Marvin

9secondkox2 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

What "doesn't add up" is the idea that Democrats have the ability to cheat to win but inexplicably only choose to do it in 2020 and not also in 2016 and 2024. 

Two possibilities:

1. 2020 woke up the GOP. A lot more oversight this time. 

2. “Too big to rig.”

People forget that most are entrenched on one side or the other for a long time and it's only a small percentage in the middle that changes the outcome.

2020 was 81.2m (blue) vs 74.2m, (red) = 155m
2024 was 74.8m (blue) vs 77.1m (red) = 152m

Small shift (<5%) to the right was caused by the economy (ridiculous and greed-driven rent, grocery and energy prices with no government intervention), excessive immigration, out of control debt and other left-wing politics. It's not like the party of billionaires will fix all this but it at least sends a message that not doing anything about it isn't good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC-Uf7JiMPM

Regarding 'rigging', this mainly refers to people they don't regard as legitimate voters e.g first generation immigrants who gained citizenship (like Elon). Those people still voted but some shifted right, mainly men (like Elon who used to be left-wing). It's also common for narcissists to pre-emptively disregard losing by coming up with an excuse - if they lose, it wasn't fair. It's just childish, especially from someone with so many bankruptcies, 2 divorces and criminal charges to pretend they are a forever winner.

There were warnings for years that the more extreme people on the left would alienate people in the middle and drive them to the right but they just doubled down and pushed them away. This is the outcome (lost control of everything) and now they are crying in their cars and shaving their heads, not sure who decided the nose ring was a good look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlFZM47UuQ

Hopefully they'll learn over the next few years that politics requires compromise but I doubt it. Online interaction has the opposite social dynamic than real life interaction where division and conflict is the driving force and the more that people interact online, the more extreme they get. Zero tolerance politics always ends the same way. It doesn't mean tolerating everything, the left could win in a landslide every time by just being normal people with reasonable, small compromises on social and economic issues and then just pointing at the crazies on the other side.

There are people like this who work at Apple and are against Tim Cook working with the administration but they have to be involved when it comes to things like tariffs. The wrong decisions there could severely affect Apple's business being so dependent on imports from China.

hexclock said:

foregoneconclusion said:

hexclock said:

mark fearing said:

darbus69 said:

anyone who kisses the orange monsters ring is not doing the world any good, no matter what, period.

I would rather pay more for my all my creepy capitalistic goods than bow down to him.

I agree but the industrial entities always cave to fascists first. Germany, Italy, they fall in line.

What hyperbolic nonsense. Get over it, you lost. Try again in 4 years. 

FYI...Trump still doesn't believe he lost the 2020 election.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/12/to-work-in-the-trump-administration-you-must-correctly-answer-these-3-questions.html

So Biden got more votes than Obama, yet all those extra voters just stayed home this time? Something doesn’t add up. 

The total numbers after the counting was done are close between 2020 and 2024.

2020 was 81.2m (blue) vs 74.2m, (red) = 155m
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president

2024 was 74.8m (blue) vs 77.1m (red) = 152m
https://eu.usatoday.com/elections/results/2024-11-05/

Some of the difference is due to other candidates than the main two:
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2024
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

Total turnout was noted as 158m in 2020 vs 154m in 2024, very small difference.

But both significantly higher than 2016 at 136m (explained below):
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016

foregoneconclusion said:

hexclock said:

mark fearing said:

darbus69 said:

anyone who kisses the orange monsters ring is not doing the world any good, no matter what, period.

I would rather pay more for my all my creepy capitalistic goods than bow down to him.

I agree but the industrial entities always cave to fascists first. Germany, Italy, they fall in line.

What hyperbolic nonsense. Get over it, you lost. Try again in 4 years. 

FYI...Trump still doesn't believe he lost the 2020 election.

https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/12/to-work-in-the-trump-administration-you-must-correctly-answer-these-3-questions.html

There's something psychological that stops narcissists associating anything negative with themselves like losing. These types commonly refer to other people as losers. You can see his uncomfortable reaction when saying the words that he lost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Beg9NUOhZTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCbfTN-caFI&t=947s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJvQHVlkpPI

Someone said he was muttering "I won, I won" after losing because he couldn't handle it:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/election-results-trump-king-george-b1763487.html

There's another part to this, which is covered in the second video above, which is the excuse used and it comes back to immigration. Millions of people (>20m) migrated to the US between 1990-2015:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
https://www.facingsouth.org/2020/12/first-time-voters-played-decisive-role-2020-elections

Many of them only become eligible to vote years later and it changes the voting demographics that some people view as not legitimate as they aren't born citizens, hence their desire for a purge, a wall and changes to voter eligibility to prevent it happening again.

badmonk said:

GrannySmith99 said:

So the UK isn't in Europe any more? News to me!

