stores with a .NIB extension. Those objects are Obj-C runtime objects. But there is no boilerplate code that creates them. The application simply asks for a nib file and all the objects within it are created.

As such Obj-C exposes LESS of the "plumbing of the GUI" than the languages you mention whose visual designers DO generate boilerplate code.

"Look, all you need to do is get an Android phone from HTC for it's curved back. Then get an Android phone from Sony because their cameras are so good. Then get a Galaxy Note from Samsung for the largest screen. Then get a Nexus from Google to get a decent software experience. Finally, get a phone from Hauwei because theyâ(TM)re cheap. Then mash them all together and youâ(TM)ve got one phone thatâ(TM)s better than the iPhone!

"Thatâ(TM)ll work, right? Well, unless you mash them all together and get the worst of each one. Just mash carefully."