Even if they provide security patches for only three years, you'd still get 18 years out of it and its successors for the price of one iPad. Having to throw it away to install a new major version of Android really isn't a big deal when you're talking about hardware at disposable prices. Also, the likelihood of it actually mattering when I'm using it exclusively as a sheet music reader is basically zero. :-)

And four hours is nowhere near enough. That's less than the average power outage duration in California, for example (4 hours, 16 minutes). And the fact that this was in response to a blackout that lasted days makes me really wonder what they are thinking, unless the assumption is that they will then scramble to bring generators online to provide continuous service. Four hours might work for landline service, where you have one central office per city, but with cell towers spread out everywhere, that doesn't seem nearly as practical.

In an actual emergency, having only four hours of backup could be grim. Mind you, other countries generally aren't any better, but four hours is still woefully inadequate, IMO.

Sheet music != audio. Sheet music readers are PDF readers plus support for Bluetooth foot pedals to turn pages. The most popular app by far is MobileSheets, and it is available on iOS, Android, and Windows.

Yeah, there are subscription services for iPad that have some additional features that could be useful in some environments (e.g. slightly easier distribution of marked-up copies or using your camera to turn pages with facial gestures), but IMO not useful enough to be worth paying a subscription for it, even with my conductor hat on, much less with my individual musician hat on.

The apps on Android are more than good enough, and the literally dozens of people I know who use them are ample proof of that. Meanwhile, the only people I know who use iPads as sheet music readers own them primarily for other reasons, like drawing.

Apple just has zero "basic tablet"-class devices. The Air is pretty and all, but when you're carrying one of these things around every day in high-risk environments, the last thing you want to do is drop an $800 tablet. And that's for the Wi-Fi-only version.

Meanwhile, you can buy a basic 13-inch Android tablet complete with cellular for $160. And if you drop it, you can replace it with another one. And another one. And another one. And then a fifth one. And at that point, you've reached the cost of one iPad Air 13".

And if you leave it somewhere, you can easily locate it, because it has a cellular connection, unlike the $800 iPad Air. You need the $950 version for that. And now you can buy six for the same price instead of five.

It's not just that Apple tablets are a bit too expensive. It's that they're so extraordinarily overpriced that I can't see why anyone in their right minds would buy one unless they have some very specialized use case that can't be done on Android.

Don't get me wrong, the M4 is an amazing chip. Its performance cores' per-core speed is about 4x as fast as the cheap Unisoc chip in that Android tablet, and it has three of them instead of two. So from a pure spec perspective, the iPad wins hands down. But the problem is, most of what people do with these devices is play movies (with hardware codecs, not software). And even for the niche use cases, very few of them require much CPU. The performance per dollar is about equal, but convincing people that a slightly snappier UI is worth spending 6x the price is really, really hard, because for most people, it really isn't.

If I were buying a laptop, I'd buy Apple hands down. I do real workloads on that. It needs to be fast. But for tablets? The speed was basically good enough on my first-generation iPad Mini fourteen years ago. Everything since then has just been performance for the sake of performance, and almost nobody cares. Being faster only matters if you're one of the 3% of users who actually need a faster tablet (and there's an iPad Pro for that anyway).

And thin doesn't matter, either; exactly zero people have a single f**k to give about that outside of Infinite Loop and the donut building. (I am, of course, referring to the one two blocks from Infinite Loop that Apple engineers eat at during late-night hacking sessions because they're open 24 hours, not Apple's new campus; I doubt those folks care about thin, either.)

And all discussions about build quality, reliability, etc. go out the window when price differences approach an entire order of magnitude.

So Apple badly needs a genuine low-end tablet. In my opinion as a stockholder, they've needed one for a really long time. Great phones, great laptops, heinously overpriced tablets. Just my $0.10 (two cents adjusted for the price of Apple's RAM).

Lots of companies, actually. Nearly everybody I know buys them for sheet music. Early adopters still have iPads, but the Android tablets have gotten good enough to do the job and cost less than a fifth as much as the 13-inch iPad Air. So there are two types of people — the ones who want a nice tablet, who spend the extra for an iPad Pro, and the ones who don't care, who buy something that costs $160 on Amazon, knowing that even if they break several of them, they still come out ahead.

I'm part of the solution. I was about to buy an iPad Pro 13-inch, and bought a $160 Android tablet instead. Saved myself $1040. That was right before the price hikes.

