DuhSesame said:

crowley said:

DuhSesame said:

crowley said:

DuhSesame said:

docno42 said:

DuhSesame said:
No other laptops (except Alienware) can do eGPU+external SSD without any interference. 

Apple SOC doesn't support eGPU and I would expect it's a low priority, if it's even a goal.  Another red herring.  

Pfft.

we’re talking about older Intel models and you wanna switch topics to M1s.

If you don’t understand how it works, I won’t blame you.  Switching conversation is too low for me.  No more arguments.

No one was talking about Intel machines, this entire thread is about the new MacBook Pros.  You should probably get on the same page as everyone else before throwing around accusations that other people don't understand.

Oh are we not?  I said "Intel Macs with eGPU + SSD" but the M1 can't use eGPUs, so Thunderbolt on Intel is also pointless?  We are comparing older Macs to older laptops, aren't we?

Either way, I explained on the post above, he clearly doesn't understand why and I don't want to waste my time.

You literally responded to someone talking about the addition of HDMI and SD and removal of a Thunderbolt port on the new MacBook Pros saying that you'd prefer the bandwidth (of an extra Thunderbolt port) and used an eGPU as your example.  But since the new M1 MacBook Pros are not currently compatible with eGPUs that's a duff example. 

You also never said "Intel Macs with eGPU + SSD".  I searched the entire thread, you never said it. So now I don't think you're engaging in good faith.  And this sentence "the M1 can't use eGPUs, so Thunderbolt on Intel is also pointless?" is just bizarre.  You're just making stuff up.

So no, we are definitely not talking about Intel MacBook Pros.  You are the only person doing that, and yes you are wasting your time and everyone else's.  So please read the thread back, get on the same page, and quit with the telling other people they don't understand.

Answer me this:  My point is "pointless" because the 4th thunderbolt won't add more bandwidth, does that mean the older Intel MacBook Pros doesn't have the highest bandwidth available on laptops, which is what I am trying to say?  Who's the one that can't comprehend?

waveparticle said:

tmay said:

waveparticle said:

tmay said:

waveparticle said:

tmay said:

waveparticle said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

tmay said:

Worth a read for those of us in the reality based world...
.....
I guess agreeing with the above make me a China "hater"...

Not that by itself -- but the unending stream of hate and smear tactics does.

In any case, I hope that bullshit helped you feel better about your bullshit.

Yeah, quoting a bunch of academics is always a risky proposition. /s

You might want to peek into the dark side and actually read the entire PDF, but you're afraid of what you might find, just like Waveparticle is unable to deny Xinjiang Region human rights violations.

LOL!

Information is your Lord Valdemort, and you're scared to death that it will turn you inside out.

I don't deny there may be human rights violations according to the mighty US standard. But genocide? Definitely not! 

UN defines genocide more broadly than murdering an ethnic population, and the US follows the UN standard.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Definition

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 

1. Killing members of the group; 
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Elements of the crime

The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements: 

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and 
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
   • Killing members of the group
   • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
   • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
   • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
   • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. 

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

You lose this argument.

Which definition is violated? 

At least 2, 3, and 4, according to reliable information, that I have previously posted, and you have previously denied.

4 is not. 4 said measure to PREVENT births within the group. But Uyghurs population actually grows faster than Hans in Xinjiang. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/12/chinese-uyghur-policy-causes-unprecedented-fall-in-xinjiang-birthrates

Birthrates in Xinjiang fell by almost half in the two years after the Chinese government implemented policies to reduce the number of babies born to Uyghur and other Muslim minority families, new research has claimed.

The figures show unprecedented declines which were more extreme than any global region at any time in the 71 years of UN fertility data collection, including during genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia, according to the authors of the report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Aspi).

The data adds to mounting evidence of coercive fertility policies in Xinjiang, including first-person accounts of forced sterilisation or birth control, and leaked policing data on the internment of women for violating family planning regulations.

They are among Chinese government policies believed to be designed to forcibly assimilate the Uyghur and other Muslim populations. In April, Human Rights Watch determined the Chinese government was committing crimes against humanity but said the extent of coercive birth control and sexual violence, while alarming, needed more investigation.

The authors of the report, Nathan Ruser and James Leibold, said they compiled it using publicly available Chinese government statistics to create datasets of county-level birthrates from 2011 to 2019, and comparing counties with higher proportions of Uyghur and other Muslim minorities.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3137252/china-census-migration-drives-han-population-growth-xinjiang

China census: migration drives Han population growth in Xinjiang

The region’s Uygur community grew 16 per cent in the decade to 2020 compared with 25 per cent for HanRegional government says data prompted it to revise down Uygur population figures

Your statement is a lie.

