Absolutely not the case. The Neo is essentially Apple's first attempt at a budget laptop, and the market segment they're targeting is entirely different.

Case in point: My dad has been a Windows user for 20+ years and has always decried Apple as "decent hardware that's overpriced and running a lobotomized operating system." However he hates Windows 11 more and decided to replace his aging Windows laptop with a Neo last week. So far he's been impressed, though is still dealing with a learning curve. I guarantee you he isn't alone.

I think the Neo is Apple's attempt at getting into a new segment of lower-priced computers AND taking advantage of Microslop dropping the ball hard when it comes to Windows 11 shit quality and bullshit hardware requirements.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, I suspect the market really being cannibalized is potential new Linux users who go with a New instead of installing Linux on a cheap Windows laptop.

According to the writeup; there are two methods: it is possible for an extension to mark some parts of itself as 'web accessible'; and linkedin has assembled at least one characteristic file for 6,1000-odd extension IDs and attempts to fetch it to confirm/deny the extension's presence.

The other is based on the fact that the whole point of many extensions is to modify the site in some way; but the site normally has largely unfettered access to inspect itself, so they have theirs set up to walk the entire DOM looking for any references to "chrome-extension://" and snagging the IDs if found.

Not exactly a 'declare installed extensions'; but it looks like, out of some combination of supporting the use cases where an extension and page actively interact by design and either not wanting the possibility or not wanting the complexity of trying to enable 'invisible' edits(presumably some sort of 'shadow' DOM mechanism where as far as the site and everything delivered with it knows only its unedited DOM and resources exist; but the one the user sees is an extension-modified copy of that one, which sounds like it could get messy), inferential attacks are fairly easy and powerful.

Where exactly does supporting 3 people on $133k/year count as 'upper middle class'? You could be doing a lot worse, and many are; but that's not just tons of money in a HCOL area; and that's also lower than twice the median salary for full time employees with bachelor's degrees; so you are calling either a single income household doing a bit better than median or a dual income one doing worse 'upper middle class'; which seems pretty ambitious.

It's hard to train a cow to keep its cellphone charged; so you can see why you need something to keep their tracking collars topped up.

Realistically, the status quo has arguably outrun the dystopia there. Your phone already does far more than anything you could get into the power envelope of a bracelet or embedded chip implant, and if for some reason you've raised enough eyebrows that you'd be hauled in for an RFID read DNA is a pretty indelible identifier.

It's not 100% ironclad; but penetration is broad enough that you've basically got the majority carrying highly fingerprintable RF beacons and the minority standing out for their relative radio silence and attempts to deal in cash. Expensive and uncomfortable ankle trackers are good business and feel nice and punitive, just to remind the wrong sort of people we aren't happy with them; but you don't really need to impose a surveillance society when it will build itself for you.

My (admittedly anecdotal from the totally unscientific sample of random stuff I've had reason to work on) impression is that some 'shared' BMC ports had oddities related to network controller sideband interface speeds, since NC-SI is what the BMC is depending on if the NIC is on someone else's PCIe root. It's not like the BMC actually needs a faster link for much(normal management traffic probably doesn't fill 10mb and mounting virtual media may be literally once-in-a-lifetime) so the actual speed of the NC-SI interface was not a burning priority; but it left things up to the NIC whether it would support remaining at gigabit speeds and just quietly slipping the trickle of shared traffic in(presumably slightly more complex; but seems to be what the newer ones do) or if it would knock the link rate down visibly to simplify the case.

You see little echoes of similar behavior elsewhere. The intel desktop and laptop NICs that support 'vPRO' will be GB or 2.5GB when the system is on; but quietly drop back to 10 or 10/100 when it is off and it's just the management engine listening. Some enterprise vendor USB docks do similar things; looks like a normal USB NIC when the OS is up; but drops to a lower speed and operates quietly over, I think, some sort of oddball vendor-defined messages if one of their systems is plugged in but off.

I assume that, as an exercise, getting 5 simultaneous introductions working makes for a better paper; but is there a reason why you would want that in practice? Especially if there is any wobble in the ratios either randomly, across generations, or in the presence of certain environmental conditions that tweak the plant's metabolism one way or another that sounds like it would be a real pain in the ass to have to re-balance (and, if different patients are deemed to need different combinations even a perfectly stable plant is going to need re-balancing of the outputs) vs. very specifically going for a specific target output per-plant(or e. coli or yeast or whatever is easiest to bioreactor) and then just mixing to taste after purification. Is there some advantage I'm not seeing?

I realize that there are cases where some plant-sourced pharmacological effect looks like it is actually driven not by the identified 'active ingredient'; but by dozens or hundreds of assorted things, and in that case you just have to live with the complexity if you get better results with that than with purified isolates; but if you are deliberately engineering for very specific outputs why a mix of 5?

Immunology, presumably.

The only donor bodies that aren't going to treat the transplant as an act of war are clones or heavily immunosuppressed; and it's probably more plausible to assume that you'll be able to clone a human like a sheep than assume that you'll be making some fundamental breakthroughs in immunology to deal more elegantly with unmatched hosts.