They raised prices because they can. The shortage gave them cover.

If Chinese manufacturers can sell an iPad-size Android device with more RAM than an iPad for just $160 retail, this is not about the cost of RAM. Subtract Amazon's 35%, and the total cost of a machine with 40 GB of RAM is no more than $104, and RAM is maybe 5 to 10 percent of that cost, so the wholesale cost of 32 GB of RAM for an iPad is probably no more than $10. And they're cranking up the price by $150. RAM prices did not go up by 1500%.

It is clear to even a casual observer that Apple is just taking advantage of the massively inflated consumer price for the small amount of RAM that isn't being bought up by computer and device manufacturers, and is assuming that users won't be shocked to see their computer prices go up comparably. But those of us who have a clue recognize that the reason for retail price increases is that companies like Apple have multi-year contracts for nearly all the RAM, and the folks selling parts at retail are getting what's left over. I can pretty much guarantee Apple's prices aren't fluctuating nearly as much.

So of that $150, probably about $145 will show up as increased profits.

Guess I'll hold on to my M1 MacBook Pro and my iPhone 15 Pro for a few years longer. I was thinking about upgrading. Now I'm not. And I bought an Android tablet instead of an iPad two weeks ago because the prices were already way too high for what you get. Apple is pricing themselves out of the market, even for folks like me who have used Apple hardware exclusively since the mid-1990s and have high disposable income.

Selling fewer and fewer products at higher and higher prices is exactly why Apple nearly went bankrupt in the 1990s. This is not a winning strategy. They've tried this before.

That is largely true.

But in the case of games, I'm not on your property. And we already discussed servers - I might not even be on your servers.

It might help to clearly separate these two cases: Pure online games with servers hosted exclusively by the game publisher, and the 90% of other games (single player or multiplayer with player-operated servers).

And there we have it, the usual ad hominem of people who have run out of actual arguments. Signaling the end of the discussion, because why the fuck should I bother talking to someone who says such shit?

Goodbye.

Epigenetically, yes, actually. The extent to which this affects immunity is unclear, however.

In the context of a thread about the common cold having been eradicated for hundreds of years, that's "not being exposed at all". My assumption is that such a thing would happen through vaccination that eventually results in the case count reaching zero, and after a period of time, the vaccination being phased out, at which point the virus in question would no longer be circulating. If that's not what was meant by the original premise, then that's an entirely different question.

And if that number is zero...

Lifetime reduction in severity for the first kind of flu you are exposed to as a kid. Yes, I'm aware of how this stuff works. And yes, I know about Yamagata. And in a couple of hundred years, if Yamagata suddenly got reintroduced, it would be bad, because nobody would have been exposed to it. That was my point.

That likely depends on whether you should reasonably have noticed them in time.

Either way, though, your comment misses the point. If I understand correctly, the taller hoods were correlated with a higher rate of pedestrian injury temporally based on the number of vehicle sales in a given year, rather than directly, based on the type of vehicle causing each reported injury or death.

Assuming that is correct, then it is worth noting that something else also started happening in 2009: smartphone sales skyrocketed. The iPhone got people's attention in 2007, but smartphones didn't start becoming really popular until the price drop in late 2008, combined with the subsequent release of Android devices in late 2008. The LTE rollout in about 2010 to 2012 also pushed prices down, which accelerated the momentum. So unless that correlation was adjusted for, it seems entirely possible that the correlation is spurious, and that distracted pedestrians are the primary culprit, rather than hoods, in which case we could spend huge amounts of time and money making hoods shorter again, and it could make zero difference.

No, but I do keep my luggage in my shoe.

Language is fun.

Actually, the GP may have worded it in an appallingly insensitive way, but the answer is correct. There is no safe way for cars and pedestrians to be in the road at the same time. The way you fix pedestrian safety is by:

• Requiring all traffic light pedestrian cycles to give pedestrians complete control over the entire intersection (all directions), with no turns, for a period of time (a.k.a. pedestrian scramble intersections).
• Regularly ticketing pedestrians who cross when it isn't their turn.

That's it. If you do this, every single pedestrian death that doesn't involve the car physically leaving the roadway and driving on a sidewalk becomes the pedestrian's fault, because pedestrians can never be in the road when cars are moving, and vice versa.

