It's just Apple trying to control where their "donation" to the cause goes. If you give cash to the "cause" that will just attract grifters to scam money using the banner of the cause. It's smarter to give the student the hardware and very modest stipend.

Is it worth it for the student? That's an opportunity cost thing. What was their alternative use for the time they spent in the Apple program?

The student does not pay, they actually get a very modest stipend. And an iPhone and Mac.

The $20K is what Apple is spending. It's Apple's "donation" to a cause. Which is a pretty smart way to make the donation. They get to control where the money goes (iPhone, Mac, stipend), it reduces the amount of money grifters can scam from supporters of a cause.

It's like giving a homeless person a meal rather than cash.

It depends.

For a hypothetical individual paying for it themselves? No.

For an individual enrolled in the course, but not paying for it? Maybe. It depends on the what the next best alternative use of that time would be. The "opportunity cost"

For a hypothetical Fortune 500 company that wants to retrain a developer to do apps for iOS (or macOS, very similar code). Sure, why not. It would probably cost them less than laying off the non-iOS developer and hiring an iOS developer.

For Apple? Sure, they get to make a "donation" to support a cause yet control where their money goes. iPhones, MacBooks and a very modest stipend. It undermines any grifters trying to do any scamming under the banner of the cause.

iPod Shuffle 4th generation. 3cm x 3cm.

I still use mine in places I don't take the phone. Gym for example.

Albums were not just audio, there was a visual artistry component as well. There was four square feet of paper to fill with art and other useful or interesting things.

Complete fantasy if you think real national security concerns are never subordinate to political concerns.

You are having an A => B does not imply B => A moment.

Real national security concerns get subordinated to politics too.

Not at all. Political bias extend in both directions. One administration would advance a green project over any military concerns. another administration would be hostile to the project for its own political reason. Any legit military concern a pretext. Either way, a political decisions does not speak to whether the concern is legit or not. FWIW, another poster pointed out Sweden has done this too, for military radar interference reasons.

Not at all. Political bias extend in both directions. One administration would advance a green project over any military concerns. another administration would be hostile to the project for its own political reason. Any legit military concern a pretext. Either way, political decisions do not speak to whether the concern is legit or not.

FWIW, another poster pointed out Sweden has done this too, for military radar interference reasons.

Another poster pointed out Sweden has done this due to interference with early warning radar too.

Trump supporting some existing argument does not make it wrong or right. It just means the argument coincidentally benefits him, for now. Its refreshing to see someone wonder whether an idea has its own merits.

And if the civilian project is not interested in redesigning things to adjust for military concerns, what might the government do next?

You mean other than "national security concerns", which a coastal blind spot would be. ;-)

This was an issue being raised before Trump. One administration dismisses the problem for political reasons, another administration embraces the problem for political reasons. Regardless of the politics, it's still a legit problem.

No, its letting them having all the easily accessible water. Everyone planning on a long term presence needs to plant a base near some ice.

Nope. The NASA Admin's job is that of a salesman. To sell NASA and its agenda and its budget to the President, to Congress, and to the American people.

It's more likely selective memory. A NASA admin being a political appointee and selected primarily on the political metric is hardly anything new. Even if a former engineer.

Clue: That is pretty much every AI.

Your TDS is showing, you are the only one mentioning the orange dude here.

Clue: That is pretty much every AI.

Clue: Correct in the LLM sense does not match factually correct, it means a pattern match of words of a sufficient probability. Words that may be the "garbage in" of the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".