Since we're already dealing in absurds here, what if one were to Doordash 50 servings of wings as a emergency/backup catering option for a banquet or wedding? That could easily top $500-800. I sure some consumers—including financially secure ones—would appreciate an interest free loan option on that.
Obviously there is also the opposite dark and pessimistic take here, but there are potentially good things as well?
As a financially secure person, why would I want to spend $800 today when I can spend $800 over four months with no penalty? It doesn't make any sense in the slightest, that is unless you're not savvy enough to keep track of your money?
I was mistaken in thinking it was longer than that. If it is only about two months then it's of little value over a conventional CC (depending on when you buy it in your statement cycle).
My example with the wings is an extreme/incidental use-case, and I realize that it'd be atypical to unheard of in practice.
The sort of person who would order wings as their backup catering for a wedding doesn't shouldn't be borrowing for this, one would think. If they did need the loan they were already stretching themselves far too thin for a wedding event.
Well, what if you were in budget, your caterer failed to meet their obligation but aren't paying you back for several business days, and that extra $800 put you just over budget?
This is an extreme/incidental example, and very likely isn't how this feature is going to be used in practice: I realize that.
>The sort of person who would order wings as their backup catering for a wedding doesn't shouldn't be borrowing for this, one would think.
We're splitting hairs over personal opinions on personal finance here.
>Well, what if you were in budget, your caterer failed to meet their obligation but aren't
Ok. This is for someone who is thinking that they need another $500-800 for the backup catering. For them, an extra $800 with no warning is an expense they can't just eat with the change in their pocket either, one presumes. But they're budgeting for a wedding that likely costs upwards of $7500 (all other costs considered), and they're spending that much without being able to set aside another $1000 for last minute incidentals? I think that this cost might just be the sort of bad decision making that we're all talking about rather than a legitimate use case. And that's even allowing for the recovery of the funds from the original caterer.
The net effect is 0 if you're being paid back and paying back on time. How is this any different from putting it on a CC and paying it back on time? What's the big deal here that warrants this level of discussion? Why not let others do them and you do you? Maybe the real bad decision we're all participating in here—myself included—is feeling the need to split hairs over a hypothetical situation about personal opinions on personal finance?
Debt affects everyone, not just the borrower and the lender. When lenders make one bad loan, society can bear that burden and especially so if many of the loans are good loans that serve mutual interest. When most of the loans are bad, taxpayers pay to enforce loan terms (not the lender), then they pay again when the economy melts down (the lender just reincorporates under some other business name). So it is a big deal when someone is proposing an entirely new class of lending, and it does warrant this level of discussion. If anything, it warrants a much more intense level of discussion than what we've seen so far or what we are likely to see.
Your inability to grasp this is disturbing and should come across as some sort of profound warning to everyone.
You've stepped way out of the discussion we were having and are now engaging in sanctimonious grandstanding.
> Your inability to grasp this is disturbing and should come across as some sort of profound warning to everyone.
Way out of line, dude. Now you're insulting my ability to understand things? You think I don't know about all that? Obviously there are plenty of people who don't deserve credit, but there are also plenty who do. I take pride in having an exceptional credit score.
I'd get those wings. And I'd have a 'profound' time sharing them with friends and family making memories.
13 year ago I had a professor who had one of these 11" Airs for this exact reason. He was always tunneled into some other system and the Air primarily served as his terminal. He loved it for that.
Why can't Apple just sell native macOS support for iPad at a rate where they wouldn't cannibalize their other offerings? I'd pay around $300-$400 for it without hesitation.
It's not about the money, it's about the principle. The entire reason why the iPad exists[0] is because they think fingers touching mouse software is a bad idea. Some people couch this request in terms like "well what if they made macOS touch friendly", but the answer to that is "that already exists, it's called iPadOS."