Not since Brexit.

Europe is a continent, the UK left the EU, not Europe, same situation as Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Monaco, Montenegro etc.

https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/european-countries-that-are-outside-the-european-union

9secondkox2 said:

Cook gets it. Recognize a competent leader and team up. 

It’s great to see Apple have friends in high places again. 

Cook is one of the best business leaders today and it shows with his willingness for diplomacy.

When it comes to competency, I find it strange that almost every job below the highest job in democratic countries is decided by competency and review but the highest job is decided by a popularity contest, which is clearly no protection against corruption. It's also the same structure regardless of scale.

Tim Cook might not win a popularity contest but he's one of the most competent leaders, people like him should be running countries. At least by being close to the elected leadership, he can have a part in how it's run.

macminion said:

What is the name of the power cable that connects from the battery powered unit to the Mac mini?

It looks like this one - AC to C7 non-polarized:

https://www.amazon.com/Goalfish-Replacement-Console-Speaker-Monitor/dp/B09KLQBJRZ

kkqd1337 said:

I am no expert. But I don't think TVs carry enough margin for them to be worth Apple's time and effort.

Apple would sell their models with higher margins. PCs have low margins <5% net usually, Apple maintains around 25% net margin for Macs.

If an LG TV sells for $999 with 5% ($50) net margin, Apple could sell the exact same panel (they buy panels from LG/Samsung) for $1299 to get 25% net margin.

Quite a lot of people would pay $1299 for an Apple TV instead of a $999 LG TV. They won't take a huge marketshare but it's a reasonably sized market at over 200m units per year:

https://advanced-television.com/2022/02/22/samsung-lg-dominate-global-tv-market/

The biggest manufacturers (LG, Samsung) have around 10-20% unit share. If Apple aims for 10m units/year (5% yearly marketshare), they'd make $13b revenue, $3b net income.

They can ship the TV with A18 Pro or M2/3/4 chips so it can play iOS games.

While 10m units/year doesn't sound like a lot, the worldwide market is over 1.5b units so if they can sustain the sales, they would be able to build up a decent install base within a few years.

If they go all-in with dual layer OLED panels, they can rival the image quality of competing units around the same price point and they will have the best chassis design, as thin as possible with a solid metal enclosure and ports all neatly lined up, intuitive remote control and UI, support for connecting/streaming from iOS devices seamlessly.

gmgravytrain said:

dk49 said:

Wasn't that "secret" stolen by ex Apple engineers who started Nuvia (now Qualcomm)? XElite apparently has better performance per watt.

How did the X Elite chip catch up so quickly and has a far more powerful iGPU than what Apple chips have?

In the higher performance models, they run the X Elite chip at >100W, which needs a copper heatsink to keep it cool and it performs like M3 Pro at this level. Max chips run faster than X Elite at the same or lower power.

The X Elite GPU is < 5TFLOPs, M4 Max is ~18TFLOPs:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Qualcomm-Adreno-X1-85-4-6-TFLOPS-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.850228.0.html

https://gfxbench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=gfx50&did=119508313
https://gfxbench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=gfx50&did=123984693

A lot of the performance-per-watt comes from TSMC hardware so the same node of chips should get close to the same efficiency but Apple has an advantage with end-to-end hardware and software. They control, the OS, drivers, APIs, hardware, no other manufacturer has this.

mainyehc said:

y2an said:

Sorry but this goes back to the PA Semi acquisition in 2008. A clear move to become wholly market leading in chip design. 

It’s almost as if Apple execs always regarded the switch to Intel as a stopgap measure, i.e. being dependent upon Intel wasn’t any better than being dependent on IBM and Motorola, in the grand scheme of things, but it was just technologically expedient for the time being. Steve and his minions, and their successors alike, have always been playing a really long game of 4D chess.

They originally wanted Intel to make the chips for the iPhone. If Intel had delivered on this, they probably would have stuck with them but there were too many issues with cost, development speed, IP, performance-per-watt.

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Ex-Intel-Boss-Regrets-Saying-No-to-Steve-Jobs-iPhone-354197.shtml

It took 10 years for Apple's mobile chips to scale to replace Intel chips in Macs, maybe it was planned but I think Intel just failed to deliver and it eventually made no sense to keep using them at all.