Xed

dope_ahmine said:

It could be worth mentioning that Apple’s cable specs reach the maximum performance as specified by Intel.

The cost of increasing quality is seldom linear, but rises when approaching 100%. This fact, and that it’s a “specialty” cable sold at low volumes, might explain the $129.

It would have been interesting to see a comparison with other TB4 cables that also reach maximum performance. Only then could we tell whether Apple’s price is unreasonably high or not.

That has been answered in another AI article a month ago.

I see that Ecosia is now an option in Safari. I'm not sure when it was added, but I assume it was for macOS Sonoma. I hadn't heard of it before. This seems like something that is inline with Apple's ethos that they could get for cheap... assuming they felt they could earn more profit than what Google gives them (which seems very doubtful).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosia


edit: It looks like Apple added it on "14 December 2020 [...] as a search engine option in macOS Big Sur 11.1 and iOS/iPadOS 14.3."

coolfactor said:

A "barcode" is not the same as a "QR code".

Let's get the editorial standards higher, eh?

Barcode is the generic reference to all such codes, and QR codes are considered a 2D barcode.

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

"His primary concern appears to be explaining to potential users exactly why they need this product, despite being an "excellent experience.""

I'm certainly in that boat.