It is also more efficient for traffic overall on every street that doesn't have a dedicated right turn lane (or left in the U.K.). Instead of pedestrians forcing cars to wait to turn right, which forces the straight traffic to wait behind those cars, reducing the number of cars that get out from dozens to as few as one or two, the cars get their entire traffic cycle to themselves. And because pedestrians are crossing in every direction at once:

• It likely adds up to only a bit more time than the turn blocking chaos for the cycle in one direction, and far less than their impact on both directions combined.
• It means that the car cycles can be shorter, rather than having to extend them to allow pedestrians to cross, which means the overall total cycle time doesn't increase much, if any.
• If pedestrians have to cross both ways, their travel time is reduced (and it is better for cyclists, too, assuming you allow them to carefully use the intersection during this time), albeit with potentially more latency for pedestrians if they are crossing only in one direction.

But it only works if you do it consistently at every intersection in a city and then enforce it consistently by ticketing every pedestrian who crosses against a don't walk sign. Otherwise, you get pedestrians who make a habit of crossing when they shouldn't, and sometimes they get hit by cars. But if you do these things, plus adding some parking garages and eliminating road-side parking, you should be able to cut out about 99% of pedestrian deaths.

No, it's not. Nice of you to cut away the part that already said so. It is HIGHLY relevant if something you purchased becomes unusable due to an action of the seller or not.

If you are new to this planet, this might be news to you, but otherwise: Yes, that is how commercial transactions work. You pay for something, you get to use it.

No, but it absolutely DOES give me not just the permission but the RIGHT to use the thing I paid for for its intended purpose and for any other purpose I see fit. First sale doctrine and so on.

That is correct. But the store could either sell the same game again (in your case where the buyer personally was banned for whatever) or demand a refund from the manufacturer as is common practice when defective goods are returned. Really, there's not much to figure out, this is already a solved problem.

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

Merriam-Webbster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy)

"to acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment especially of money : purchase"

Seriously, why are you trying to defend an indefensible position ?

Some diseases do. Look at how many Native Americans died from their first exposure to various European diseases. That said, there are something like 160 strains of rhinovirus, so you're always getting different one each time you get sick, with no prior immunity, as far as I know, so for that specific variety, I'm pretty sure you are correct.

For a robust immune response, you'll generally want an attenuated virus, not a dead one. I mean, it doesn't matter much for something like flu, because it mutates so quickly that any immunity approaches zero after two or three years anyway, but for any vaccine that you want to actually last for decades, unless your exposure risk is low (e.g. polio in the western world), a live, weakened infection is probably a better option.

See above. The reason attenuated viruses are so much more effective is because they trigger multiple levels of immune response by infecting cells. Programming cells to create parts of real viruses differs only from attenuated vaccines mainly in that the resulting products do not then go on to infect more cells, and that the mRNA bits are usually time-bombed so that they stop producing those virus parts after a period of time, thus minimizing the rate of actual cell death.

But either way, the continued exposure over a longer duration, coupled with the involvement of cellular stress signals, help trigger both the innate and adaptive immune systems, resulting in a stronger immune response than if you just had bits of unexpected dead virus material floating around in isolation.

That's actually way more true with the dead virus vaccines you think are so great. For a classic example, the flu vaccine that caused a detectable uptick in narcolepsy (an autoimmune condition) in Europe, called Pandemrix, was an inactivated, adjuvanted vaccine. The adjuvant somehow triggered autoimmunity in some people. And the adjuvant was needed precisely because without that, the inactivated vaccine did not produce an adequate immune response.

IMO, the odds of an mRNA vaccine causing an autoimmune response are likely orders of magnitude less than an adjuvanted, attenuated vaccine doing so, because an adjuvant causes the immune system to pay more attention to whatever is nearby, including your own cells.

Not all of them. Some of them are independent research scientists, some of them immunologists working in the public sector or academia, etc. The percentage of professionals in this area who work for the vaccine companies is tiny compared with the percentage of independent researchers studying viruses and vaccines. That said, I'd trust even the research teams at the vaccine companies over some random person on YouTube or other Internet sites who shows no actual sign of understanding immunology, but bulls**ts just well enough people to convince a lot of other people who also don't understand it. And sadly, I've seen so much of that level of noise that I have a standing "No, I won't watch your YouTube video about medical subjects; if it were legitimate, it would have been published in a properly peer-reviewed journal" policy at this point. :-)

I mean sure, the folks without clean water might be less susceptible, but only because they're the ones still left who didn't die from it the first time.