“I have no idea how this “maximizes airflow”—I suspect maximum airflow would come if the holes from one side were drilled straight through.”
I believe the claim apple are making is that increases the surface area, and therefore it acts as a more effective heat sink, not that it maximises airflow.
It might "maximize" (marketing speak for "improve vs. other designs we tried") airflow given a particular requirement for structural strength. This design should do a pretty good job at being strong while reducing the amount of material (and therefore weight), and since it’s just hemispherical holes milled out from each side, the machining is (relatively) straightforward vs. other possible 3-dimensional shapes.
This makes a lot of sense. High nit monitors, are extremely hot. (they’re basically light bulbs), and the hotter they get the shorter they last. In that case it makes a lot of sense to maximize airflow and heat dissipation, not just one or the other. And from a design standpoint it does so in a very thin space which is important because equivalently bright monitors are about a half a foot thick if not an entire foot thick. I’d imagine the effects are still helpful for a hot computer as well. People are really under appreciative about the design and engineering work that went into building the latest Mac Pro, the monitor (and even the stand), but I realize I’m probably in a very small minority of people.
I find Primer interesting for the relatable human story. What are they doing with this knowledge and why?
Even Primer is fairy dust. The plot makes enough up to suspend your disbelief. For instance, I just made a rule up for my hypothetical new movie: travelling through time drops the traveler in the same location of the frame of reference they inhabit. This is always a fixed location relative to the Earth if the traveller is static relative to the Earth, and hence in the same frame of reference.
A fair question but one that requires significant qualification on what the virtues and competencies of each are. If you consider religion in its entirety there are elements that certainly do compete and contradict scientific endeavour.
I enjoyed the book Religion for Athiests by Alain de Botton on qualifying those virtues of religion from the perspective of one who isn't.
Definitions can blur since biometric data can play more than one role.
A username can identify (but not authenticate) an individual, biometric data can do both, whereas a password is nothing by itself. It’s only meaningful in conjunction with an identifier as a shared secret in order to authenticate.
"Here’s a different way of thinking about [the trolley] problem: if you wanted to design a car that intentionally murdered its driver under certain circumstances, how would you make sure that the driver never altered its programming so that they could be assured that their property would never intentionally murder them?"
"If self-driving cars can only be safe if we are sure no one can reconfigure them without manufacturer approval, then they will never be safe."
"Your relationship to the car you ride in, but do not own, makes all the problems mentioned even harder."
We can't know whether animals have a soul any more conclusively than we can know that about ourselves. But it's arguable that one is not less probable than the other.
I believe the claim apple are making is that increases the surface area, and therefore it acts as a more effective heat sink, not that it maximises airflow.