gatorguy

Angmoh said:

wood1208 said:

Apple rather make it 99% right than put in market with 90% right. Few months here or there does not make much difference for a product in new category. Apple is now so big that they can continue working on many products/projects simultaneously with different schedule to release. Most large enterprises do that. 

HomeKit/Matter/Thread is as per today very immature. Same for competitors. Google Home is more stable, but far less capable.

I have a Nest Hub and the screen is effectively useless for anything else than being a clock. 
 

Google Home is "far less capable" than what? Granted the system may be different on iOS than on Android, but chalk that up to Apple system limitations AFAIK. So again, which home control and monitoring system are you claiming more capable? I'm not aware of any, but I haven't tried much else..  

Stabitha_Christie said:

So, the tariffs were announced in April and then delayed for 90 days. At the point where the tariff were delayed we were promised "90 deals in 90 days"  In that time Trump claimed he had made deals with 200 countries despite there not being 200 countries to actually make deals with. This week we will hit the 90 days with exactly two deals made. 

Not even two finalized deals AFAICT. What we have at the moment is the framework for two potential deals rather than signed trade agreements. Quite the dealmaker....

anthogag said:

Zuckerberg could be paying Chinese workers to quit Foxconn to help stop the spread of Apple Intelligence.

??? 
"...Foxconn has been telling Chinese workers to return (to China), for about the last two months. So far over 300 Chinese workers have left, and one source claimed that most people remaining are support staff from Taiwan."

bwik said:

Who pays a tariff fully depends on whether there is a substitute supplier or buyer.  The columnist confidently declares buyers pay for tarriffs.  Yes, they do, if there is no alternative supplier anywhere on Earth who sells a comparable product.  But most products do have alternative sellers.  This means the seller must pay some of, or in many cases, near 100% of the tariff.  Don’t take my word for it (two degrees from leading universities in this subject).  Ask ChatGPT.  

What successful seller would absorb 100% of any costs, tariff or not, without eventually passing it on to a client, customer, or retail buyer? Ain't happening IMHO, but please do post an example of where import taxes, AKA tariffs, would not be factored into the price of a product a consumer buys.

By definition a tariff is a tax imposed on foreign-made goods, paid by the importing business to its home country's government. You seem to disagree, so a couple of examples please.

sdw2001 said:

randominternetperson said:

I was going to post that this article is misleading by saying that "However, President Trump is still in control of the trust and has the ability to make decisions that affect the company."  Because, obviously, the only appropriate way a trust could be set up would be as a blind trust (like every other president used) where they explicitly relinquish control over their business/investments.

But then I fact checked this and I was a fool to give Trump any benefit of the doubt. Trump didn't set up a blind trust at all; he retains "significant influence or control over the activities of the trust."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/05/06/trump-organization-admits-president-still-controls-his-business-in-new-filing/

You can’t really set up a blind to trust with active businesses like that. And not every other president did that. President in the early days of the republic had one desk for business and one for the country. Literally in the same room.

Every President for 50 years not-named-Trump has put their businesses into a blind trust. Is conflict of interest not a thing if your name is Trump, but the public expects better optics from all the others? Legal and ethical are of course different standards, and doing so is not a legal requirement. IMO it should be.

Remember how Joe Biden was demonized by Trump for his son Hunter potentially making any money from Presidential connections? Donald Trump has frequently accused Hunter Biden of using his father's name and position for financial gain. Trump's campaign, for example, ran an ad stating: "The question is not why Hunter Biden used his name to get these gigs. It's why Joe Biden let him do it."  Yet here we now with a different ethical standard. Is that OK with you?