Apple wouldn't license Broadcom ARM cores. They have their own. I could see Apple using Broadcom ASIC cells for Wi-Fi, but that wouldn't be a Broadcom part at that point; it would be an Apple part, because it being a Broadcom part would imply that Broadcom can make the part available to other companies.
...and we will do this for another 10 years. So, are they saying that after 10 more years, they're not going to do it anymore?
I think the 10 years only applies to FTC supervision, not the expectation of the right to repair.
It's an out-of-court settlement. After ten years, if they lock down repairs again, it's not a breach of the agreement, so the government will have to care enough to file a lawsuit.
I feel like the real way to solve this problem is to wait for the all-electric Chinese-made tractors to get good enough, then let John Deere shrivel on the vine. They're only able to pull this stuff because there isn't much competition.
Apparently broadcom does have fabs and they make chips and apple uses them for that. I don't really think of broadcom like that but yeah I guess they do. So it's Apple designed chips being manufactured by broadcom.
You missed my point, which is that if Apple is designing them, they're Apple chips, not Broadcom chips. That's the part that didn't make sense.
This article seems nonsensical to me. If Apple is designing the chips, how are they Broadcom chips? Either Apple is designing them (or has designed them), in which case they're Apple chips, and Apple is paying Broadcom to build and maintain fabs for them, or Broadcom is designing them, and Apple is paying them to make them in the U.S.
Depends on whether I want to wait for the longer shipping.
For me, there are three classes of products:
That last category has been the largest category of my purchasing for the last year and a half or so. For example, my Chinese-made contrabass flute (Alibaba) saved me probably about $15,000 over a name brand. So even though I'm still trying to get the middle section to stop leaking, it's playable, and it is totally worth the extra minor repair work to save ~80% off of such an expensive purchase.
...you create supermarket from never having been in the supermarket business.
Sure.
It becomes successful, without leeching off your competitors.
It becomes successful, and you sell your house brands at a price lower than your competitors can sell their brands, because you don't have to pay yourself the retail markup. Okay, supermarket analogy still applies so far, except that your customers also live in a town (operating system) that has only your supermarket, and you use technological means to prevent those customers from going to another supermarket unless they buy a new house (phone).
All of a sudden they start whining, and The Man decides you should not only allow them to sell inside your store, you are supposed to do it for free, even use your resources to help them sell, and not devote 100% of your time to your own business.
False. None of the competitors are demanding that. They are demanding that either A. you level the playing field so that you don't have an unfair competitive advantage from being the only supermarket or B. you stop using technological and legal means to prevent other supermarkets from existing.
That's what the EU is doing here.
Not remotely.
DUH. That's the play. They force you into a "service" as an "opt out." Then - oh, the free tier is insufficient. Or the free tier JUST GOES AWAY and then they're holding your computer hostage.
I doubt it. I'd bet it's more of a problem of feature parity with OS X. Even though Windows has backup and restore, it still gets ragged on for not handling device moves or replacements as nicely -- even though the main problem is users and/or app developers not turning it on. I'll bet that first MS offered the feature and left it to users to discover and enable, but hardly anyone did. Then they started nagging people to turn it on, and most still didn't. So now they're turning it on by default.
I saw this same story play out on Android (when I worked there), firsthand. Backup was added to provide feature parity with Apple and to reduce user complaints about lost data. But approximately no one turned it on. In Android there were actually two obstacles, because out of abundant concern for privacy the backup solution required both app developers and users to opt in. User opt-in improved when users were nagged to enable it at setup time, but then they were annoyed that when they restored a backup hardly anything was restored because hardly any app developers opted in. Eventually apps were opted in by default (app devs can still opt out, but most don't) and the feature became somewhat more functional -- except for apps that were broken by it because app developers didn't expect to have their app and its data suddenly appear on a different device.
I had a front row seat to this saga because the component I owned (Android Keystore) was a significant motivator for requiring apps to opt into backup. The problem is that Keystore's core purpose is to provide hardware-backed cryptographic key material which is permanently and irrevocably bound to the device (and is strongly guaranteed to be wiped on factory reset). When an app that uses Keystore keys has its data restored from backup and then tries to load one of its Keystore keys, it gets a null pointer. If the app developer didn't check for null, that turned into a NullPointerException, and if they didn't catch the NPE, their app crashed. Net result: after a restore, most banking and many other apps crashed on startup because one of the first things they do is try to use their keys to authenticate to their servers.
