• 114 Posts
  • 127 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • And this entire side thing was a giant whataboutism. All laptops have always been unique. It’s why I made sure to point out things like the pentalobe screws. But you were so desperate to defend Apple that you grabbed at laptop mobos as your only hope. Think also things like Apple keyboards/mice using RJ-11 connectors, TSR connectors, ADB connectors, etc… Always refused to use any standard for a long time. Other things like ADC for monitors. No one else does this.

    The correct answer for that other model is that you just dump it in the trash

    What are you, 5 years old? You ask a question, got an answer and this is the best response you could think of? Bad troll. Also, it’s not “easy to stock parts for most Macs when you’re running a refurb shop”, since with Apple doing “parts pairing”, those parts don’t work. It’s been happening since 2018.

    And you know CMOS batteries leak and can permanently fry the mobo. And again, this is Apple it’s not a standard CMOS, it’s a PRAM battery, same thing, different name.


  • First off, look we get it, you love Apple and that’s fine. Just don’t make comments of “oh, I don’t like them but let me make a bunch of easily disproven claims to make them seem perfect and amazing”.

    Except now Windows is dropping support randomly for older CPUs, including many that would run Win11 easily, just because they can. So they’re honestly the same as Apple in that regard.

    And they are all over 10 years old. Apple at best supports 7ish. This isn’t the brag you think it is.

    They support the old architecture for several years, how’s that a bad thing?

    Again, same answer. They are the shortest time supporter, and the highest cost.

    They used to literally ship you parts with repair guides.

    No, they didn’t. I’ve used Mac’s since the 80s, in the 90s, and have a 2009 MBP. No they didn’t. Never have.

    Go find me a motherboard for 2012 Macbook Air 13".

    Go find me one with a working CMOS battery. Those are soldered, non-replaceable. Again, I have a 2009 MBP, and even that can be replaced. And a quick eBay check will find the other motherboard.

    Of course they do. Now go look at how much Google does of the same.

    And go look at how much Google claims to do the opposite. Which one is better, the one who’s up front and honest, or the one who lies to your face?

    Worst with the notable exceptions of Microsoft and Google.

    Uh, huh… Again, which one is better, the one who’s up front and honest, or the one who lies to your face?


  • The amount of kool-aid in the post is amazing.

    Apple computers have always been on the lower end of support (see their support of hardware as they’ve gone thru different CPU architecture). Windows/Linux has never been this quick to drop support.

    Apple hardware has always been hard to repair. Non-standard parts, non-standard screws (pentalobe screws, etc…)

    Their laptops have never been the “highest quality”, they are better than average but haven’t ever been the highest quality. Companies like Asus and Sony (when they made laptops) were more reliable (unless you want to compare a $2000 MacBook to a $500 laptop but that’s making sure it isn’t fair.).

    And Apple does data collection and ads. Always have. iAd was Apple’s first and started in 2010. And Apple collects a ton of private data about you.

    They have always claimed to be doing one thing while in reality been doing the opposite. They get flak because they are the worst for this two-faced behavior.




  • I didn’t follow these donation news too closely, but from the headlines it always sounded like they do it personally!?

    Really? I’ve never seen a single article that said that. Even this one points out that

    Amazon, Meta, Uber, OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Coinbase, Toyota, Ford, GM, AT&T, Black & Decker, and Charter Communications are also making donations to Trump’s inauguration fund.

    None of these say Zuckerberg, or Bezos, etc… (except for Sam Altman). Seems that it’s companies that are the norm.


  • What I’m curious about is, according to the article, Tim Apple is donating from this own money and won’t be donating Apple’s money. Why make it a personal donation and not a corporate one?

    While others are donating as companies (don’t agree with this either but different subject), none are doing it as a personal donation. As the face of Apple, he won’t get far claiming that it doesn’t reflect Apple as a company, so why not just m make it corporate? Unless it’s for tax reasons?


























  • So I still don’t understand the fervour people had over this - the only reason I can think of is not understanding how it worked.

    Or that it was a built in backdoor running in your device.

    The difference is what happens on your own device should be in your control. Once it leaves your device then it’s not in your control. Which is where the entire issue was. It doesn’t matter if I toggle a switch on whether to allow upload or not, the fact it was happening on my device was the issue.


  • I think I was the only one who actually read the paper and didn’t go “REEEE muh privacy!!!” after seeing the headline.

    Did you also read the difference in how Apple was trying to go about it and how literally everyone else was going about it?

    Apple wanted to scan your files on your device, which is a huge privacy issue and a huge slippery slope (and a backdoor built in).

    The entire industry scans files when they are off your private device and on their own personal computers. So your privacy is protected here, and no backdoor built in.

    Apple just had a fit and declared that if they can’t backdoor and scan your files on your own device then they just won’t try anything, even the most basics. They could just follow the lead of anyone else and scan iCloud files, but they refuse to do that. That was the difference.



  • The issue isn’t that he bought low and sold high, but that he bought his own property from himself to give the illusion that it had value and demand that didn’t really exist. And if he hid the fact that he was the purchaser of his own coins, this would make it even more shady. He didn’t want it to be successful, just to artificially inflate its value long enough to make a good sum of money and then run.

    Think like buying a junker car and pouring sawdust in the engine to hide the clanking noise so you can sell it for more than it’s worth. You have artificially made it more valuable in the short term to make money and left the fall to the next guy.

    Is it illegal? As this is crypto, not technically due to lack of regulation.