This is actually surprisingly rare. Most of the time we've berated Apple, it has been because they've dragged their heels on basic stuff like USB-C. I see no reason that Apple dragging their heels on OLED displays will be any different.

I've been complaining about Apple displays not being bright enough to use outside since my first active-matrix Mac laptop. Ironically, the passive matrix black-and-white Mac displays from the early 1990s actually could be used outside easily. You changed the contrast to a mode where it behaved like a reflective LCD panel. So from my perspective, Apple is finally getting back to the level of usability that I had with my PowerBook 145 more than thirty years ago.

In fact, I can't think of any examples of what you're describing, and certainly none where users would not have been better off with Apple introducing the feature sooner and then making it better in a subsequent generation. After all, having a feature, even if it is not refined, is usually better than not having it at all.

In general, when Apple is late, they're just late. They're either doing it because they have some financial advantage to delaying it (Made for iPhone revenue from the Lightning connector), because they didn't have the engineering resources to integrate it for a particular release cycle, or because they didn't think the components available were good enough (e.g. early folding displays).

But Apple has been shipping OLED panels on phones since 2017. Almost a decade later, laptops are finally catching up. Maybe they thought the early ones wouldn't last as long as people kept their laptops, maybe the cost for larger panels was high enough to discourage laptop purchases, or maybe they just dragged their heels because they knew they wouldn't have anything interesting in the feature pipeline and wanted people to have a reason to replace their laptops. Either way, they're fully a decade behind in display technology, and it's about time they finally caught up.

Looking forward to the touchscreen as well, at least in principle, though in practice, I doubt it will get a lot of use. :-)

Always been a big fan of the Cringe and met him several times. Always an interesting character. His book, "Accidental Empires" is a must read for anybody wanting to understand how we got to where we are today. He will be missed.

No, it isn't. To be fraud, the lie has to be material. Would him saying that he fought in the military have disqualified him? No. Because being in the military of a communist country doesn't automatically make you communist. It might have caused a deeper investigation, and that investigation might have concluded that he was, but given that the regime had already fallen and any records would probably have been nonexistent at that point, that's a pretty unlikely outcome — doubly so decades later.

Second, the lie has to be deliberate. In U.S. law, there's not a presumption that an error is deliberate; the government has to have some evidence to support such a claim. And given that he has been dead for a long time, there's no way to get him to admit that it was deliberate, so in the absence of some sort of documentation, this one isn't provable anymore, either.

Third, even if you could prove both of the first two, the fraud was still committed by her father, not her, which makes it moot after the fact.

Continuing to spew this same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true. First, he was a citizen. Until such time as you get a court to agree that his citizenship should not have been granted (years after his death), all of this is purely academic.

Second, even if you did so, although removal of citizenship is considered retroactive to the time of the original grant of citizenship, you still run into the presumption of regularity when trying to extend that retroactive removal to a retroactive nullification of the citizenship of an additional person who relied on a presumption of the regularity of the prior immigration decision. That just won't fly, because as far as was known to her at the time, he was a citizen, and as far as was known to the immigration people processing the paperwork at the time, he was a citizen. And none of that changes even if his citizenship were removed retroactively, which means *she* did not commit fraud.

Further, his citizenship was likely not material to her being approved for citizenship. She didn't become a citizen because he was a citizen. She became a citizen *when* he became a citizen. Had she applied independently, even if we take the most outlandish interpretation of the law and assume that his military service would be disqualifying, it would not be disqualifying *for* *her*. And at that point, the courts would be effectively punishing her for not waiting a few extra months and filing a form independent of her parents. No court is going to do that, both because doing so would be a gross miscarriage of justice and because the specific form that she filed is almost certainly not material to whether a young adult would qualify for citizenship.

Plus there's that pesky little problem of you not having any actual evidence to support your absurd theory in the first place, which means that while you might get a lot of idiots on your side in the court of public opinion, you'd be laughed out of any actual courtroom.

Bzzt. Reading comprehension fail.

I didn't say you have to be high up in the military of a totalitarian regime to be a member of the party. I said you aren't guaranteed to be a member unless you're a military officer who took control of the country in a coup or someone who is very close to that person. That's what "does not constitute" means.

