MalcolmOwen

applebynature said:

I'm a bit confused as to why Apple would be so against this when they already have a ready-to-go service (that they voluntarily developed themselves) that would scan for such images while keeping end-to-end encryption intact.

I think the tsunami of criticism and complaints that Apple had after mentioning it the first time may have something to do with it...

welshdog said:

73º?

That is shockingly low. Do you always wear long pants and shirts? Our central air system is set between 79º-81º depending on humidity and we are always comfortable. I have checked room temps against the thermostat setting and they match up. I see people posting low thermostat numbers like this all the time I can only assume they are inaccurate.

[Converts 73F into C]
I'm lucky enough to have an aircon unit in the UK, a country where they are often used in places of business, but not that much at home. 
Our recent heatwave pushed temperatures above 30C, and while the aircon could go down to 16C, it struggled to go below 24C, and that was unbearable. 
At least where I live, 73F isn't considered shockingly low. Not by a long stretch. 

moiety said:

AppleInsider staff –

Can we please NOT show that video keyframe image

The video shows a similar incident of a child being dragged under, but getting out and walking away. The caption text has been adjusted to advise the child in the video survived the incident. 

melgross said:

Something/s not right. They were talking about software running up to 3.8 times faster, so how could performance be equal to a two core Air chip. I just watched it, and I didn’t get that it was equivalent. We’re all missing something.

it just occurred to me what they said. I also said this on Arstechnica. It’s the four efficiency cores that are equal to the MacBook Air x86 chip, not the entire M1

This is correct. First version of the article was done at speed, and has been updated with the clarification. 

radarthekat said:

Apple was on the mark in its decision to stop reporting unit numbers for its major products.  That decision was made in 2014/2015, I believe, when the watch release was being planned.  Apple thinks things through years in advance.  Bravo.

Actually, Apple's decision was more recent than that, announced in November 2018. 
Given the widening of Apple's iPhone product line, the iPhone ASP wasn't going to be a great indicator long-term for which products were most popular, so Apple was probably right to stop those types of analytics from taking place.