You can't realistically do iOS development without knowing Objective-C; its just no feasible since all Apples frameworks are written in it, all the open source libraries use it, and all of the stackflow answers are for it.

This isn't the case. It doesn't matter whether a framework is written in Objective-C or Swift, you can use it from either language regardless. You can write an application from start to finish in Swift without needing to know anything about Objective-C. Sure, if you do know it, then it may be easier, but not so much easier that it will outweigh trying to learn two languages at once.

you should get some formal computer science instruction if you ever expect to land a job. You have to have something on your rÃf©sumÃf©.

No, when people hire iOS developers, the first question they ask is if you have any applications in the App Store, then they want to know where you've worked, then they want to see your code, and if you haven't got anything else, then a degree is the last resort you have. Spending your time building applications and putting them on the App Store is far more effective for getting a job than spending that time getting formal education in computer science. Even when you come across the rare organisation that demands a degree, they usually don't care about what subject it was in.

As far as I can tell, Swift is just a new front-end to the Objective-C object system.

No, that's not true. Swift interoperates with Objective-C, but it's not any kind of front-end to it, it works perfectly fine by itself.

most of the libraries and frameworks you will be working with are Objective-C

Most of the libraries and frameworks you will be working with are system components where you don't see the source code. Whether they are implemented in Objective-C or Swift is an implementation detail you don't need to care about.

That doesn't sound like this situation at all.

Apple loaned GT more than half a billion dollars to build the plant. When GT failed to deliver, Apple stopped giving them money. When GT ran into financial difficulties, Apple offered to give them more money and defer repayments to keep them afloat.

What did you expect Apple to do? Just keep on giving them more money indefinitely without getting anything in return?

They have to be smart enough to jailbreak, point to an alternative app store, and install a corrupted app.

No, this is unnecessary. The malicious applications are signed as an enterprise application, so no jailbreaking is necessary. They are distributed using Apple's standard OTA distribution mechanism designed for enterprise applications and beta testing, so no alternative App Store is necessary.

What happens is that the user goes to a malicious/compromised website, this redirects them to the application, and iOS prompts the user with something like:

malicious-website.com would like to install "Gmail"

Cancel | Install

If I remember correctly, there's an additional prompt if it's the first time you've installed an application from that particular developer.

You still have to be dumb to install an application when you are unexpectedly prompted to, but it's a lot simpler to do than you realise.

No, of course not, because that's not what "I" means.

I had to interview over 5k of them just to come up with 150 that were anywhere near hiring

You interviewed five thousand people? Are you sure you have that number right? Assuming you interviewed five people a day every single working day, it would take you four years to interview that many people. That's assuming no time off, no sickness, a steady supply of candidates, etc. I know a fair number of people in HR across a few organisations, and they don't manage to interview anywhere near that many people on a regular basis.

You're comparing two numbers from different sources. The "more than 30" source is "news reports suggest". The "less than 3%" source is Virgin Galactic. It's not that Virgin Galactic can't add up, it's that they have more accurate numbers than suggestions from news reports.

So if someone is out of date with the terminology I can't explain it to them because that makes me a patronizing asshole? OK, noted.

I said nothing of the sort. By all means, explain it. That's a good thing. Just don't liken them to technological halfwits while you are doing it. That's unwarranted.

I've got no problem with encouraging the correct terminology, it's the fact that it implies somebody who is a bit out of date with the project's branding is a technological halfwit who doesn't understand the difference between an organisation and a software package. It's KDE themselves that mixed the two up.

It hardly seems right to liken people referring to the desktop as "KDE" as if they were people saying that they "boot their Microsoft". KDE stands for the K Desktop Environment, and it has referred to the software itself for the majority of it's existence.

There are some bits which are missing from Plasma 5 which are planned to be filled in over the next six months.

You mean like what happened with KDE 4? Because that really turned out well.

But with Apple Watch's requirement that the user constantly monitor its energy

Just because you're likely to have to charge it overnight, it doesn't mean that the user has to "constantly monitor its energy". This is a ridiculously biased perspective.

You still have to have the phone on you.

Yeah, but just because you have your phone on you, it doesn't mean it's as convenient to use as a watch. When I go running, I've usually got my phone strapped to my upper arm. It's difficult to see the screen or take an action compared with if I could just glance at my wrist. The watch also has a heart rate monitor.

I wonder if there's a longer term strategy to start migrating devices like the MacBook Air over to their A-series CPUs, instead of Intel.

They have undoubtedly got internal prototypes of a MacBook Air running OS X on their own processors. And their development toolchain and libraries are merging iOS and OS X more and more every year. This year, there were a couple of WWDC talks specifically about sharing code between the two platforms.

I think it's fairly obvious that the technology stack is ready both on the software and hardware side. It's just switching architectures isn't just about whether you can, it's about when the best time is to maximise chances of success. When they moved to Intel, they could supply an emulation layer to run older applications. That won't work as well this time around because it will be a lot slower. So they will need to push developers hard to port their software, and their best tool for doing that - the Mac App Store - isn't a huge success.

One thing they've been doing in their latest hardware designs is supplying two chips that are used in different circumstances. Surfing the web? Use the low power GPU. Playing a game? Switch to the high power GPU. Need to detect orientation? Use the low power accelerometer. Need accurate movement information? Use the high power accelerometer.

They could conceivably do this with their laptops. Ship an Intel co-processor for running things like Photoshop that haven't been ported, and switch it off when you're only running ARM64-only applications for better battery life. It would raise manufacturing costs, but it would ease the transition and Apple might be willing to take the hit on it for that reason. And they just added a feature to point out applications that hog battery to the end user last year. They are making this visible for a reason.

Aside from their computer lineup, the other piece of the puzzle is Apple TV. They've already got the makings of a very successful games console. They have a set-top box running iOS, CPUs and GPUs that can handle good quality games, dedicated controllers, a large games library, and an online distribution channel. Their current hardware is underpowered, but drop an iPad Air 2's internals into an Apple TV box and they'd have a very successful console.

My phrase "near absolute" in context to the rest of my writings could be interpreted in many different ways.

No, there's only one meaning: not quite, but almost, absolute. Now it's debatable exactly how near you have to be to qualify as "near absolute", but TubeSteak did a good job of pointing out that SCOTUS has several large failings in this area, which is enough to demonstrate that it is not near absolute.

The fact that you are still stuck on debating the semantics of my original post demonstrates you have nothing of actual value to contribute to the conversation.

You said something untrue and dumb. You are repeatedly insulting and dismissing people who point that out. The people who are pointing out your mistake are signal, you are noise. Learn to ignore your ego and admit when you are wrong and maybe you won't drag discussions into the sewer so much.