So you're saying that a US$212 replacement display that costs more than an entire Chromebook is going to be somehow better for these public schools over some period of time?

Right.

Do you think there's a world where Apple suddenly offers inexpensive replacement parts for anything? Sometimes the screens on Chromebooks are as low as $30. I'm sure they're third party panels, but they work and return the device to useful life. How likely is it that Apple offers screen replacements under $100, even to institutional buyers?

That is repairable by the standards of Apple computers, not the standards of open hardware.

My experience dealing with a Chromebook deployment mirrors one of the grandparent commenters: 90% of the problems are broken screens, Screens are quick and easy to replace if you have the part, but screens cost money and you'll never had as many as you'll eventually need. You'll have extra parts for everything else because of the staggering number of broken screens.

I have an occasional side job dealing with PC/laptop/Chromebook repairs at a local weirdo private Christian Academy. Given that the place definitely seems to have a "go pick the stick I'm going to beat you with"-vibe, I suspect there's actually fewer broken systems than I might see from a similar deployment at a public school. Chromebook screens are still the biggest problem. One of the reasons I got this side gig is that an acquaintance saw the number of devices being written off and just assumed their day-to-day IT person couldn't possibly know what they're doing.

Anything else Apple does, unless their screens are indestructible or only cost $20 to replace, isn't going to help with that.

I completely agree. I think Congress and POTUS have mechanisms in place to make it unlikely that they personally see the volume, sophistication, and aggressiveness of scammers. The same goes for phone and text spammers. These things are a constant source of frustration for everyday people.

If Congress ever wanted an easy layup to show they are still useful, they should dedicate serious resources towards knocking down scams and spam. I would be happy to see my taxpayer dollars go to that.

Thinking the same thing. Maybe putting it in a tea bag?

Any other chemists out there like me trying to figure out how to do this in their sonicator?

EO after EO who needs laws if you can just rule by fiat? Donnie boy truly reigns like a monarch.

He does that despite the GOP controlling both houses. It's lazy and won't last longer than the current administration.

My thoughts too. And if this was their most requested feature, why did it take over 4 years to bring back?

"Hear" is being arbitrarily used to denote something other than "see" in the all-electromagnetic-radiation-is-light sense. But gravity wave are a different communication vector completely. I wonder if that community needs to come up with a different word (other than "detect"), that maybe doesn't try to connect to a real human sense, since humans can't feel it.

I vote for "floomp".

Firefox has an extension called Youtube Custom Speed. You can set arbitrary speeds from .05 to 16x in whatever increments you feel like adding. Not that it helps for the dipshits explaining how to type something in a terminal prompt, but it's definitely handy for speeding through laptop disassemblies and the like.

Chrome does appear to have the same thing so it probably works on whatever browser you like.

In Pocket Casts, the app I use, there's a playback speed control that can go up to 5x. I usually listen to podcasts at about 3x speed, which feels right to me. I lose a little nuance for audio fiction, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

16x audio playback speeds are typical for screen readers for visually impaired users. Maybe your wife configured something like that, but they take practice to get used to. I only have some familiarity with those because I used to have a blind co-worker and had to support his setup.

Actually I was talking about CVE and enrich. There are people on this site that, believe it or not, are nerds but not in IT. I'm a physical chemist. I follow many science and tech stories that pop up on /. I don't typically pay much attention to the IT stories, but this one caught my eye because of the near comical number of times it was used in the summary. I checked the comments section to see if I was the only one, and apparently I wasn't. Maybe I'm in the minority [shrug].

That cost is so extreme I feel like I'm missing something, or there's more to the cost. The entire annual budget of California is $350 billion, so even if this is spread out over the next 10 years we're talking about ~7% of the annual budget going to a single transportation project.

This will run LA to SF. If you take the populations of both of those cities (who will benefit most from it) it's 18 million people. So we're talking about costing 231 billion / 18 million = $13,000 per person to build the thing. How is that worth it?

I just looked up and I can get a flight from LAX to SFO for $70. For $13k I could fly back and forth between them almost 100 times.

If that's a real number, as a CA taxpayer (which I'm not) I would be asking where else that money could go. Like increasing the state's education budget by 20% for the next 10 years. Or helping both cities handle their homeless problem.

see subject.

There are a lot of technical topics on /. I don't understand, but the point here is that they use an abbreviation like 20 times in a summary without ever defining it. If you use an abbreviation in technical writing (including a summary), you should define it the first time you use it. There may be some very common abbreviations that don't require defining, but this is not one of them.