Yes thatâ(TM)s exactly the sort of nebulous fear mongering that I see masquerading as news articles. Out of curiosity, which lobby group do you work for?

Cost, obviously. Convenience, reliability, the fact that you don't need to faff around trying to find a link that actually works. These things aren't aimed at hax0rs, l33t or otherwise. They're easy enough to use that your granny could do it.

Sounds a lot like allofmp3.com

You'd be surprised. A friend of mine has one and though it sometimes freezes for a few seconds the quality is just as good as what I would expect from Sky. I was tempted to get one myself but for a couple of football games it's not worth the hassle.

One other thing, the box was some sort of nvidia device (Toblerone shaped) and the UI is so much snappier than any STB or smart TV I've ever used. As ever, the pirates' user experience is better than the paying customers'.

These so-called âoedodgy boxesâ let you watch content that otherwise you'd have to pay for. For example, a full subscription to Sky TV including film and sports channels is close to $100 per month. Subscriptions for these boxes will run you about $100 per year.

The people running these services are essentially re-broadcasting paid-for content for a fraction of the price. The big companies are starting to notice too; I've seen a few scaremongering 'news' articles about them these past few months.

They have changed the player app so you can no longer scrub through videos that are playing on your feed. If you're watching something and you don't care about the audio it was a handy way to avoid ads.

On the rare occasion I buy coffee I go to McDonalds. Their Americano is quite decent for two quid. I'm not bothered about whipped cream or weird syrups, although that espresso milkshake sounds interesting.

Ah that makes sense. You should get a job with Macworld.

No, I'm talking about the Apple of today. When I bought the device I'm typing this on back last December there were options for CPU, RAM, Storage, screen type, keyboard, bundled software etc. The only difference between my experience and the one described in the article is that you couldn't switch between screen sizes in the custom options.

You can still do that. They never took that option away.

Apple has shifted from selling pre-configured Mac models to a fully customizable build-to-order system on its website, allowing customers to select display size, chip, memory, and storage options

I have no idea what the hell the writer is on about here, unless they're talking about the brick and mortar Apple stores, which for pretty obvious reasons aren't going to keep stock for every possible permutation of options.

Just like Apple has always done, you've always been able to customise what processor/RAM/storage you want. Apple are famous for screwing people over on additional RAM/storage. As far as I can tell the only difference now is that you can change the screen size. When I bought this one last December you chose the screen size then customised it however you wanted.

It's a non-story.

Stephen Miller is in the Epstein files too?

...shouldn't it be deenshittification?

Look up at the Moon. See all those craters?

Big shit has been hitting the Moon for billions of years. It's still there.

Carnot doesnâ(TM)t apply when you're interested in moving heat from one place to another. It comes into play when you're trying to convert heat into work and vice-versa.

"Special" here means supercritical, because apparently the editors at the LA Times don't trust their readers with words of more than four syllables.

Apart from that, I don't know. I've seen press releases disguised as news before but this one really takes the biscuit. I think they're plugging some kind of pump, because engineers are always coming up with ways to use supercritical CO2 for seemingly random things (I read an article about thirty years ago for using it in industrial dishwashers) and the idea of using it as a coolant isn't new. They're trying to find some way to make it relevant to AI data centres, because AI, but to try and say it can reduce water usage is flat-out disingenuous. It doesn't make the tiniest bit of difference what you have in your primary coolant loop if your secondary is using water once-through.

I tried looking at the pdf in the summary but wouldn't you know it, it's a sales brochure. It mostly talks about water cooling. If they'd actually made a better heat pump there would be a better article announcing it.

Marks: 2/10, try harder. Next time skip the SpaceX name-dropping. They advertise mattresses on TV "inspired by NASA technology". It's just cringe.