Assuming you believe lie detector results, it sounds like they were just measuring how honest the participants were about how many naughty words they new. And from that perspective it goes without saying that there would be a correlation between being honest and reporting more words.
Also, as regards holding back on the actual use of naughty words (which, BTW, they didn't measure), they need to consider the difference between "dishonesty" and "manners".
A Mac Pro is not 'portable' if you still have to lug a screen around.
Yes, and? The same argument applies for a "laptop" that you MUST lug a power adaptor around with constantly. That is not a device amenable to using on the patio or the bed. In fact the choice Apple made seems like the are tailor made to the case you lay out - which how most people (including myself) use laptops, and why suffering a huge hit in battery life just to go beyond 16GB is a non-starter.
I absolutely need 32GB in order to be properly productive.
I find this very dubious considering much of the work I do is very memory intensive - iOS development and a lot of high-resolution photography including some huge panoramic work, more recently some neural networking stuff - would I *like* more memory? Yes. Do I *absolutley need* more memory? No, I get by OK wth what I have now. If anything the real memory need people would have for modern tasks is not main system memory but GPU memory, and there Apple is still doing OK with 4GB of memory, if anything else I would have liked to see more there.
Most modern professional apps are used to dealing with partitioning tasks into smaller amounts of memory and the main SSD on the new MacBook Pros is extremely fast, making those applications run quite well (mainly affects the pano work I do).
If you look at Activity Monitor sometime, I think you'll be surprised at how much memory you actually use...
for people that have a legitimate need for more than 16GB of ram battery life is a secondary factor
What laptop owners would that really be true of though? A handful, even among pros... if it's going to be plugged in all the time, and battery life is of secondary or no concern - then my not just use a Mac Pro? It's also fairly portable and will be much faster (yes, even before any updates to the current model).
I personally cannot see Apple releasing a laptop with an option that has way worse battery life just to add more RAM at the very top end - nor making a whole other variant of motherboard to support that option, or adding complexity to the existing design.
In the end it's just a matter of a single year before truly top-end purchasers will get a laptop with more than 16GB of RAM. For the past few years CPU improvements have not been all that large, so not being able ot buy now is not that huge a hit...
What I'm hoping to see in the next revision of the MacBook Pro is an even better GPU.
Well, because I am not here to change minds. I added my thoughts on something I have followed closely for a long time. Digging up resources to convince you... I'm not clear on why I would bother with that. If you won't google yourself, you are either certain that I'm making it up or you aren't that interested in the topic.
The dream of space exploration & colonization is that it's a stepping stone towards other worlds and a vast spread of humanity across the galaxy. Not simply a one-time deal that adds a new region of Earth for humans to live in, but at great expense & difficulty.
Earth to Mars (shortest): 56,000,000 km
Earth to nearest star after the Sun: 40,000,000,000,000 km
I think you need to make the same kind of leap as going from horse and carriage to the Saturn V to go from interplanetary to interstellar. Sure keeping people alive is an interesting challenge, but somehow I don't think generation ships that take ~70000 years is the solution. For that we need a revolution in propulsion technology that we're not going to get from Falcon Heavy, SLS or even Musk's ITS. A bit like if I wanted to lift 100kg, I could do that with exercise but none of those plans or experience really bring me closer to lifting 10000kg.
If this was a drone and was just using the mobile frequencies for communication, it would probably use an off-the-shelf cellular modem module to communicate normally over the cellular network. A special testing authority from the FCC would not be necessary.
In this case, their grievance is that we exist. ISIS wants a new caliphate to control the entire Middle East and they want to pursue holy war, you can't really negotiate around either of those even if they wanted to.
I think you misspelled "the world", basically their strategy is to generate so much resentment towards Muslims (you know, 1.6 billion people - bigger than declaring war on China) that they get two new recruits for every one that's killed. The only reason it's not working is that so far we haven't taken the bait. We grieve for the dead, increase the military effort but we don't lash out in revenge. I sorta expected some militant nutters to go postal in a mosque or to burn them to the ground but apart from a lot of very vivid commentary there's been very few actual attacks on Muslims in general. If we were as short-tempered as they are like going ballistic over drawings we'd be in WW3 by now.
In general terms, satisfying the average need (in other words, helping the largest number of people possible) is satisfying the business need. There are any number of outlier scenarios that simply cannot be rationally created. The masses, as you put it, are by a very large degree, well within usage patterns where EVs would work the large majority of the time. It is a pretty small minority, overall, no more than probably 20-25% for which EVs are not viable, and I don't think anyone is proposing that those people be forced to use an EV.
And, just in case you're the least bit interested, there is an explanation as to why the differential between CO2 PPM increases and observed surface temperature rises, largely because of that substance that covers 2/3s of the planet:
But I'm sure you will handwave that away. Once again some random poster on the Internet with no actual ability to assess the data thinks they're moronic strawman somehow topples an entire field of research.
I'll ask you once again to provide citations where climatologists claim PPM and temperature should rise in lockstep? You keep foisting this strawman, which is entirely of your own creation (or rather, the creation of someone like the Heartland Institute, I doubt very much you made it up yourself). Until you provide such citations and can demonstrate that this is what the climatologists are actual stating should be observed, you're just repeating a strawman, a logical fallacy, either because you're ignorant, or you're a liar.
The whole "percentage" thing appears to have you confused
Ah I see, so your personal and anecdotal claims just totally undermine actual statistics.
Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson