mac'em x

leighr said:

The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea.

The most laughably clueless understanding of "fact checker" I could ever imagine. Because to check facts is, precisely, to not decide what is or isn't true. It's to let reality provide the answer. A task performed by checking facts. Fact checking, if you will.

Then this guy tells us to check the examples of China and North Korea, which... Wait a second! He's checking the facts surrounding China and North Korea? In his world, that means HE'S DECIDING WHAT IS TRUE! Oh nos! WE ARE ALL IN TROUBLE!
 
This is what happens when you pack up your mind and relocate it to lollipop la-la land.

Look, I read Apple Insider because I use Mac's (And Windows).

Why the writers on the site seem to want to denigrate anything not Apple is ridiculous. Report on AAPL. If I want to read about MSFT, I'll go to Windows Central (Which, by the way,  never mentions either AAPL or GOOG in a derogatory manner.). Grow up!

Did the article say something factually untrue about its subject? If so, what? And if not, then what is this "denigrate" you speak of?

P.S. "Mac's"?

"How to setup and use . . . "

The verb is "set up". No exceptions.

M68000 said:

There is a school of thought that says cellphones should kept away from the body as much as possible. 

True. And there are "schools of thought" that say vaccines contain 5G chips, and government leaders have been replaced by reptile people, and the Denver International Airport is the headquarters of the Illuminati.

gadgetcanadav2 said:

Is it just me or is it weird to have an article talk about a video that Apple just released and not link said video in the article?

That's the kind of thing editors catch. Sadly, AppleInsider doesn't use editors.

jellybelly said:

“… were shown to be tiny thinkers who all just repeated the low signal-to-noise clucking of the other birds in the same coup in their daily work of dutifully laying eggs for Microsoft. …”

When I read this, I was stopped in my tracks.   It’s a gifted turn of words, and my favorite phrase to carry forward.  Thank you DANIEL ERAN DILGER.

If you should go about reposting that line, be sure to change "coup" to "coop".

(Ah, the ancient art of proofreading. It's as dead as the Zune, but not in the same happy way.)

"Edison bug allowed access to other user's email accounts"

Who was this other user?

auxio said:

…there's an endgame where him and his insiders get rich…

Yes, him will get rich. Them all will. Me know it. 

Pema said:

Apple is to [sic] busy sweeping up the Apple Car and Vision Pro mess... damage control over the Vision Pro... you will soon find out the fate of the Apple Vision Pro... 
My predicament [???], is that you will never, ever see one: Pro or Plus, or SE...

Yikes, what's your story? A Vision Pro killed your dad or something? 

This article is goofy (or as they say it in the industry, "in accordance with AppleInsider standards").

Please rewrite it. This time, don't go on about the battery life implications of "slimness". Write about the trade-off between battery life and lightness. That's the point of a slimmer device: it's more light. Lighter weight is a thing that people do want. That, not the straw man "slimness", is the quality involved in a trade-off with battery life. The whole shebang hinges on "light" and "weight" – words that don't appear once in the article.

What sort of tradeoff between battery life and device weight might people want? Or do iPhones need to be any lighter at all? Are they light enough as is? Take those key words (I italicized them) and rewrite the article so it actually says something. Go get busy!

(Edited to tone down some pre-coffee ranting. Sorry! Really, the diatribe isn't against this author; it's a snap at the many pundits who go on about "the pursuit of slimness" without even mentioning the prime objective of slimming: lighter weight. To all those pundits, I say: It's fine to dislike slimmer, lighter devices that come at the expense of battery life. But please stop imagining that "slimness" is the entirety of the goal. Give us your thoughts on the trade-off between battery life and weight!)