What you actually want is for iPadOS to shed the limitations of the mobile OS it evolved from. That's a whole different set of asks; many of which cross different but equally strongly-held red lines. A lot of the features of macOS that make it useful for developers - the native UNIX shell, Virtualization.framework, third-party distribution, the ability to relax signature verification on software[1], files that live outside of app containers[2], and most importantly, root access - are all things that Apple considers outmoded and insecure. Insamuch as macOS still supports them, it's because software developers require them to work, so Apple has a policy of keeping software development corralled to macOS instead of letting developers and their attendant security issues spill over into their "device platforms".
[0] Going all the way back to Steve Jobs having his engineers make a tablet computer demo out of sheer spite for Windows XP tablet edition
[1] Or, on Apple Silicon, outright just sign your own OS kernel
[2] On other Apple platforms, your "On My iPad/iPhone" files live inside of a special container for the Files app; and there's another container for iCloud files. There is technically still a home directory, where all your app containers live, but you can't see or interact with it unless you jailbreak.
I'm not sure if they would canibalise anything much. The sell each year around:
1) 230m iPhones
2) 50m iPads
3) 25m Macbooks
Macbook is pretty much niche product to them comparing to Windows market share. Many would still wanna own Macbook even if iPad would support MacOS. They would sell much more iPads and bring bring more users to their ecosystem, familiarise those that used Windows before and maybe they would buy Macbook later on.
Hopefully 7 years from now you'll still be able to use it with modern apps, websites, and video content. IMO, The benefits of these chips are in longevity rather than pushing them to the limit today.
This is the pretty obvious answer. I'm looking at replacing my gen-3 iPad Air from 2019 because it's feeling pretty pokey now. (And my wife's gen-1 iPad Air from 2013 is entirely unusable.)
I don't think there's any amount of processing power that can keep up with website bloat long term, but you out to get an extra year or two from the M3
Subscriber to Empire Access here. They've been expanding all over upstate NY. They have been a joy to work with. Far better than the only other previous option being Spectrum.
Not sure what you meant by replying with the (otherwise relevant) article about violating subsidy conditions (usually done by serial abusers like AT&T) to a comment about Empire Access. I don't know what Empire Access usually does, but in the case mentioned in TFA, Empire Access will operate on municipal open-access fiber infrastructure, which the Oswego County (not Empire Access) will use subsidies to build.
They did lay some fiber, the problem is it was the fiber to supply their cellphone networks and not to directly serve customers, which allows them to gouge customers through mobile data without running afoul of any of the restrictions put on the fiber network the government paid them for.
'By packing or “densifying” the network, signals will be carried faster and more reliably, with bandwidth measured not in megabits but rather in gigabits per second.':
'Consumers expect 5G to offer a step change in network performance, relief from urban network congestion and more home broadband choices as near-term benefits.':
You should be upset at the government that gave the money and that didn't do the due diligence to make sure it's used for proper cause.
Secondly, it should be reconsidered that giving billions to profit making corporations so that they can make more money is a good idea.
> Any reason Xcode 2 was chosen? Wouldn't have Xcode 3.2.6 on Snow Leopard but targeting OS X 10.4 and including ppc as an architecture also worked?
I forget exactly why I used Xcode 2.5, but I wanted to do it on Tiger since that OS was the one around the time Xbins started. It probably would've been a bit nicer working in Snow Leopard, but I just chose Tiger.
I asked Claude "As a developer writing for mac os x 10.4 tiger on Xcode 2, write me a hello world mac app with a button that outputs the string "hello world" to the console" and it seemed to produce correct results in Objective-C.
This is true, but go ask Nate Silver how that went for him in 2016. The general public has only superficial familiarity with even basic statistics. 60/40 is perceived by many as a near guarantee. More than enough to make them cry 'stolen election!' if the election does not go the way they want.
Market dynamics are subtly different than statistics of traditional polls, since you need to account for fees and slippage and irrationality. You’d also need to compare this to a poll asking “who do you think will win the election?” which is a different question from “who are you voting for?”
"Subtly different"? It's not even remotely the same thing, all they have in common is that the unit is %. The betting probability is the (expected) chance that a certain candidate wins, while polls measure the % of population that votes for a candidate. A polling lead of 20% would seal the election.
Obviously there is also the opposite dark and pessimistic take here, but there are potentially good things as well?