I designed a key backup and restore scheme but my scheme would require app developers to opt into key backup on a per-key basis, at key generation time, because adding any automatic backup/restore solution would have broken the fundamental security property of Keystore. The scheme was moderately complex because it tried very hard to make it impossible for Google to ever access the backed-up secrets, and it relied on some internal server infrastructure whose sole purpose was to make it possible for Google to store data it could not access. That infrastructure was expensive, fragile, high-maintenance and not much used so it was at risk of being turned down because the teams that used it couldn't afford to maintain it. Strongly authenticating the new device and the user before releasing secrets was also tricky. At the end of the day, I never launched the Keystore B&R scheme (though vestiges of it remain visible in the Keystore secure key import scheme, which was designed for B&R but is useful on its own. Specifically, the import format includes a "masking key" field that isn't really useful in the normal import flow, but was crucial to the scheme that kept the secrets impenetrable to Google).
At the end of the day, app developers eventually fixed their apps to deal with being restored, mostly, and forcing users to make a backup/no-backup decision during device setup generated high adoption. Android B&R works fairly well today (except where device OEMs screw it up), though people still complain that the whole system isn't as smooth or as seamless as iOS', I think mostly because Android apps can opt out, but iOS apps can't (AFAIK).
I like that when I spend money, I'm actually spending it and not creating debt. (Don't get me wrong, I always pay off my credit card bills every month
If you pay it off every month, it's not really debt, is it? You never pay any interest, and the only way it translates into actual debt is if you have more expenses than you can cover -- but in that case you'd be reaching for debt of some sort regardless. But with a CC you do get the fraud buffer (the fact that you haven't happened to need it, yet, doesn't mean anything), and you get to delay your payments by about one month, which IMO is really quite nice. I not only get a short interest-free loan, letting me keep my cash in an interest-bearing account (currently about 1%, not a lot but not nothing), but I also have the flexibility to decide which account or accounts to keep my cash in (I actually keep most of it in a couple of brokerage accounts, not a regular bank account; yes, it's still insured by FDIC).
Plus I get 1-5% cash back depending on where I use it.
I realize that The 2-6% I get back (rewards + delayed payment interest) is paid for out of the fees the merchant pays and passes on to us all. I think it would actually be better if merchants were allowed to itemize those fees on my bill, which would discourage use of high-fee cards and change the calculation. With the system as it is, though, I'll absolutely stick with my credit cards.
Most people learn multiple languages at school because they are mandatory.
This is very regional, but if you're talking about populations that speak 3+ languages fluently, it's generally not because they learn them in school.
It really does not make sense to have a cap only for out-of-network, when in-network arguably are less cost for the institutions. But of course banks are spending a lot of money on both parties so...
At some level, it does. When these laws were passed, I think the main goal was to stop companies from charging exorbitant fees to other companies' cardholders when using their ATMs to withdraw money and similar. You wouldn't want to do that to your own customers, because you'd lose them as customers, so why would the government regulate it?
But now, years later, in the context of retail sales, card companies want the opportunity to charge higher fees to retailers so that they can give rewards, confident that the retailers will charge customers the average fee rather than passing on the exact fee that they get charged on a per-customer basis, and as a result, that jacking up the prices for your own cards won't cause you to lose customers.
The truly perverse (incentive) part is that customers are forced to chase the higher fees or else they're paying more as the stores up their prices to the newer, higher average.
The only sane way to solve it is for cash-back rewards to be banned outright, with the only allowed exception being retailer-issued cards that grant cash back exclusively at their store by using their own low-fee network (e.g. airline cards, Amazon cards, Apple cards). Because those retailers have every incentive to keep prices low, this very narrow case doesn't have that problem. But even those shouldn't be allowed to give cash back everywhere.
Let us not be under the illusion that business owners would lower their prices if it wasn't for those 'dang fees'. Once they realized you'd pay the hire price, if the fees are gone, the businesses are just going to go 'yummy more money for me'.
Depends on how crowded the market is. If there's healthy competition, they might, or one of their competitors might, forcing their hand.
Intelligent people are both more likely to learn multiple languages
Multilingualism is weakly correlated with intelligence. It's strongly correlated with growing up in an area where people speak many languages.
I am saying the idea deciding to learn a language will protect your brain is NOT supported by the data
Well, this data says that your best bet is to have learned a lot of languages as a child. The study found that earlier acquisition of multiple languages was more effective than learning additional languages later in life.
However, I don't believe that forbidding access to social networks is actually protecting them. This just feels as an excuse for having more control over people.
