DarkMouze
About
- Username
- DarkMouze
- Joined
- Visits
- 18
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 162
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 39
Reactions
-
Apple plans slimmest iPhone 17 & MacBook Pro designs following iPad Pro success
chasm said:scampercom said:I only carry my phone when I’m traveling, and it’s been a harrowing experience. The battery seems to drain so quickly (see: range anxiety) and I’m constantly having to manage it. What I’d love more than anything: keep the damn phones the same thickness—or make them slightly thicker—and give me solid 18-hours of life.Take a look at the battery pack you probably (or should) have to keep your iPhone charged when you're away from power outlets. It's most likely to be considerably thicker and heavier than your iPhone, especially if you really need 18 hours (when do you sleep?) of "solid" (ie in-use) battery life. Now imagine slapping a screen on that battery and then the computer components on top of that, and that's the weight and thickness of your new iPhone.It sounds to me like what really needs constant managing here is your phone addiction ... -
Altman beats OpenAI board and returns as CEO after stormy exit
CelticPaddy said:palomine said:What is Apple doing with AI these days? -
'Scary Fast' iMac with M3 is here with few external changes
-
M3 Mac mini, 14-inch &16-inch MacBook Pro aren't coming in the fall
-
Be careful with emoji, because they are legally binding in Canada
None of us have remotely enough information on the case to be weighing in on it like this. For what it’s worth, reportedly, the guy had a pattern of using various emoji to confirm other transactions with that company. Is that enough to go on? I don’t know, because I have no specifics on those previous transactions, on the full body of evidence presented, on Canadian case law, on pertinent precedent, etc. I DO know that, as another commenter noted above, under the right circumstances, any mark, symbol, scribble, etc., can legally stand in for a legible or illegible signature, I’m not prepared to assume that either of the parties, or the judge, are wrong in what they’re saying.