It's absurd. While I have never (and am not planning to) used Instagram, I find the whole concept redundant, especially because if you must absolutely share your pictures, any decent smartphone OS will do that automatically, or at least with minimal fuss.
Ok, so you admit you've never used it, don't understand it, and declared it redundant based purely off of your perceptions. You then go on to unintentionally prove how clueless you are about its' function. Well played.
Let me help you out here: For me, Instagram is about sharing and viewing snapshots in my life and my friends' lives. It cuts out all the "sponsored tweet/story/ad" bullshit if FB and Twitter, leaving you with (mostly) all content and no filler. That's why my friends and I use it. This is a situation much like when you see an ad for a product you think is stupid or doesn't make sense - it probably isn't intended for you.
Question. How were you disconnecting it? Did you just grab the cord and yoink, or did you grab the nice, solid plug and yoink/rock it off?
You know, I'm actually all for the "you're doing it wrong" argument, in the case that he was trying to unplug it by kicking the plug out of the wall socket...
In this case, however, I'm wondering if Apple looked at how their innovation may have materially changed the way people use the item. People who have the magsafe adapter may feel more inclined to yank than those who have regular power cords. My gf, for instance, has a Macbook and I've seen her do it more than a few times (not me, I stay away from those icky things - Macbooks, not girlfriends).
Anecdotal evidence aside, and since IANAE(ngineer), serious question: Wouldn't unintended uses and knock-on effects due to design innovations be something you would study and build around?
I have never understood the US publics horror at body scanners. So they show your junk. Who gives a shit?
I give a shit, thank you very much. For me, it's not about "showing my junk", it's about a needless intrusion into my privacy that wouldn't have detected ANY of the previous attacks.
If they shorten lines at the airport
Haven't seen anything showing that they do this, and my understanding is, that isn't the point of their use.
and avoid some of the pointless 'pat downs' then I'm all for efficiency. The scanned images are not all that personally identifiable in a real sense, and as far as I know they haven't been proven to be less effective than existing pat downs, those fake 'sniffers', etc.
Then I'm for NOT spending hundreds of millions of dollars if these machines are no less effective than pat-downs (as you claim, though the obligatory *citation needed* probably applies).
The scanned images are not all that personally identifiable in a real sense
See above, that's not the point.
I don't think anyone ever believed these are the end-all-be-all of airport security and I don't recall anyone saying they would prevent someone from tossing contraband over an airport fence. A basic premise of life..never put all of your eggs in one basket, applies here. Security checks at airports are a necessary evil, and they won't be going away. Complaining that these won't stop someone from tossing something over a fence doesn't address what they do detect, or that they do have valid uses for common contraband at security checkpoints.
Correct, but the if they don't detect what they were designed to detect, then they aren't valid for their intended purpose either. Unless you understand that their intended purpose was to create the illusion of additional safety ("security theater"). Even on that point, they aren't quite working as intended.
Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.