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.
Your also assuming Putin would use nukes in these scenarios. Both are assumptions. It's inappropriate to plan for one assumption, especially when the consequences are that significant and the insight is low.
If Putin thinks he can beat NATO or get some benefit from fighting NATO he will. Even if this is just negotiation to strengthen his position in Russia. For example a fight with NATO would allow Putin to negotiate an end to war with Ukraine without losing face for the Russian armies poor performance in Ukraine. He tells has the narrative a NATO stalemate caused the peace negotiations that had Russia leave Ukraine.
This type of conflict is more likely if Trump wins. He's anti NATO, a conflict would test the commitment of the US to NATO. It is possible the US doesn't commit to defending European NATO members. Putin would hope that NATO unravels. The unravelling of NATO would be his legacy (in his mind).
NATO is too dependent on the US. So strengthening Europe would be increased commitments from European countries. This makes NATO unravelling less likely as it won't be dependent on the US.
If Putin operates on these assumptions. Then he can start a ground war with NATO without nuclear weapons. The other nuclear states in NATO either store American weapons or have spite retaliation weapons. Nuclear weapons are lose lose, so Putin is unlikely to use them unless his loss is guaranteed.
If we assume it will all end in complete nuclear exchange, anyone operating on another assumption will have the upper hand. Europe needs to keep the US engaged with NATO and simultaneously reduce their dependence on them.
The USA global dominance is under threat. As a consequence the liberal order of the world is under threat. For all their ills America is better than most when it comes to world powers. Russia was cruel to those under its control, Colonial Europe deadly exploitative, the Mongol horde terrifying etc. If you care about liberal democracy, individual liberty and rule of law then Europe needs to defend these values. The assumption that the world is heading towards democracy and freedom is over, it know looks like a post war daydream. China, Russia, India and other emerging powers are increasingly authoritarian and populist. The west is seeing similar motion in their local politics but we are still liberal and need to defend these values or they'll expire. Afghanistan and Iran has caused the west to lose confidence in spreading liberal democracy, but we should not stop defending it. Nuclear weapons aren't necessary to defend it, they also aren't necessary to attack it. Both Russia and Israel have nuclear weapons and involved in conflicts that would be expedited with their use. Neither has used them or looks to use them. Because the outcome is lose lose.
Putin might be very powerful in Russia. But if he tries to launch Nukes his bodyguards and people in the chain of command will recognise such a command would cause them and all their family and loved ones to die. Refusing the order becomes easy when the alternative is certain death of yourself and family.
There are many roles in the military that don't require a gun. The military also has more sophisticated standards for assessing a person fitness to serve than they did in WW2. There are infantry members missing legs now.
Nuclear strikes are lose lose. At least public plans and discussions the UKs nuclear weapons are only for spite.
It's possible a full scale conventional war happens between NATO and Russia. Neither side chooses to not launch Nukes until the other does, so no Nukes get launched. This changes if Moscow, France, Britain or North America faces any realistic chance of invasion. But a several month war in Poland, the Baltics, black sea and Russian borders could occur without anyone deciding to Nuke Europe and North America till there's nothing left.
On many occasions during the cold war people decided to not launch Nukes despite radar or enemy rhetoric telling them a strike was occuring. Even if Putin or Biden gave the orders to launch Nukes they may not happen.
PCB are designed with things on top of them. Typically they are mounted with the bottom of the PCB at the bottom of a case. So following normal conventions there wouldn't be a place for the bottom screw to go into something. Unless you used a bespoke case. It's much easier to have the two screw design place the screws above the PCB.
It may seem like a minor change, but it costs substantial more in design time and effort. New folded steel cases and injection moulded cases would have to be developed. Designers would use a different port, or worse deploy their own two horizontal screw design. There would then be several two screw designs (metric/imperial/very close/very far etc).
Anyone with the niche need of the two screw vertical design would likely rotate the whole connector or use a flex cable to join the connector to the main board.
These are for niche needs. For most applications neither is necessary. If needed and space is constrained the single pin variant allows additional connectors to be packed together on a single PCB. The dual pin option doesn't, it takes up space that could be used for additional connectors.
It's likely dust in the port. If you gently clean it out with a toothpick or other small flat instrument you will get it to seat better. If dust is the issue, you should see some lint at the bottom of the port.
Super mirrors would enable better lasers technology. This cat and mouse game will never end. I'm just glad the UK, Europe and USA are ahead, because they generally support liberty and value human life. If China gets ahead the world will become much darker.
This of weapon will inspire very creative counter measures. If it's deployed in Ukraine I think we would see another big leap in how small drones are used. Lots of innovations happened with drones there, whilst exciting from an engineering point of view the human cost is scary.
The pointing system on a laser based weapon is going to be very fast. It's unlikely to be carrying much weight and will have big high performance motors.
The time of flight is practically instances relative to the spend of drones. So their is no evasion happening like top gun or star wars.
Tricking the section system is the only way a vehicle will avoid this.
If it's electro-optic sensors (cameras) smoke helps, but the laser weapon will be tracking the target prior to engagement and have a good estimate in the few seconds after smoke. A laser this powerful can burn through the smoke and hit the target in a much shorter time. It can also fire in a spiral in the last known location and hit the drone before it could get away.
If it's radar based, then the drone will need to have anti-radar coatings and profile. This avoids detection, but once detected it doesn't stand a chance.
If you want to avoid this system, you need to avoid detection. Or detect and destroy it first. Any adversary going up against this system will have to fly it's drone low and towards the ground. This makes the drones harder to detect and target. However, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown drone operators like to fly high above. Flying high gets them outside of human detection range, which allows for observation and targeting. Drones avoiding this type of laser system will be subject to small arms fire from hostile soldiers on the ground. They will also be less capable of carrying out their missions like they do in the current Ukraine conflict.
You can build lasers that can change thier wavelength (such as an electron wiggler). With a wide enough bandwidth most materials won't be reflective at some frequency. It's easy to find this frequency by sweeping the vehicle and detecting reflections. This could be done prior to destruction levels of laser power.
This technology is for use against small and cheap drones. If you fire costly missiles at a 2k drone. The people sending the 2k drones will eventually win out as the defending country can no longer economically support the war. These laser weapons bring the cost down to pounds not 10/100s thousands of pounds per missile. As the target is small drones their ability to carry large deflectors with cooling is limited (payload and range will be diminished).
These small drones couldn't carry such a weapon. The best they could manage is a one shoot retro reflector. This is a mirror that reflect in the same direction as the source light. Most would burn out in a very short time with this type of weapon.
The instantaneous power would be hard for many aircraft to generate. So this type of systems would be limited to ground based, large ships and possibly well configured jet engines aircraft.
That would make it harder for creative people to produce things and make money from it. Abolishing copyright isn't the answer. We still need a system like that.
A shorter period of copyright, would encourage more new content. As creative industries could no longer rely on old outdated work.
Apple chargers more and isn't openly selling data (Samsung) or openly selling ads (Google). The commercial activity provides some insight here, that suggests Apple is better for privacy.
Apple TV is a premium streaming box without ads. The privacy aspect is less clear, but probably better than Samsung, Google and Roku that are all harvesting data.
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.