**sorry, that's just being human. **

Which is a end-game around E2E. Saying 'the message is encrypted', but yes, I look at all messages before and/or after violates the expectation of E2E.

For more thinking about this issue for software/hardware makers a good read is "Enchanted Objects" by David Rose.

iirc. He says we're in a 'Glass Rectangle' phase, where makers are stuck on screens, Like Xhibit in Pimp my ride - we put 22 screens in your car. They know how to "screen" and they use it the solution to all problems. It's like an infatuation, where you just can't see another way. There are entire sciences of Human Machine Interaction that explain why these designs are messed up, and the designers are aware, and have chosen otherwise.

2016 Actor Antov Yelkin who played Checkov is killed by his 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee, pinning him to his mailbox and fence. Because it didn't have a gearshift. It has a thing that looks like a shift but is a joystick.

Do they mean 1.3 Million subscribers dropped Disney+ ?

If that's what they meant, english would actually let them say that.

1. I'm old enough to have been down this road a dozen times, and it has always ended in tears. The ones I bought into either came into the market too early, too beta, or too late, or just weren't able to see it through or abandoned hope mid journey.

2. I think it has a great chance to be a great thing.

Why? The magic isn't the Framework Ecosystem. It's one thing, un-crapified modularity. The reason most of us can afford to keep a car working isn't because of the great Mazda or Ford ecosystem of parts. Its because the un-crapified modularity of those parts. The designs are "open" (they're not in the libré sense, but they are simple re-make or recreate ). That is why most of us can keep our cars going. If I need a headlight, or an alternator, or a throttle-position sensor, not only does Mazda make/have the part, there are a dozen other people who make the part. I not only get a replacement, but I get choices in a open market in a range of prices and qualities.
I imagine in 2032, even if the company Framework has disappeared, there will be a lady in New Jersey making inexpensive replacement modules. That is a 'good thing'.

Its no accident everything on an Apple device is soldered down. If they made cars they'd grind down all the bolt heads and embed the engine in epoxy. It's their ethos. If my macbook ssd goes bad, all they can do for me is sell me a new one. The beauty of the Framework is that each module can be replaced. So no, the typical user is not going to completely upgrade their laptop in 8 years. (but they could) But, most will want to replace that one broken part on their otherwise perfectly good laptop. Another way to think about it, lets say I have a 10 year old car, worth $5k. To replace every part might truly cost me $35,000. But the way chance works, it's rate to actually need to replace every part. And the parts that need replacing are usually relatively inexpensive.

Some years ago Consumer Reports Magazine had a section where they'd list the costs of all the replacement parts of a new car. Was interesting. IIRC it was about 4x the cost of the car.

"The MOAB contains 26 billion records over 3,800 folders, with each folder corresponding to a separate data breach. While this doesn’t mean that the difference between the two automatically translates to previously unpublished data, billions of new records point to a very high probability, the MOAB contains never seen before information." Totaling 12TB.

Technically speaking its a 'plausible'. Practically speaking it's a hard no.

It's perfectly possible for tech folk to create a version of android for any iPhone. Apple has locked the hardware so that that can't happen.

As others have said, you can sell the iPhone and get a nice Android.

Ah, common misconception - hacking an API != creating a compatible program. ( reverse engineering)

Imagine a drill company has a special shape for its bits. Our law allows someone else to either.. make bits that can fit in that shape OR make their own drill that can accept those bits.

"BUT they copied!" - it doesn't have to be a copy to be compatible, and they don't even have to use the 'special shape' just be able to work with the special shape. The law does not allow for protections around that. Doing so would be by definition anti-competitive. Our anti competition laws or rather our IP protection laws are not intended in any way to 'ensure a monopoly'. The IP laws give a person a right to either keep something they do secret OR share that knowledge with the world so we all benefit, in exchange for a very limited monopoly.

Practically speaking, If I got the KFC Colonel to give me the list of 11 herbs and spices in a Poker game, and then started making my own delicious poultry that is totally cool. Likewise, If I figured out that all that was inside a Threadripper was blue smoke and started making my own blue smoke chips, the law is ok with that.

In this case roughly, Having a public facing endpoint. And then saying that the public can access that endpoint is cool Saying that only the public using the code I alone gave them -- well... that's not been litigated a lot, but all signs point to no.

It's like Bing saying its for Safari only, and suing people who accessed it using Chrome. It is a logical claim, but the law does not provide that kind of protection/enforcement.

tl;dr these concepts are old but being newly applied to fancy technology. The laws in place are clear in most cases. A car maker can not dictate what you put in the tank. FedEX and UPS can't charge you differently for shipping fiction books or medical journals or self published stories. And they'd probably get anti-trust scrutiny they even told you what brand/style of boxes you had to use.

Equity.

In total, at the close of last year, SEC documents show that exactly 65 percent of Spotify was owned by just six parties: the firm’s co- founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon (30.6 percent of ordinary shares between them); Tencent Holdings Ltd. (9.1 percent); and a run of three asset-management specialists: Baillie Gifford (11.8 percent), Morgan Stanley (7.3 percent), and T.Rowe Price Associates (6.2 percent). These three investment powerhouses owned more than 25 percent of Spotify between them — a fact worth remembering next time there’s an argument about whose interests Spotify is acting in when it makes controversial moves (for example, SPOT’s ongoing legal appeal against a royalty pay rise for songwriters in the United States).

Furthermore, according to MBW estimates, which my sources suggest are still solid, two major record companies — Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group — continue to jointly own between six percent and seven percent of Spotify (Sony around 2.35 percent and Universal around 3.5). With Sony and UMG added into the mix, then, the names mentioned here comfortably own more than 70 percent of Spotify.

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/>

I respectfully, and fully disagree with you.

Thanks for saying this. It's features at price point.

"It's better than the Pi at only 3x the price."

And what's with the "Avoid the Raspberry PI" sentiment? They are hard to get (?). I've been using the Pi for forever, and have zero 'product' complaints that would make me want to "Avoid the Pi'. If anything, I have plans for more. Again, the price - A Zero2W is $15 MSRP. For $15, You can put that in everything. A Pi4 is $35. Its just a great deal.

This exemplifies Fox - they provided a lengthy article, and a 3 person video with interviews, and yet the listener/reader knows no more about what actually happened than before they began. Its well produced hearsay.