It isn't a dev kit, it never was and never will be. It's a flop and you only want to call it a dev kit because it's an Apple product and you can't handle the truth. If it had somehow sold amazingly, you wouldn't have called it a dev kit.

You want a dev kit, then get the Apple Vision Pro Dev Kit from Apple.

https://developer.apple.com/visionos/developer-kit/

The Apple Vision Pro that's for sale is a flop, a big, overpriced, expensive flop from Apple.

> In truth iPhone users rarely bother defending their devices

Says the one who just wrote a small essay defending their iPhone device....

I would have accepted that answer a few months ago, but with Trump attacking federal reserve members to give him the numbers he wants and not reality, neither holds more weight than the other.

More and more groups are seeing either appease the current POTUS or stick to your integrity, and unfortunately integrity doesn't bring in the paycheck. This really hurts the trust factor about the numbers given here. Distortion of facts isn't too hard when your livelihood is on the line.

The relevant rulings already show that if the AI is doing the work, then it's not copyrightable. Telling the AI to do "X, Y, and mix in some Z" doesn't mean that a human was really involved in the creation of it. As is pointed out in the article "McCann said he'll often create up to 100 different versions of a song by prompting and re-prompting the AI system before he's satisfied." which means no, he isn't making the song.

Thaler v. Perlmutter was the newest court case about this (he tried to copyright an AI artwork that he made by prompting and re-prompting the AI).

https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/06/17/explainer-ai-and-copyright-law-can-works-created-with-the-assistance-of-ai-be-copyrighted/

>> the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) ruled that works created entirely by an AI are not protected under the Copyright Act because the law as it is currently written "requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being." Although the court foreclosed copyright registration for works created entirely by an AI

Now, the courts also stated:

>> it left open the status of AI-assisted works - works consisting of both human-authored and AI-generated materials

In this case, the creator could claim that because he wrote the lyrics, it should be considered copyrightable but that would be for the courts to decide if lyrics are enough to be consider a key part of the music or not. (If yes, this will open a whole new legal issue with taking a public domain song, just singing over it and then claiming copyright of the song, but again, a court issue.).

To begin with, it costs money to do interviews (transportation, parking, taking time off my current job, etc...) Not all interviews are in person, and taking time off does have a cost even in video/phone interviews. So there is a financial loss.

As for the 90 day limit, it doesn't say that the hiring has to be finished in 90 days, it's that the posting can't be open for more than 90 days. If it takes more time to finish the hiring process, than that is fine. And in fact, as you mentioned you are getting 10,000+ applicants a week, then you really shouldn't need to be advertising for more than 90 days as you'd already have 128,000 applicates in those 90 days. A few 10,000 more isn't going to help.

As for point 1, intended dates and realistic dates are 2 different things. An intended date shows a plan and purpose but can be changed with the proper information (aka, an extension.) It's not asking for a hard and fixed date.

Your second point is asking what the current market is offering, which can vary wildly, and requires those positions to be in demand to get a well rounded number. Not to mention they always show a vague number ($20-35, depending on experience). How these factors effect pay isn't explained, but when I can ask Bob/Dilan/Cindy++ "I see you've been in X position with Y years of experience. What is your current salary" is no longer hypothetical. The answers Bob/Dilan/Cindy++ all give me can help me better understand if I'm "over paying" my current employees and if it would be better financially to remove them for equally skilled employees for less pay.

As for point 3, you can get government money is you are "creating jobs". A ghost job posting fulfills this role without costing the company much. And there is other things to be gained by making it look like your company is growing, you can obtain better contracts "As you can see, we are a fast growing company, in fact we are one of the fastest growing companies in the area..."

Here are some sites that can help explain more about ghost jobs:
https://marketrealist.com/what-are-ghost-jobs-and-how-to-avoid-them/
https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/make-money/ghost-jobs/
https://builtin.com/articles/ghost-jobs

And what is this magical technological thing?

I know USB C is an American invention, so I'm curious what the EU built that isn't a USB port that the EU uses?

Never read Apple's privacy policy. Just keep being ignorant, you sweet summer child.

If you're going to complain and call out things, maybe you should come out with your complaint and not hide behind an AC comment.

It's fraud due to its claiming to be X but it really Y.

Companies post ghost jobs for different reasons, but actually offering a job isn't one of them. They do it to:

- Build a "business" relationship with you (you contacted them, I've had this multiple times happen to me)
- Looking for information about the current market (so many are now asking "How much for you earn" so they know how they should/could pay their own teams)
- Makes them look like they are doing better than they are. This helps attract investors, investments, and other business opportunities.

Amounts other issues.

Now this wastes your time, effort, money (for BS interviews to get more data from you), all because they were advertising fraudulently a job that wasn't what they really were selling/offering.

This assumes you live in a major city that has access to the parts. My nearest store is about an hour and a half away.

As for your car analogy, you even pointed out that at least repairing the car was user possible, but then turned around and declared that if this one thing in a car wasn't replaced by the user than someone shouldn't be easily able to repair ANYthing as simple as a battery in a phone. These aren't the same, and is laughable that you are trying to equate them. You know what happened when my car needed a new battery? I replaced it. When my phone needs a new battery, I'd rather replace it.

> But much of the humor is unwoke and would not be acceptable in a modern movie.

Then explain how The Naked Gun just got remade as it's the same style of humor.

I'll help you when you can read my whole comment, because of you did, you'd notice that the last paragraph points out that Linux can be viable for older PCs.

> I'm tired of hearing that Linux is a great alternative for older PCs. I recently installed Kubuntu onto a MacBook Air (2011) and:

I'm tired of hearing that macOS is a great alternative for PCs like Windows. I recently tried to install macOS on a Surface Laptop and:

It didn't work. End of conversation.

It's amazing what happens when you try to install an OS on hardware that is explicitly not designed to run it. Maybe try installing any version of Linux that uses parts that are designed/properly supported for Linux. It'll be amazing what a difference that makes.

Did you even read the article you linked?...

"Why is there a Windows 11 if Windows 10 is the last Windows?
A segue by a Microsoft developer was interpreted as Microsoft policy, and the rest is history."

It's the headline of the article even, it wasn't buried deep and hard to find. Microsoft never claimed that it was the last version, a developer did who wasn't in charge or even authorized to claim that. What a single developer claims doesn't become corporate policy.

"But give Nixon a break, too: He made an enthusiastic, throwaway comment that ended up being understood as company policy. "

I'm not blaming the girl (this is way too much over an offhand bad joke), but what also needs to be taught to students (and adults) is if something is issued to you (like the school email used in the chat program) assume EVERYTHING is monitored, even the camera feed and microphone.

If you didn't get it yourself, it's used to surveil you.