I can see the utility of having spare organs in certain emergencies; but how much life extension would you actually get even if the sort of neurosurgery involved in removing a brain and reattaching it to a new host's spinal cord were viable? Is the theory that the assorted ghastly flavors of neurodegeneration are actually to be blamed on older organs and everything will be fine; or is this just a very expensive way to ensure that you skip the various ways peripheral organs can kill you and are assured to be the spryest patient in the dementia ward?

Tell me you haven't been paying attention to the actions of private equity without telling me you haven't been paying attention to the actions of private equity. Vulture private equity is a thing; the basic trick is:

1. Buy large, well-known company X with stable but not outstanding economic performance, low debt, and lots of real assets (read: Cheap enough to buy and take private, with lots of collateral available)
2. Sell all the real company X assets (buildings, land) to another company, company Y, also owned (directly or indirectly) by the private equity firm or its individual owners, with the theoretical idea that that money can fuel expansion.
3. Maybe borrow additional money from company Z (also tied to private equity firm) while you're at it, at above-market rates.
4. Lease all the assets back to company X, at exorbitant rates.
5. Don't actually expand, just pay all the money acquired from the asset sale to pay the leases and loans over a few years, extracting all of the value from the company as it becomes a hollow shell
6. Discover, to your great surprise, that company X, while profitable when it owns its land, is unprofitable when paying insane lease rates for said land
7. Regretfully have company X declare bankruptcy, sell off any IP or remaining inventory to squeeze whatever additional drops of blood are left in that stone
8. goto #1

They did it to Toys "R" Us, Red Lobster, TGI Fridays, Joann Fabrics, and more. They're doing it to hospitals and housing (but piecemeal, so aside from an occasional hospital failing, it doesn't make a big splashy headline). It's all 100% legal, and morally bankrupt. It's less ethical than the publicly traded companies because the reporting requirements are far lower, the number of interested parties far fewer (no shareholder activism here), and the regulations preventing egregious actions fewer to boot.

Yes, there are privately held companies that are forward-thinking and ethical. Largely because their owners are. Until said owners (or their descendants) decide to cash out, and look who comes swooping in with money to buy them out (hint: it's private equity) and destroy what they built for another quick buck. Saying "private equity is good because good people can do good things with it" is like saying "despotism is good because an enlightened despot can run things more efficiently and morally than a democracy", ignoring that it also gives them the freedom to behave terribly with little or no accountability.

Well, when a major collapse in private equity or cryptocurrencies takes out the retirement funding for millions of folks in the U.S., destroying the U.S. economy thanks to seniors no longer having money to spend, the resulting U.S. economic collapse is likely to affect the world economy. So, yeah, when the U.S. makes major changes that undermine its own economic stability, it's likely to affect the world.

I began working for a hedge fund in June of 2008, midway between Bear Stearns failing and Lehman Brothers failing. In early 2009, seven or eight months after I joined, and after it was very clear how bad things were, and what caused it, I got called into a meeting with the quants (I was just a code monkey) in which they decided that, while we hadn't been in subprime mortgages before, now was the perfect time to get in on them, as the collapse supposedly made the prices more proportionate to the risk.

Nobody learned lessons, they just saw cheap assets they could snap up and profit off of, and a clear precedent that gov't support would prevent a complete collapse in the future.

One big concern is that bad 401(k) managers will integrate these much riskier investments into the limited selection of custom funds offered to investors. Sure, you can choose not to invest in dedicated crypto or private equity funds, but if it's hidden inside most/all of the investment options offered by your 401(k) provider, you're screwed by this flexibility.

Unless you're stupidly wealthy, in which case your failure can become a structural threat to the market, and your mistakes and losses will be met with gov't intervention to ensure you can't really fail. Or you just send enough money to various super PACs and election funds to ensure the gov't isn't picking winners and losers, except when it comes to you; you're the winner, your competition is the loser.

Mostly just in the bulk, low barriers to entry, and pervasiveness(like a lot of things social media). The case of actors actually goes back a long way; state laws regarding compensation of child actors were spurred by the case of one who was popular in the 1920s and litigated with his parents over where the money wasn't in 1939. That case doesn't provide for takedowns; but it's also the case that filmmakers are normally looking for children to play characters; rather than to do 'candid' intense documentaries of them at home; so the degree of public exposure of private life is presumably deemed to be less; with the main issue being children who were...definitely...getting a solid education while on stage finding that all the money was gone when it became their problem.

Child-blogging, by contrast, seems to reward verisimilitude (if not necessarily truth) and invasiveness, relatively pervasive in-home mining for 'content', so presumably seems better served by removal-focused options; though there has definitely been talk about covering the economic angle in line with child actors.

I don't even know what the deal is with child beauty pageants, or how something you'd assume is a salacious bit of slander about what pedophile cabals are totally doing, somewhere, is actually a thing a slice of parents are into, way, way, into. Apparently that's a third rail to someone, though, as the only jurisdiction I'm aware of with significant restrictions on them is France.