The US also has a huge amount of money. Taxes and population scale together.

Spend some and get it done.

So, if we're not supposed to count any power generation source that's over a generation old, does that mean we can ignore most of the coal and gas power stations too?

Yes Minister, Porridge, Good Place and Red Dwarf.

> What you're attempting to refute is that body image issues are part of nature.

I refuted nothing of the sort. You're reading into my comment what you want to see, presumably so you can have a nice, cathartic argument.

No, my point was that there are many factors at play and simply - and only - blaming the gender is simplistic and could easily be read as sexist.

> Women, especially going through puberty, are going to have more self image issues.

But you suggested that's all it is. Do you honestly think that, say, advertising with all the perfect models on show there, has no impact on the self-image of girls and women?

Every culture has, at some point, relegated women to be lesser members of society. That tends to linger in a culture.

> it's nature

Or possibly it's our culture, or her parents, or her environment, or her friends, or social media, or media, or advertising - or all of the above.

Let's not blame the gender when it could easily be any number of ubiquitous factors.

> The thing that broke me was thinking that there are versions of Mac OS without exploits or malicious software

And now you're lying about what I said, as if I can't remember.

"They did have a small amount of malware, however, but no viruses."

This is how you convince yourself you've won? By lying to yourself about what my arguments were?

That is no victory. That's your ego seeking catharsis.

Inbox replies disabled. There's no point talking to someone who will lie to my face about my own words.

Bullshit is easy. Proving it is obviously more difficult.

Shrug.

> Look up on a CSS comparison sites the specific version of safari you used and what was missing, I only noticed this because I was doing web development and constantly had to make similar """fixes""" for safari, potentially more than IE in some cases

That would only provide half the story. I requested a source that they were boasting it's faster while disabling features.

>It's possible to make an indie film or YouTube videos, their marketing suggested you could make the NEXT CINEMA BLOCKBUSTER

Those goal posts have shunted somewhat. A minute ago, it was just "feature film". Can you link an example of that marketing so we can see which version you've presented is the correct one?

>Pal, you and I both know that paragraph is both a lie and full of cope

Okay. Can you provide an example of a virus in the wild for Mac OS X from it's introduction until when, say, Steve died? That's about the period they were boasting about their lack of viruses.

>They did, what are you talking about?

You claimed people didn't bother writing viruses for the Mac because it wasn't popular enough to bother, but there were more viruses for Mac OS 9 than Mac OS X, even though it had less market share. Can you explain that discrepancy?

>I'll admit I might be wrong on this one, I'm pretty sure I've heard the company discuss the idea before though

Sure. Source?

>The biggest example of this is Safari being the """fastest browser""" because they disabled most WebKit features that took effort to optimise

Safari genuinely used to be the fastest browser when Apple was pushing it. I hadn't heard anything about them boasting it's faster while disabling features. Source?

>Or the time they claimed that you could make a feature film with final cut and an iPhone because ONE under budget studio made ONE indie film that barely anyone watched

What's wrong with that? If a feature film was made, then it's possible to make a feature film.

>Or the claim that Macs never get viruses, despite them having some absolute conkers in their time

As far as I'm aware, during the era they were making those claims, they never did. Oh, sure, some research labs made viruses as proof of concepts, but none got into the wild.

They did have a small amount of malware, however, but no viruses.

>...and the only reason they made that claim was because so few people used Macs at the time that nobody really bothered to make viruses for them, which rapidly changed with their popularity

MacOS 9 - before Jobs came back and replaced it with an entirely different UNIX based OS - had plenty of viruses and even less market share. So, if what you say is true, why did people bother to make viruses for Mac OS 9, but not Mac OS 10?

>Or the multiple times they've been announcing and delaying their self driving car

Apple has made no announcements regarding any car they may or may not be working on. Ever.

"Much better track record" does not mean "perfect track record".

> The issue, for diabetics anyway, is they need continuous monitoring

Given the current method of monitoring is to stab yourself and test the blood, it clearly doesn't need to be continuous. Obviously, the more often you take readings, the better, but if there are battery issues, then Apple will find a balance that works.

That said... Lots of people use the Apple Watch for sleep tracking which means that, yeah, they have to charge their watch when they're in the shower and the like. It's a deal, sure, but it's not a big deal.

You're reading way too much into some obvious hyperbole. Obviously it can't earn infinite money. We don't have infinite money. Clearly, Herewego just meant that they will make a shit-ton.

That is also hyperbole, by the way. A ton of excrement weighs no more than ton of anything else, including money.

However, yes, I can see the watch becoming more popular than smartphone long term. Machine learning is exceptionally good at finding patterns in noise and it is likely that the Apple Watch, using all of its sensors present and future, will be able to intuit medical conditions that we cannot.

At that point, why the fuck would you not buy one? They can already literally save your life. Add another five or ten things it could save your life from, plus early warnings on lesser problems like diabetes, and it's a no-brainer.

Oh? You're an expect on optical absorption spectroscopy? Could you explain why it won't work then?

> Why do you think that a product that is useful, but only for a small fraction of the population, would make "infinite" money?

The device can reportedly detect diabetes before it actually hits you, which would be invaluable for any pregnant women. Constant monitoring may also have other benefits in regards to informing exercise regimes, or providing some insight into other, more minor issues. Something along the lines of how constant blood oxygen monitoring can let you know if you're getting a serious respiratory ailment.

Sure, but that was Google. Apple has a much better track record with this kind of thing - and doesn't make bold claims until the tech is in a device ready to be shipped.

> The alternative is…

Sure. It’s either the current system or your absurd plan. There are no other possible options whatsoever.

> If it doesn’t bother you that…

I never said it didn’t. I just think your solution is childish and unworkable.

> It’s not rocket science to fix what’s broken

Maybe but as your first line is to advocate for wholesale theft and breach the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution, I feel it's just possible that your solution is perhaps ill-considered and overly simplistic.

A claim for which there is no evidence.

And I’m talking about the initial accusation that this auction was rigged in the same way.

> The person who put up the item for sale at the auction house is friends with the people who own the auction house.

Not according to the article.

“Green considered selling the iPhone over the years, but kept it until she contacted LCG Auctions in October after learning that another first-generation iPhone from 2007 was sold for nearly $40,000. She told Insider's Jackson she needed the money for her cosmetic tattoo studio.”

Sure, if you like. I mean, there's no evidence that this was anything but a normal auction apart from a YouTube video from a speed runner, so I'm not inclined to jump immediately on to the conspiracy train here.

Practically nothing. It wasn't the first iPod, I doubt it's mint and I expect it's not still sealed in its original box.

Wasn't exactly a revolution, that one. Maybe a mint, unopened, original Macbook Air?