Han are increasing their population from immigration into the region, not from births, and then there are also "forced" marriages of Uyghur women to Han;

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/12/uyghur-women-are-chinas-victims-and-resistance/

BEIJING—China’s campaign of repression against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang is brutal even by the standards of the worst authoritarian regimes. Since at least 2017, Beijing’s policies have included the mass internment of an estimated 1 million members of ethnic minorities, widespread surveillance, alleged forced labor, alleged forced abortions and sterilizations, the destruction of prayer sites and ethnic neighborhoods, and the desecration of burial sites. In January before leaving office, then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labeled China’s treatment of the Uyghurs a genocide. China says its campaign is a legitimate push against terrorism and separatism, after sporadic bouts of violence rocked the region in recent decades.

ABOUT THE PHOTOS: Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, photographer Roxi Pop directed remote photo sessions via WhatsApp, guiding the women’s family members—often their children—to take portraits of the women inside their homes around the world. Many didn’t want to reveal their exact locations or their children’s names.

Women have found themselves the targets of some of Beijing’s cruelest tactics. Last year, researcher Adrian Zenz found the region poured $37 million into programs—featuring forced sterilizations and IUD implantations—meant to slash birth rates, which dropped 24 percent in 2019 in Xinjiang compared with 4.2 percent nationwide.

But women have also been the fiercest fighters for Uyghur freedom and self-empowerment. More and more Uyghur and Kazakh women who managed to escape China have come out in the past year and spoken about their experiences, despite threats from Chinese state security against them and their families back in Xinjiang. In 2019, a Uyghur woman, Asiye Abdulahed, leaked the first trove of secret files that documented the camps’ existence—a move that unleashed a flood of threats against her and her family.

But besides sharing publicly harrowing accounts, Xinjiang women have used their professions—whether journalism, law, literature, or art—to create momentum for their resistance. “I think, indeed, Uyghur women are the most vulnerable in this genocide,” said Rayhan Asat, a Washington-based Uyghur lawyer who is campaigning for the release of her brother, Ekpar Asat, from detainment in Xinjiang. “Their bodily autonomy has been violated through sexual, medical means and forced labor.”

The PRC's denials are only increasing the world's resistance to China. 

You have a very serious reading comprehension problem. The Guardian article quoted a report from Australia. When I looked, the report gave no numbers just description words. The descriptive words are vague. I am pretty certain this report use exaggeration and the liar is the author. 

robaba said:

I only bought my iPhone because I needed better texting than my flip-phone could provide.  I ended up choosing Apple over Android due to the history of shoddy support from Android bundlers, and I don’t like the idea of somebody browsing through my data.  If there were a third option that cost less than an iPhone—don’t need all these apps on my phone—but that still offered years worth of support and had decent texting capabilities, I would have bought that.  

Long story short—I think there’s definitely room for a third option in phones.

davidw said:

narwhal said:

Well, I had Tiles for a couple years -- but they were expensive and not great. Seemed nobody was running the Tile app, so your lost stuff stayed lost. I bought a bunch of Apple's AirTags when they came out and they work better and are cheaper. Tile and now Life360 are a business with no future. And to hear that Life360 sells customer data -- they've slit their own throat.

I get that Epic doesn't like to pay 30% commission to Apple, but Amazon and Netflix didn't want to either and they found a solution that works for them. I'm thinking Epic would be better off negotiating with Google and Apple, not suing them. Make some money while their product is hot. By the time the Epic trial is over, they may not have a product anyone wants. Or more likely they'll get bought out by someone, someone who doesn't want to participate in a multi-year lawsuit.

As for Spotify, I think they have a case. Since Apple competes in music streaming, Spotify should NOT be charged a commission. It gives Apple an unfair advantage. Same with other categories. If the host OS competes, they need to eliminate commissions for competitors in that product category. Probably should do the same for video streaming and audiobooks. Apple's not making money from Netflix and Audible anyway.

So are you also suggesting that since Costco sell their own Kirkland brand of bath tissue and papers towels, the makers of the likes of Charmin and Bounty should not have to pay Costco anything to be able to compete, by having free access to Costco paying membership customers in Costco own warehouse store? 

What about Walmart? Walmart sell dozens of their own brand  products, that are often less expensive than the competition. So should all makers of competing products be able to sell their products on Walmart shelves and not compensate Walmart in doing so? This to "level the playing field", so competing product makers can better compete with Walmart, in a Walmart?

You can also say that this is "unfair" to the product makers, but how is this "unfair" to the consumers?