In this situation a hub is still better. You can pack all the stuff away plugged into the hub for easier set up. If your plugging that all into your laptop, you’ll need to plug it all back in again when you move.

Not all patents are good. But a patent system is good. It could be better but the general concept is not flawed like the person I was responding to suggests.

The physical object isn’t what is patented in this case. It is the method to create the object that has a patent. One that can’t be reversed engineered as it isn’t part of the final product. You could only reverse engineer it if the process was not novel or not obvious to anyone knowledgeable in the field. If both of these conditions are true then the patent should not have been granted.

Patents are not inherently bad. This is a bad patent. Patent laws don’t have to be changed, because this patent shouldn’t have been granted. The issue is ineffective patent reviews, not patents. Getting rid of patents is not a good idea. If you think it is you probably don’t have a good enough grasp on what a patent is.

You can make something if you figure out how they did it because it was obvious. In this case the patent isn’t valid. If you have to develop a solution then the patent is probably valid. The patent is a reward for developing and sharing the solution publically.

If you still don’t grasp why patents are useful. It may be helpful to think of it like open source software. The patent is the code base that is freely accessible to everyone. This preserves the knowledge and lets others build on it. However, to incentivise people to make their code open source you provide protections that stop others from selling the same code you developed.

The incentive mechanism is why far more businesses produce patents than produce open source code.

If you remove patents businesses stop funding internal r and d overnight. It increase the risk and reduces the reward.

The patent system explicitly provides free access to knowledge. The patent is the knowledge that would be kept secret otherwise.

You would still have monopolies, except things like the ingredients to medicines would be unknown.

Patents do provide some value. If there were no patents than companies would make their technological development a a secret and not share the work with the world.

The patent systems exchanges knowledge and technology development for a temporary monopoly on the technology. It means a company can publish the ingredients to medicines, methods of manufacturing etc. if they didn’t have the patent system they would keep these secret and if a business folded this knowledge would be lost.

Probably better to make those submitting false patents pay a large fine.

It really should be fraud. It is deception used for personal gain. While I think it should be fraud, it will probably need new legislation to make it so.

I think this would need new legislation that would push software regulations further than they’ve been before.

Apple can allow apps to be installed outside their app store. The fee they are charging is likely related to accessing their APIs and tools for developing iOS apps. Apple would have to be forced to make these free.

Currently you could considerably make an iOS app without apple’s tools and APIs. But it would require significant effort to develope/reverse engineer these tools to make the app. Effort that is outside of the scope of most modern app development.

To force apple to make the APIs and tools open would likely require additional legislation. Saying not only must the device allow third party distribution of apps, but apple must support these activities for free. This is significantly different from making apple allow third party apps. It puts on them a real cost (not potential loss like allowing third party app stores).

This isn’t a problem for other systems because they actively invite people to develop and distribute their software for their system. But it would have implications for game consoles. Sony, MS and Nintendo would have to allow any potential developer access to their tools for free with little obligation.

It refers to feature size, rather than component.

The country does matter. China operates social scoring limiting people based on non-criminal behaviour. People also often disappear, with no recourse. They use this information to manipulate public opinions. They also use this information to support their genocide of minorites in China. They also manipulate Chinese people outside of China to support their espionage and propaganda. They also use this to limit and regulate information access.

Tiktok is a tool owned and operated by a totalitarian government, that has recently become less accountable and more totalitarian. Other social medias aren’t comparable.

Many children are being radicalised by online content, like the criminal Andrew Tate becoming popular among teenagers.

Most people aren’t fact checking anything online. They are far more likely to start believing conspiracy theories or outright false narratives.

Yeah, this is part of the big issue with chrome being internet explorer for this generation.

Chrome forking WebKit has the dog wagging the tail. Apple need to follow chrome’s web ‘standards’, else they break compatibility. As well as the billions Google give Apple every year, no doubts influences their implementation of safari.

But this change means Chrome can stray further from WebKit and use this change to get people using chrome on apple devices.

The best thing for the future of the web is to use Firefox and boycott websites that don’t support it. If another new browser technology comes about that too would be worth supporting.

A VPN might manage this. It could be a location based implementation.

Thinking about it your probably right, a sales based location is easier for apple to restrict and simpler to implement.

Apple forcing WebKit on its mobile devices is one of the few things stopping Chrome’s dominance on web standards. It controls the majority of the market. As well as most browsers that aren’t chrome are using chrome’s web engine such as Edge, brave, vilvaldi, opera, kiwi, Samsung web browser, electron etc.

This move is good for Firefox, and good for making web technologies more accessible.

However, it makes it easier for Google to force their vision for the future of the web. Now Google can push it’s browser on to iOS users as a solution to web pages not rendering correctly in WebKit. Rather than being forced to adopt and implement common web standards that safari and Firefox also follow.

The best solution would be forcing all significant platforms to allow alternative browser engines (include iPads) and start to consider punishing websites that don’t fully support all major browser engines. Such as safari, chrome and Firefox.

You are right, TOS isn’t the law. However businesses will try to trick you with this technique, especially if they don’t think you have any legal support. You can’t commit a crime just because the victim agreed to it, no amount of contracts negate this. Employers often pull this trick to force employees to accept illegal practices.

The person hosting and publishing the code may have never agreed to the TOS. So can’t be bound by it. They also can revoke their agreement, and no longer have to comply with it. However, continued use of the businesses web services likely requires agreeing to the TOS and this plug in may be using the businesses web services to make the plugin work.

There is value in verifying and quantifying opinion, even if your sure this opinion is true.

Nothing competes with MacBook performance/battery life. Not even close. The M series chips are ahead of everything intel and AMD offer.

If you compare like for like with apple laptops you can’t get an equivalent for close to the same price. Especially weight, battery life, processing and screen quality.

The lightning port is USB 2. The 15 is USB 2, powered by the same USB 2 chipset as the 14 pro. The only difference is the connector not the cables or encoding.

The 15 pro has USB 3, which is faster than the lighting port ever was.

You won’t get anything with as good build quality for that price and performance. You also won’t be able to match the battery life, due to bad firmware/software.

The 15 uses an older chip that was designed for iPhones with lighting cables limited to USB 2. So it’s unlikely the hardware is there for USB 3/4 speeds. But it’s not unfeasible to add a dedicated chip for faster USB speeds.

Where as the pro model uses a new chipset. Designed for the 15 pro and likely the 16 non-pro. This has on due USB 3. It would be short sighted to not include it here.

Both phones would have very fast WiFi, I imagine that’s the use case for 90%+ of users.