In a lot of foreign countries, military service isn't optional. And that was actually true in Somalia for many years, though I suppose that was after her father served. Regardless, there are many reasons for fighting in a military, including financial reasons, as an alternative to jail time, etc., which is why you cannot automatically assume that a member of a country's military supports their government's actions or is a member of their ruling party.

Moreover, that law was written with a very specific purpose in mind, and its purpose was not ensuring that no male over 18 from that country could ever become a U.S. citizen. Its purpose was preventing those who posed a high risk of spying on our country from becoming entrenched in our society and manipulating it from the inside. Those who did not support the ideology or were fleeing it presumptively are the polar opposite of that group. So claiming that they are party members is borderline nonsensical in the absence of actual hard evidence... which you do not have, or else you would have provided it.

Again, your claim has absolutely no legal merit, because it relies on a fundamentally absurd interpretation of the law in question.

If that claim is false, then I'm the President of the United States.

Her dad applied and was granted citizenship. Therefore that claim is not false. And even if his citizenship was obtained under false pretense, he still had it at the time when she applied, so that claim was not false at the time that she applied. Absent any evidence of her knowing that he lied to become a citizen, your argument has zero merit from a legal perspective.

You see, in the United States (and any other country whose law is based on English Common Law), there is an automatic presumption that government actions have been handled properly, and that you can rely on that presumption for all other purposes. The legal term is "presumption of regularity". Reliance on that presumption prima facie cannot be fraudulent in the absence of direct knowledge to the contrary.

So unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she *knew* her father got citizenship through fraud, once again, your argument has no legal merit whatsoever.

Please learn a bit about how U.S. law actually works before spouting such utter nonsense.

Here's the flaw in your logic. Her dad did have it. If someone had documented proof that he should not have been granted that citizenship because of fraud on his part, then it could be revoked. But that still would not change the fact that at the time she filed it, he had been granted citizenship, which means the form was filed legitimately.

So unless you can prove your age theory (which, without valid birth records, would be impossible), you have nothing.

+1 to literally everything you just said except the last part.

I do want a foldable phone so I can have enough screen real estate to blow up the font size and still have usable apps. But that would require supporting different accessibility text size settings on the different screens to be useful.

But I also critically want a home button. In every way, gestures are inferior to a physical home button. It's harder to swipe to kill an app, harder to switch apps, etc. And add a case around the phone, and usability goes downhill even more.

That said, the return of Touch ID goes a long way towards making iPhone usable again, so that's definitely a big plus for this design. (Face ID sucks. It can't be used while wearing Vision Pro. It can't be used while wearing a mask. It can't be used easily without having it in front of your face, which means you can't start unlocking until it is out of your pocket, which wastes precious time. It just randomly fails for no obvious reason at a much higher rate than Touch ID did. In every way, it is an inferior experience. So when I say this is a big plus for me, I mean a BIG plus, assuming this new tiny Touch ID sensor actually works. I'll be eagerly watching the reviews.)

But more critically than that, I want a phone I can operate with one hand. I physically am incapable of meaningfully operating the current phones without using both hands. They are too tall and too wide, and my thumb isn't that long.

So what I really want is an iPhone Duo Mini. Make the outer display be the size of an iPhone 5s. Add four action buttons on the side or top that we can configure individually. For me, one would be a home button, one would be a "take a photo right now" button (hold to start video recording), one would be a Siri button, and the fourth would be a normal power button. And add back the ringer switch.

Also, bring back the physical mute switch. The on-screen silence features are enough of a hassle that I just leave my phone on silent mode continuously, which isn't great, but I don't want to waste my one action button on it, and also you can't look at a button and see whether the feature is enabled, so it just wouldn't work very well with a button even if I did.

But most critically, it should be all of these things without sacrificing performance, camera quality, or other features. Every time Apple has made a small phone, they've made it trash. They've given it a low-end camera, saddled it with an outdated CPU, and tried to make it a cheap phone. So nobody buys them, and they say, "See, we told you nobody wanted this." Except we did. We just didn't want a low-end small phone, and we didn't want a huge phone that's small only because the newer ones have become even more ridiculously large.

That said, this does look like a step in the right general direction, with the exception of the missing action button.

