spheric

Xed said:

spheric said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

9secondkox2 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

9secondkox2 said:

williamlondon said:

ramanpfaff said:

A professional grifter. Robbing any fool that will listen to him. Humanity has failed. 

The key here is the “fool,” without whom the entire movement would crumble.

Last I saw, a moderator here was deleting the same kind of posts for attacking politicians. but I guess it only applies to whatever side has the favorable bias. Have some consistency. 

The "side" is the same side most of the entire world sides with.  Sorry you're not on the majority side.

Not the majority on this forum. But in the country? See the recent election. 

Okay, *looks at recent election*

Total number of people in America: 340 million

People that voted for Trump in 2024: 77 million

People that voted for Trump in 2020: 74 million

People that voted for Trump in 2016: 62 million

You can't count the total population, as a bunch of those aren't even eligible to vote (due to being underage, and to systematic disenfranchisement of convicted criminals in many states). You also cannot count those who didn't vote, since NOT voting automatically means tacit agreement with whatever the outcome is. 

Total number of votes in 2024: 156 million. 

Trump got 49.4% of total votes cast. 

You absolutely can count the total popular when someone claims that the majority of the country supports a candidate.

In one sentence you mention "systematic disenfranchisement of convicted criminals in many states" and in the next you state "NOT voting automatically means tacit agreement with whatever the outcome is". Additionally, I know of a lot of people who can't vote due to age that didn't want a felon, rapist, and conman in office.

Do you not recall that FL changed the voting rights of previously convicted felons, but then Ron DeSantis then targeted and arrested many of those people who voted legally to scare off would-be Democratic voters in the future? I can understand why they would then not want to risk more jail time or even legal fees, and it has nothing to do with not wanting to vote.

How about the voting is set up to disenfranchise those that would not likely vote for a Republican? Things like Jerry Maundering to simply making voting so difficult that hard working people with families simply can't get the time to cast a vote?

Voting should be fair and balanced but it's unbalanced from the EC down. 

Wesley_Hilliard said:

9secondkox2 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

9secondkox2 said:

williamlondon said:

ramanpfaff said:

A professional grifter. Robbing any fool that will listen to him. Humanity has failed. 

The key here is the “fool,” without whom the entire movement would crumble.

Last I saw, a moderator here was deleting the same kind of posts for attacking politicians. but I guess it only applies to whatever side has the favorable bias. Have some consistency. 

The "side" is the same side most of the entire world sides with.  Sorry you're not on the majority side.

Not the majority on this forum. But in the country? See the recent election. 

Okay, *looks at recent election*

Total number of people in America: 340 million

People that voted for Trump in 2024: 77 million

People that voted for Trump in 2020: 74 million

People that voted for Trump in 2016: 62 million

9secondkox2 said:

williamlondon said:

ramanpfaff said:

A professional grifter. Robbing any fool that will listen to him. Humanity has failed. 

The key here is the “fool,” without whom the entire movement would crumble.

Last I saw, a moderator here was deleting the same kind of posts for attacking politicians. but I guess it only applies to whatever side has the favorable bias. Have some consistency. 

davidw said:

mikethemartian said:

darelrex said:

avon b7 said:

The EU has every right to level playing fields and counter consumer harm and the stifling of innovation.

... 

Is there anything the EU could possibly demand of Apple that you would not call "leveling the playing field"? Should Apple's chip team be required to provide chips to Apple's competitors? Should Apple be required to license iOS to its competitors? Should it be required to allow installation of alternate OSes on iPhone and iPad? Do you have any sane legal theory of which features of its products a company should be allowed to control, and which it should be forced to turn into third-party flea markets — or do you say "leveling the playing field" when you really mean leveling Apple with any frightfully damaging fairness fantasy that comes down the regulatory pike, simply so that Apple won't be so successful any more, and the playing field therefore will be more "level"?

I don’t know about the history of the EU’s antitrust but in the US we have had antitrust laws for about 130 years and reviewing the famous cases of IBM and AT&T you will see that all those hypotheticals you listed were basically done to those two companies.

Both IBM and ATT had monopolies under US anti-trust laws. IBM had over 70% of the computer main frame market and ATT was a government-granted monopoly in the telecommunication market (back then that was land line telephones). Being handed a government-granted monopoly, allowed the US government to regulate ATT. Both IBM and ATT were determined to be abusing their monopoly.

What monopoly do Apple have? And how did Apple abuse it?

MassiveAttack said:

Why not skip WWDC2025 for first time?

Rotten Apple. 

If it is true, AAPL will tank again with a timid upgrade.. 
But iPhone has been boring since iPhone 12. 

The last exciting moment was iPhone X.