Even if we accept your premise as true, how will the government’s actions solve the problem? The current ban allows for existing models to be sold; however, modifications will remove the exemption. Firmware updates are considered modifications. The government is thus ensuring that backdoors remain on the device. Second, you mention professional equipment but those were not included in the ban. Thus backdoors can remain on that equipment too. Lastly, moving the assembly of the router to the US only means that now a US factory worker is installing the backdoors instead of a foreign one. That factory worker's job to install firmware; they do not know if it has backdoors.

Because Maine does not want new datacenters, network communications like TCP/IP stops working across state lines?

None so far.

Logistics is not the new hotness. The new hotness is YOLO.

But . . . but won't anyone think about their freedom?

1) It's a temporary ban not a permanent one. 2) There have been no major datacenter projects in Maine yet. 3) One of the reasons for the ban is to allow the state to assess infrastructure changes. Some of these datacenters are being built with a "If you build it, they will come" attitude when it comes to infrastructure demands like electricity and water. In decades past when companies built datacenters, they had to plan for these things and some datacenters built their own power and water plants.

If you have looked at Windows laptops recently that's already happened. RAM and SSDs are soldered on many of them.

Apple working with Adobe to make sure their flagship program works is a very different thing than accusing Apple of conspiring with Adobe to rig performance metrics to fool consumers in thinking the M1 was faster than it is.

Many of us do not put full faith in benchmarks as the only facts; however, benchmarks can be used as general guidelines as to whether one machine performs better than another. The conspiracy that somehow Apple and Adobe were colluding to fool consumers seems very paranoid especially when history seems to contradict it. One would think if Apple and Adobe colluded on the M series of chips that Adobe would have ARM specific versions right after Apple launched their ARM processors. They did not which suggests Adobe like every other software developer had to spend some time updating their code.

And how would anyone besides you know your work flow? Benchmarks simulate general work flow. Some reviewers devise their own benchmarks that mimic what they do; however, they concede they cannot anticipate every person's needs. If you find a reviewer/benchmark that uses your work flow, go with it.

There is a difference between what the OP is stating in that Adobe and Apple have conspired to give their customers false impressions of performance on ARM and Adobe optimizing their software on a specific platform for their customers. From what I remember, Adobe did not have ARM versions of their software right away when Apple launched their M series processors. The main reason I remember is Intel launched a PR campaign against Apple silicon where they tried to rig different benchmarks, one of which compared a released Adobe program on x86 vs a beta version of that program on Apple Silicon. Obviously the beta version was not optimized yet and was not faster. However when the program was released, Apple version was clearly faster.

Read the article again: "A sweetheart deal between the companies means TSMC effectively eats the cost of the defects that inevitably crop up in a new manufacturing process."

1) The question is which company eats the defects, but that question specifically deals with new nodes as yields in new nodes start out low. The A18 Pro is not being produced on a new node. 2) For a new node only, if Apple only pays for finished goods, an A18 Pro with 5 or 6 cores is considered a finished good so Apple . 3) All of these points are speculation on the part of outsiders. Neither Apple nor TSMC has divulged their contract terms.

You still have not committed to whether you are complaining that Apple is used binned chips or praising them. You just want to complain about Apple no matter what they do. Instead you resort to name calling. That is who you are.

Bahahahahahahaha. You NEVER asked me for a link. You simply stated you couldn't find one therefore none existed. Let me repeat what I said earlier. WE BOTH KNOW Signal based E2EE is a feature the Google has that is not in Universal Profile 1.0. It does not exist in Universal Profile 4.0. You have yet to address that point. Seeing how you are unable to address any other points, that one point keeps destroying your arguments.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. So because you couldn't find something, it does not exist? That is pure arrogance. You still have yet to answer a basic question of how Apple was supposed to handle the ONE extension we both know Google implemented Signal Protocol based E2EE.

You are under the impression that Apple "buys" chips from TSMC. They do not. They buy wafers like everyone else.

Again you do not seem to understand that Apple, and Nvidia, and AMD and everyone else buys wafers not chips. That is the pricing and contract structure. No one buys chips.

Please state whether you are complaining that Apple is used parts they could not have used or praising them. You seem unwilling to commit to either proposition.

Again you do not know the industry. Everyone measures wafers in contract terms: "With this agreement, AMD now expects to purchase approximately $2.1 billion of WAFERS from GF (Global Foundry) between 2022 and 2025."

The industry does not use chips because that is highly variable. Pricing is based on wafers. Cost is based on wafers. Processing is done on wafers. Yields are based on wafers. Everything is based on wafers.

Please provide evidence that somehow Apple and TSMC uses different pricing and contracts than everyone else. I'll wait.

1) How do you know? Please provide evidence. 2) Apple plans on a certain number of chips BUT TSMC like every other fab manufacture wafers. The contract terms and pricing specify who many wafers will be produced.

Again no. Apple has already purchased those binned chips as Apple purchased the wafer. Binned chips were considered yield wafer losses.

Not if Apple pays by the water like everyone else. They do not pay twice. That is a rather large hole in your assumption.

That statement alone says you have no clue about semiconductor fabrication supply chains. Chips are made in advance. No OEM decides to wait around before creating chips especially when TSMC is fully booked. Before Apple launched the Neo (or any device) they had a large supply.

Well in this case, why is the price of some of these components very high right now? Firing staff at SK Group, Samsung, or Kyoxia would not explain that. There has been no major disruptions like a natural disaster that would explain it. Tariffs would explain 100% increase in price not the 3-4X increase. At the same time, AI companies have been trying to build (at least fund the building) of AI datacenters.

In a way you can't blame the fabs for being greedy. AI is dangling a lot of money for them to make highly profitable custom parts. Consumer NAND is cutthroat with low margins. The main problem is when the bubble hits, how much the fabs are owed in product they can't sell to anyone else. If they were smart, they got a large portion upfront.

There are only a handful of companies that make NAND flash. The main ones are Samsung, SK Group, and Kyoxia. AI companies are 1) buying out all available supply of everything they can. 2) Working deals with these companies to only manufacture their orders. These companies do not have unlimited capacity and building out capacity is years long in the making. So AI gets their products and consumers get whatever is left. The demand for consumer flash has not dropped, just the supply.