I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. I think this is an honest attempt to protect kids from something that is clearly harmful to them. I just don't think it will work. I think it's a situation where people see a real problem and feel like they must do something, but don't really know what can work. This is something, and there's a non-zero (if small) probability that it will do more good than harm.
Nowadays, a degree is nothing more than an invitation to an interview.
It was never anything more than an invitation. A degree is a prerequisite for many jobs, but it has never been a guarantee.
It suggests that you have been exposed to the bare minimum information that will be helpful for a particular job.
That's part of it, but the smaller part. The more important parts are that a college degree demonstrates that you can learn, that you can take on a large, somewhat challenging, multi-year task and complete it, and that you succeeded at acquiring some level of broad-based education. Engineers and other specialists tend to scoff somewhat at "liberal education" because it doesn't seem like it's useful... but there have been endless attempts to substitute narrow vocational education in technical fields and they don't stick.
In the late 90s I worked with people who'd graduated from BM's attempt to provide narrowly-focused education. IBM had scoured the factories for the brightest then sent them to an intensive two-year course in software engineering, paying them to learn. The result was competent software engineers who were difficult to work with because they knew absolutely nothing but software. Their thinking was full of the basic misunderstandings of politics, economics, science, literature, etc. that you find in typical people without any post-high school education -- and who didn't pay much attention in high school either.
They knew information theory and could write good code, but their lack of general education negatively impacted their ability to build software systems in many ways. They didn't communicate well in writing (though technical writing courses had been part of their IBM education), but more fundamentally they just weren't very good at understanding the complex problems of the business. It's hard to pin down precisely what the issue was, but it was real. They were as smart or smarter than many of the college grads... but they were just less effective as employees.
IBM ultimately abandoned the approach and started sending bright young factory workers to regular universities. Even that was less effective than hiring people who had gotten to and through college on their own, though.
As far as student loans, I view them as the newest version of crushing payday loans. Only the most desperate reach for them and get roped into a crushing interest rate trap.
Indeed... though I also think that the trap is less crushing than many like to describe. I think the biggest issue isn't that the loan repayment is crushing, but that people don't like paying for something they got years ago. I don't mind paying my mortgage because I'm paying for a house I'm living in now. I would definitely resent making payments on a house I already sold and moved out of.
Personally, I didn't get any student loans. It would have been financially smart for me to have done so, actually, but I didn't.
Begin your degree at a community college
Or a cheap four-year school, which was my strategy. Even better if there's such a school close to where your parents live, so you can live at home. A lot of the cost of education isn't the education, it's room and board, and if you can get that from your mom & dad for free, do it. This was my plan, though I ended up not following it because I got married -- but I married a woman who is a couple of years older than me and was close to graduation herself. She graduated a few months after we got married and started work that fall as a school teacher; not a lot of money but enough. Financially this strategy worked well for her; she quit teaching after a few years and has since lived on my income, which is an order of magnitude larger than she'd ever have made.
Volunteer for the military in a related field, or even in a general occupation. A two-year military enlistment qualifies for the GI bill
Another alternative is to join the National Guard or a reserve branch of the military. I joined the Air Force reserve. It qualifies you for most of the GI Bill benefits, but only requires a few months up front of full-time service for basic training and specialty training. After that, one weekend per month plus two weeks per year (which your employer is legally obligated to allow you to do). If you pick a military job that is related to your career plans, the specialty training could be extensive, as much as three years in some cases. Or you can pick something with less training requirements. I became a Security Policeman because the training was short... though what I learned about physical security has actually been useful in my software career.
I mentioned above that I should have gotten some student loans... I didn't realize until too late that part of the GI Bill benefits was that the government would have paid off my loans for me. I met another kid who was going to school on scholarships + GI Bill money who took advantage of this: He borrowed $20k (in ~1995) for "school", but used it to buy a brand new Camaro, then let the US Army pay it off.
Don't get locked into the four-year degree must be completed in four years trap.
Start to end, it took me 8 years, though I took a two-year hiatus to be a missionary. The last four of those, I was working full time, writing software. The last year of that time I was actually teaching a C++ programming course at night at the university I was attending, getting paid a small amount as adjunct faculty and getting 50% off of tuition for my own final coursework. That last part was not a common situation by any means, not something you can plan on, but it worked well for me.
I think it would have been marvelous to have done a "traditional" college education, living away from home, immersed in the college culture with lots of other young people. But I graduated with zero debt, and having already started my career, and my family, so it was a great outcome.
CaptQuark's main point is absolutely right: You don't need large student loans to get an education.
You can be replaced by this computer.