They really humiliated all the traditional supercar brands out there.

Uh, what?

Being a member of the military of a country does not constitute being a member of a communist party/regime unless you're high up in a military junta. So no, that law does not apply. And regardless, him being ineligible does not make his daughter ineligible, which means it is still not a material omission in the context of *her* immigration — only his. *She* was a kid.

No, there is not compelling evidence, or else it would have been presented by now. Years later, still no actual evidence has materialized — only a bunch of conspiracy theory nutters making unsubstantiated claims. But I'm sure you "did your own research" to come up with those "facts".

You're assuming it was a lie. He was known to be on active duty from 1977 to 1978. It's unclear whether he was on active duty after that period. That was before she was even *born*. And even if he was actively in the military in some capacity, that doesn't mean he wasn't also a teacher. Most militaries have those.

She was a kid. Even if he had been a high-level government official who ordered troops to butcher small children, she wouldn't have known anything about it.

And again, you and everyone else making those claims offer zero proof. Zero evidence. Just more baseless claims from the party of compulsive liars. If the claims were true, surely *someone* would have provided some sort of actual evidence by now.

And again, even if there were documented proof, that still wouldn't be adequate to vacate *her* claim to citizenship — only her father's. They didn't lie about who *she* was. She was a kid.

That may be how it works in some fascist hellholes, but that's not how it works in the United States. What I described are the legal requirements for denaturalization.

Even if those claims are true — and given that similar allegations were made years ago and DHS concluded that they were without merit, so that's a pretty big stretch — the misrepresentation would have been by her father, not her. She was not a member of the Somali military. So why do you think that would make a material difference in whether she, as a legal adult if the claims are to be believed, would be granted citizenship?

Answer: It wouldn't. The claims are not credible, and even if they were, they would not rise to the legal threshold required to remove someone's citizenship.

None of which is legally an adequate reason to remove someone's citizenship two decades or more later. Filing the wrong form would be considered a minor clerical error. It should have been rejected at the time, and she should have had to file the correct form at the time, but once citizenship is granted, that's moot.

There is a general presumption in the law that citizenship cannot be revoked unless all of the following criteria are true:

• That person misrepresented or concealed something
• The misrepresentation or concealment was willful
• The misrepresentation or concealment was material to the decision to grant citizenship

None of those apply, much less all of them. Omar did not misrepresent anything; her father did. The misrepresentation was probably not willful. See also the comments above about birth records in Somalia. And being born a year earlier is not material to the decision to grant citizenship. It is only material to whether that specific form would have been accepted or a different form would have been needed.

So absent some significant evidence that something else was omitted as a side effect of using the wrong form (which is incredibly unlikely), this would be a clerical error, subject to possible civil penalties against the father, were he still alive, and that's about it.

This isn't just a little bit short of the threshold required for removing citizenship. This is so far from reaching the threshold that even the most conservative immigration judge in the country would laugh in their faces for even making the attempt, and probably hit them with contempt charges for wasting the court's time.

It is a relief that it's only one one bank that has a large number of security flaws,
and not all of the major financial institutions, all at the same time,
That would be awful.

I credit the steady hand of leadership for guiding the ship of commerce thru the Straits of Mythos.

Nobody's celebrating other than your friends the Ayatollahs. They're putting the blame where it belongs: on the regime. What you're doing is, as usual, rewarding and incentivizing war crimes. Also the Shah used his constitutional powers against Mossadegh, who was the one committing a coup d'etat, and he was ousted by an alliance of islamists and leftists. After taking power the islamists slaughtered the leftists. Same pattern currently happening in Europe, the UK, and the US right now.

Sure, go far back enough (and yes, I was on computers at that time) but surely he's not saying, "Man, computers were better when you could only run one process at a time, and the operating system let you do literally anything" etc etc and if so, the answer to that is, you can still do that if you want .. you just can't do it *inside* somebody else's software architecture. You still own the hardware, do whatever you want.

huh? it's trivial to write any code you want and run it on your phone

But with respect to your "dawn of the PC era", unless you wrote the operating system, you couldn't write and run code that could do anything and everything your computer was capable of - only code that could do what the operating system would permit you to do.

That's no different today.