Not for you, but for them to track your kids.

Indeed, because even if it's not user-repleaceable, any phone repair shop can do it. (It's also crazy to buy a $1k+ phone in the first place, goddamn, there are fine options for much much less.)

It's annoying, but adapters are cheap. I'm not going to lose sleep over $5.

They did, the whole industry uses USB-C now.

What an utterly naive interpretation of world history you have. I can assure you, if you'd been a Jew being rounded up for extermination in WW2 you'd have a different opinion. Likewise, if you were Chinese or Korean being subjugated by Imperial Japan, you'd have a different perspective. There is such a thing as a "just war" even though you somehow ignore the concept. It's usually when your opponent starts the war and is hell bent on eradicating you and your way of life.

Alas, you sit there in perfect safety and comfort, passing judgement on those who sacrificed fa more than you can ever imagine so you could impugn their sacrifices.

Banned for who? And who's going to enforce this ban?

You have to remember any treaty (a) must have signatories that agree to follow it and (b) there must be a method of enforcement. If you lack either of these two conditions, the treaty has no effect.

Not sure how you think you could pull that off, but whatever.

Again...exactly how do you plan to accomplish this? It's not like Iran hasn't been firing missiles at our carriers this whole time. Yeah, it's a halfhearted effort by the Iranians, but what exactly do you think would happen to Iran if you managed to even damage one of our carriers, much less sink one? I can describe it thusly: the American gloves would come off. Iran would be plastered into oblivion via conventional bombardment, and there's very little Iran could do to stop it. Sure, we'd take losses, but the Iranian regime would cease to exist in totality. America has had this option available to it since day one. We haven't exercised it. Not because we couldn't do it but because we chose not to. Do not mistake restraint for a lack of capability.

And there was "Project Star Trek": back in '92 they got System 7 running on a 486. It was shelved as Michael Spindler pushed for the PowerPC instead, but it existed.

But Tomb Raider: Anniversary is already that, and still looks perfectly good. And if you want it more strictly faithful to the original, there's the recent remaster. So this is absolutely unnecessary.

Not exactly, it used the Z80 to control the actual sound chips: a Yamaha YM2612 (which does FM) and a Texas SN76489 (which is a simpler PSG). And this setup, in the right hands, could produce absolutely excellent music.

The man really had no shame:
Brian Schmidt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Bobby Prince: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

That's sort of what Google does now. You try to search, it gives you some AI-generated overview of the topic before providing links. It's occasionally handy but most often infuriating.

It can't, that's just "synergy", the idea that one powerful brand can boost another. In reality it just causes confusion and incorrect assumptions.

If people treated airplanes the same way, they'd say: some planes have crashed before, so we must never fly again.

And if we all were not brothers of metal, would we fall?

I'd trust the durability of every other part more than the durability of the screen itself.

Rumored to be plagiarized off a low-budget '70s film. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0...