That's not from Archer, you Millennial.

Time traveling cows.

No one is forcing you to upgrade your iPad every 2-3 years just like no one is forcing you to upgrade your iPhone every year. Some people want to upgrade; that is their choice. For some people, they need an additional iPad for their children/spouse etc. For some, their iPad met an unfortunate end. For most of us, we upgrade if and when we need.

The iPad mini costs more than the base iPad because the base iPad is using a 4 year old chip. The base iPad in the current lineup as far as I remember got the oldest chips. The iPad mini is not cheaper than the iPad Air or iPad Pro.

The iPad does not have cellphone chips so using it as an iPhone is simply not possible. This is known. Not sure why you think Apple is trying to screw you over if you cannot use it as a cellphone when it is not a cellphone.

Epic Face Palm Department was already taken.

Lately I've been having them click on fire hydrants for me too. You know, to prove I'm not a bot.

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.

Right now these are just malinois dogs with gene edits to prevent hip dysplasia. They can be military sure, but mine does nothing more aggressive than chase butterflies in the backyard.

It's clearly The 6th Day, Arnold takes the family dog to get it cloned in that one.

I'm sure you would find something objectionable about every wireless carrier CEO if you got to know them.

Right but it should be. If you log in to your banking website at a public terminal and then wander away (without logging out), someone else can make transactions in your name because the session is still authorized.

By the way, this works for any website. If you tell a tool-calling AI agent to pop open a browser and automate some stuff for you, it will do it. It will ask you to login first, and then it will do who-knows-what..

The step where you logged in authorized it to do whatever it wants.

Yeah, that activity was authorized. You're using "unauthorized" as if it means "unwelcome" I think, which puts you in confused banker territory.
 
The part where they were given access to make the transactions was actually the authorization. Without it, the bank would have rightly thrown a 403.

If they're "operating inside" user's accounts, they're authorized. Does someone need to explain to banks what authorized means?