crowley

designr said:

CheeseFreeze said:

However the Mac Studio looks ugly and the designers didn't have the balls to move beyond stacking two Minis together; a wasted opportunity.
I hope the new Mac Pro and iMac Pro will show a more ambitious design.

I'm just a little surprised that they didn't just do the obvious by going a little taller for a cube shape.

fastasleep said:

darkvader said:

fastasleep said:

darkvader said:

I'm fine with bezels on my computer.  I don't really care how big they are.  They can be huge, tiny, or nonexistent.

But that stupid notch has to go.  It's a no-brainer to give up screen real estate to get rid of it, because screen with a notch in the middle of it is useless anyway.  It was an incredibly stupid move by Apple.

I'd rather give up the camera entirely.  Most users tape over it anyway, so it's not like anybody is actually giving up anything of value.  If you need a camera, there are plenty of external cameras on the market.

“Useless” 
“most users”
LOL

The. Stupid. Notch. Blocks. The. Menu. Bar.

How is that anything but useless?  There are ways to move the menu bar down and turn the 'screen' space beside the notch into a bezel, but that's less than ideal.  Sure, it's better than the notch, but it wastes more screen real estate than putting the camera in a proper bezel would.

Do you actually have one? It hasn't once been an issue for me, and I've had my M1 Max MBP since just after launch. Not a single time have I  thought it was in the way. And, if you do choose to put it below the notch (I haven't with any apps yet), it takes up the exact same amount of space had they omitted the notch and extra screen real estate altogether. There are apps to completely disable the extra screen area and make it black — essentially putting the camera in a bezel — if that's what you prefer, so it's really not an issue. Useless, it is not — it's a design compromise with more benefits than not having it.

davidw said:

crowley said:

camber said:

In their own jurisdiction the EU is perfectly entitled to pass whatever laws they think their citizenry will obey. However, there is one aspect of this proposed legislation that is illegal and immoral. The EU does not have the right to levy fines on any company's WORLD WIDE revenue or income. They are only legally entitled to level such fines on revenue or income produced in their jurisdiction!!!

Why?  If I commit a crime in the USA where the penalty is a fine then I don't get out of it because my income is all outside of the USA.  Judges often set penalties with one eye on ability to pay and appropriate level of discomfort to the judged.

Here in the US, a "fine" for violating a law, is the same for all that breaks that law, no matter the of income of the person or entity that broke that law. A judge can reduce the fine based on the inability to pay, but can't increase the fine just because the plaintiff can afford to pay more. It's "punitive" damages that can be awarded by the ability of the plaintiff to pay. But the punitive damages can not just be based on the plaintiff wealth or ability to pay. 

Imagine if the amount of the fine for a parking ticket or for speeding, was based on the income of the driver. If that were the case, parking or speeding tickets would mainly be issued to cars made by the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Porches and Tesla. Why ticket the driver of a $1K 20 year old clunker when the government can most likely get much more in fines by ticketing the Mercedes, for the same effort and offense? The fine should not be different for the driver of a Honda and the driver of a Lamborghini.   

In the US, there has been many SCOTUS rulings that limits punitive damages. Even if the plaintiff could had easily pay it. Many States place limits on punitive damages. The SCOTUS has ruled that excessive punitive damages can be a violation of the Constitution 8th Amendment, dealing with "excessive fines". The amount of the punitive damages must be in line with the amount of compensatory damages (actual damages and harm), not the income or wealth of the plaintiff. If there's no compensatory damages awarded, then there can not be any award for punitive damages. If compensatory damages (actual damages and harm) can not be proven in a court of law, then how can there be any punitive damages?  What is the plaintiff being punished for? 

The "fine" should be base on how much actual damages or harm was caused by breaking the law and that fine should be the same for all violators, regardless of income or wealth. Punitive damages should not be excessive when compared to the amount for actual damages and harm. If Apple, Google and Microsoft broke the same EU regulation and cause the same damages, Apple should not have to pay a "fine" of $3.7B, while Google has to pay $2.7B and Microsoft only $1.7B, based on annual global revenue. It's the same "parking ticket"and the fine should be the same for all three. If the EU wants to punish the violator, then the punitive damage should be in line with the compensatory damages, not the violator global revenue.   

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 ;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2021/04/08/are-constitutionally-excessive-punitive-damages-headed-back-to-the-supreme-court-lets-hope-so/

If Volkswagen was fined 10% of their $275B global revenue (at the time) for violating emission laws in all the jurisdictions involved, Volkswagen would no longer be in business today, just from having to pay the fines. Never mind the compensatory and civil damages and the cost to fix the damages they caused to all parties. In the US, Volkswagen was fined  about $2.8B in criminal fines and a settlement where Volkswagen had to pay at least another $18B to repair the damages they caused. There was no extra punitive damages levied to punish Volkswagen for violating US emission laws. The $2.8B in criminal fine was based on a set fine for each of the cars they sold in the US (that cheated on emissions). If was not based on any global revenue or cars they sold globally. Not even the EU levied a fine that was based on Volkswagen global revenue or cars sold. The US fine amounted to just a slap on the wrist and the EU fine was just a scolding while waving a finger and saying ... don't let us catch you doing that again. 

camber said:

In their own jurisdiction the EU is perfectly entitled to pass whatever laws they think their citizenry will obey. However, there is one aspect of this proposed legislation that is illegal and immoral. The EU does not have the right to levy fines on any company's WORLD WIDE revenue or income. They are only legally entitled to level such fines on revenue or income produced in their jurisdiction!!!