randominternetperson

I never hear it mentioned any more, but all Product Red sales involve a donation to some global AIDS charity.  I'm sure there are lots of people completely unaware of this.  Apple doesn't even mention it on their site--unless you specifically search for it:  https://www.apple.com/product-red/

Huh, perhaps we should read the linked articles more carefully.  Here's the English translation of one:

https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2020/10/09/n_15056407.shtml

"Representatives of the American company Apple denied the data on the requirements to remove Telegram channels about Belarus. RIA Novosti reports .
The company said that they only turned to the Telegram administration with a request to take immediate action to delete personal data posted without the consent of specific individuals.
Apple clarified that such requirements arose against the background of complaints from users. So, people said that their personal information was disclosed in Telegram channels.
Apple representatives added that the service team did not object and promised to check the information received, and after investigation, give answers."

In other words, this wasn't about the App Store at all.  Someone complained to Apple that their personal information was available via this app without their consent and Apple reached out to the creator of the App to seek deletion of this information.  Seems pretty reasonable and harmless--unless the Apple representative included an "or else" that isn't acknowledged by Apple.

Perhaps we should be careful to take every tweet or complaint at face value.  Many times people completely mischaracterize what happened to make their case more compelling.

Can someone explain to us how Telegram works?  Individual channels aren't posted as updates that go through the App Store review process, are they?  So I'm going to assume, like most of the posters above, that Telegram is a platform that allows users to create "channels" during the normal use of the app.  Therefore, Apple learned of this because someone complained?  Even so, how is this different from any other messaging that flows through iOS apps every day?

On the other hand, it sounds like Apple is insisting that channels that are used exclusively to publish the personal information (presumably addresses and schedules?) of individuals. ["Durov countered, saying the three accounts in question "consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections," concluding that the removal of offending posts effectively equates to shutting down those channels."]  If there is a valid objection for interfering with speech, that's a pretty good reason.  In the US this past week there was talk about a group kidnapping and executing a midwestern governor.  This sounds like the same sort of information sharing.  I doubt they are sharing this information to mail birthday cards.

Again, I don't see why Apple is involved.  I don't understand why Apple thinks this violates its rules.  But perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to assume that Apple is appeasing dictators and crushing democracy with these requests.  Hopefully they would have made the same move if it were the Belarusian government posting the personal information of protesters using the Telegram app.

"As smaller speakers usually have trouble with bass sounds, Apple has also included force-cancelling passive radiators to create a bass extension, assisting to create a fuller sound."

I used to read books about speaker design (as a nerdy high schooler a million years ago), but I have no idea what dual passive radiators are.  Can someone here explain the physics of this?

Never mind, I found it.  "A passive radiator speaker design involves another speaker, but with no motor assembly. The magnet and voice coil are gone, but the cone and everything you cansee from the front are all there. The passive radiator subwoofer design is very similar to the bass reflex design, only instead of the vent or port, you have the passive bass radiator.
 
http://audiojudgement.com/passive-radiator-speaker-design/

inTIMidator said:

rob53 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

ITGUYINSD said:

Good ol' Bill Barr.  Can't wait until JAN 2021.  Buh-bye!

I don't think that this viewpoint that the DOJ has presented is going to change, regardless of who's in charge.

You can think that all you want but Barr is not your normal AG. Once he's gone, we can start clearing out the garbage and make sure the people who get installed are following the Constitution and laws, something Barr doesn't know anything about.

And stacking a court is constitutional?

Setting aside whether it's good politics or good policy, stacking or packing the court is clearly Constitutional.  The Constitution doesn't even hint at how many justices should be on the Supreme Court or how many lesser federal courts and judges there should be.  The Constitution implements zero restrictions on who can be on the Supreme Court or how the President should select them.