It will run MacOS, not iOS.

They aren't really. The name was re-used by a NFT company starting in 2022. That's who we are talking about in this article. The original has been dead since 2010 or 2011 after a number of lawsuits from the RIAA (including one seeking $72 Trillion (yes, with a T).

If I knew that, I'd be a tech billionaire inventing them.

The best part of innovations is that they are NOT obvious, but once they are in the world, you can't do without.

VirtualBox is a type 2 desktop hypervisor, it's not a replacement for a type 1 baremetal hypervisor like VMWare ESXi. Closest thing from VMWare that VirtualBox could replace is VMWare Workstation.

Quite so. It's been how many years since something really new came out of Cupertino? Granted, Apple is more profitable than ever, but the company clearly shows what the result of placing a supply-chain expert as the CEO does.

The really sad part is that there's nobody ELSE, either. Microsoft hasn't invented anything ever, Facebook and Google are busy selling our personal data to advertisers, and who else is there who can risk a billion on an innovation that may or may not work out?

oh yea, they are the ones who bought Evernote and jacked up the price by like 200%. Cancelled my sub when they did that.

That's wrong. I stopped using wrist watches 25 years ago and haven't looked back a single day. I don't want shit on my wrist. Try living without for a year and you'll realize why. It's hard to express in words. It's like having a chain removed.

Headphones, on the other hand, I use occasionally. For phone calls or for music on the train, plane, etc. - and especially for the plane if the noise cancellation comes close to my current over-the-ear Bose I'd take them on the two-day business trips where I travel with hand luggage only and space is a premium.

Do I want a heartbeat sensor? No idea. I don't care. But if there's any use for it than at least for me that's not a replication. I'm pretty sure many, many Apple users don't have a smart watch.

So he claims that social media - the platform where everyone pretends to be more happy, more active, better looking, more interesting, more travelled, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, - feels "fake" ?

Man.

Next he's going to say that artificial sweeteners taste might not be natural.

Seriously, though, social media has been the domain of bots for at least a decade. Even people who actually write their posts themselves use bots to cross-post to all the different platforms and at "optimal" times. Nothing on social media is not fake. Well, maybe your grandmother's photo album because she doesn't know Photoshop exists.

Do you want to bet on the percentage of Fortune 500 companies that use amateur-level procedures for their prod systems?

"Above 50%" seems like a guaranteed win to me.
"Above 75%" is where I start to think "maybe not that high". But I fear I'm giving them too much credit.

It is impossible to do now that half of what we have always considered clear indicators of a scam or phishing attempt are actually being done by actual companies.

But the "m" in npm always stood for "malware", did it not?

The npm ecosystem is deeply flawed. Look at some of the affected repositories. Many of them are just a few lines of code, yet over a hundred other packages depend on them. At least half of them have no reason to even exist. A lot of them have last been updated years ago.

We have an ecosystem where seemingly every individual function has its own package. That is just ridiculous. It is modularization driven to its absurd extreme. It's why you add one package to your project and it pulls in a hundred dependencies.

And the more tiny packages there are, the larger the attack surface and the smaller the amount that can be monitored for malware injection and other problems. I wouldn't at all be surprised if one or more of these packages will never be updated and have the malware in them forever simply because the only dev with the password to the repo has since died or gone to do other things with his life.

That is one risk, however the real danger here is if they create a organism that can photosynthesis. Reverse-chirality bacteria would have a hard time metabolizing anything in their environment, and most likely would not have time to evolve the ability to do so. Photosynthesis doesn't rely on molecular input for energy. If some crackpot created reverse-chirality blue-green algae and it got into the ocean somehow, it would be able to grow almost unchecked. And since nothing consuming it would be able to metabolize it for energy, it would poison the food chain at the very first link. That would cascade pretty fast with devastating results.

Although on the up side it would pretty much solve global warming. They would consume massive amounts of CO2 and push out O2. Bye bye warming, hello ice age.

Big broadcast networks donâ(TM)t use the must carry rule because if they did they wouldnâ(TM)t be able to charge carriage fees. Only religious channels and home shopping networks who would have to pay the cable companies to carry them try to use that rule.

Good to know God approves of my coke habit.

Company adds new feature to old hardware, only requires that you get a new hub that can support the feature if you want to use it, doesn't tie it to a subscription or charge for the upgrade, and a bunch of you on here are complaining about it.

You guys deserve all the enshitification you get.