I think it's a group of obnoxiously self-righteous people who get to tell themselves that they're taking real action to make a difference but really aren't doing anything useful at all, and their stunts probably actively turn some people against environmental causes. They're the exact same kind of people as the NIMBYs who pat themselves on the back for getting a new 50% affordable-housing apartment building canceled because it wasn't 100% affordable.
This headline is ridiculous; I expect better from Ars Technica. You "admit" to things you shouldn't have done. In this case the government compelled Apple to disclose certain data and simultaneously prohibited Apple from disclosing the disclosure. Thanks to a senator's letter, Apple is now free to disclose something that they previously wanted to disclose, about something they were forced to do in the first place.
Compare to the Reuters headline: "Governments spying on Apple, Google users through push notifications - US senator." The emphasis and agency are correctly placed on the bad actors.
When they try minor defendants in the USA as “adults,” aren’t they saying the kids aren’t what the seem to be, that they aren’t actually their chronological age? “Young at heart,” an “old soul,” saying the same thing.
The problem here is trying minors (disproportionately minority minors) “as adults.” The notion is absurd. We have a separate juvenile justice system for a reason. No, we shouldn’t start trying adults as children; we should stop trying children as adults.
This person is an actress and comedian. This is not an iPhone error; it's just a manually-edited photo from three separate takes that she pretended came out of the phone as-is. It's a hoax for laughs/attention.
On an iPhone, share menu, print, then share menu from the print page. This gives you a save to files option. You can then physically print the PDF at your leisure and however is convenient for you.
So just start a government subsidy program for news, and increase corporate taxes. That would at least be honest. The lie that this is somehow compensation for something of value is the part that I can't abide. There's not even any advertising on Google News. It's literally just linking out to news articles. If you search for news topics, you usually won't find any paid links on that either. People bid on search terms related to stuff people might buy, not on hard news topics.
This "report" is beyond sketchy and isn't worth repeating. The source is a Korean blogger who just reads supply chain rumors posted on Chinese social media.
Do you know what kind of products supply chain sources can't leak anything about? New chips that are, by more credible reports, still 2+ years away from release at the earliest. The supply chain doesn't know anything about Apple's progress on chips until it's actually close to time to start manufacturing them. The only sources who can know the current status of Apple's modem developments are internal ones working in their never-leaked-anything chip development labs. The supply chain will learn about it when Apple needs to start preparing for manufacturing.
That’s the BS line publishers have been trying to trick people with but that extra stuff such as the lede and photo are explicitly provided by the publisher to enable rich preview cards/links. They literally add extra code in the page for that exact purpose. View source on any of their articles and you’ll see Open Graph metadata tags, which were created by Facebook.
They added code specifically so their links from Facebook would look better, and are now pretending like the rich preview cards are stealing their content.
The World Wide Web is a web of links. Websites link to other websites. These publishers want to be paid when certain companies link to them. That’s an affront to a core functionality of the web.
You know, when I wrote it I actually questioned whether I should use the word "lying," or if doing so would cause an overly nit-picking response, but I decided to expect the best in people. Surely they'd see that I was establishing a shared premise that he wasn't lying, which is the usual opposite of "telling the truth," while pointing out that he wasn't necessarily telling the truth. There's a middle ground of ignorance.
But by all means, thank you for interjecting yourself in the conversation to state the obvious.
I think he's experienced enough to know that when your movie is out in theaters right now, the studio always wants you to use every possible opportunity to talk up the film, and would prefer you not go off on tangents. If nothing else, that's a reasonable request.
I'm aware, but at the moment on stage, it wasn't possible for him to know the truth in the first place so it's not about whether we think De Niro was "telling the truth." He was speculating.
It is very easy for CEOs or upper management or middle management to pass down orders that are worded in a way that imply what they want workers to do without saying it in a legally binding way.
Seriously, just think through this. Be super conspiratorial if you want to. There's no upside for Apple as a company. There's no reason anybody in power would even be involved in the speech in the first place. It's a minor awards ceremony that effectively nobody watches. If it were a conscious decision, it would obvious piss off De Niro, which seems like an extra stupid idea.
What's more likely? A: Intentionally anger a big-name actor by trying to force him to change a speech that nobody was going to hear, or B: Someone accidentally sent the wrong final draft.
why is it the first conclusion that De Niro and many others came to?
He said it before he had any time to reflect on it or carefully choose his words to parse out the nuance we're discussing now.
Apple admitted they made a mistake with the teleprompter. We can only speculate why it happened.
We don't have any statement from Apple. "A source close to the film" said it was a mix-up with different versions of the draft and that Apple didn't know De Niro hadn't signed off on that one as the final version. The source anonymous to us, but not to Variety, and they judged the person credible.
If Apple wanted him to only talk about certain things during his speech they could’ve communicated that before he accepted their request for him to give a speech.
Apple never asked him to give a speech. This is an acceptance speech for an obscure, untelevised awards show. The winners are invited to speak when accepting it. De Niro worked with the producers/Apple on his acceptance speech. For some reason, the draft loaded on the teleprompter wasn't the version he planned on. There are many different reasons this could be.
If you're going to attribute an action to a company as a whole, then it at least needs to be a decision made by a high-level employee and not some peon. The idea that Apple decided to just unilaterally delete portions of his speech at the last minute, without his consent, is among the least plausible scenarios. Anybody with any actual authority at the company is smart enough to know how stupid that would be. The most likely scenario is pure mistake with multiple drafts in play; the next most likely is a nobody who grossly overstepped their bounds, made their bosses look bad, and has probably already been fired.
Apple did not produce or distribute the event. I think they'd be perfectly content with zero viewers. CODA won two Gotham Awards, including Troy Kotsur for best supporting actor. Did Apple talk about it then? No. What about when CODA won big at the Oscars? Apple dedicated two long paragraphs of the press release to talking about the other awards CODA won but the Gotham Awards are so irrelevant that they didn't even get a single throwaway mention.
Makes much more sense to me that DeNiro was telling the truth
Nobody ever said he was lying. He made a statement, live, based on his current understanding of the situation. Later, someone else offered a perfectly plausible explanation.
I think it's a group of obnoxiously self-righteous people who get to tell themselves that they're taking real action to make a difference but really aren't doing anything useful at all, and their stunts probably actively turn some people against environmental causes. They're the exact same kind of people as the NIMBYs who pat themselves on the back for getting a new 50% affordable-housing apartment building canceled because it wasn't 100% affordable.