Cum whales?

Flouting god damn it

But flauting, surely?

Even if we accept your premise as true, how will the government’s actions solve the problem? The current ban allows for existing models to be sold; however, modifications will remove the exemption. Firmware updates are considered modifications. The government is thus ensuring that backdoors remain on the device. Second, you mention professional equipment but those were not included in the ban. Thus backdoors can remain on that equipment too. Lastly, moving the assembly of the router to the US only means that now a US factory worker is installing the backdoors instead of a foreign one. That factory worker's job to install firmware; they do not know if it has backdoors.

But then I flushed

Because Maine does not want new datacenters, network communications like TCP/IP stops working across state lines?

None so far.

Logistics is not the new hotness. The new hotness is YOLO.

But . . . but won't anyone think about their freedom?

1) It's a temporary ban not a permanent one. 2) There have been no major datacenter projects in Maine yet. 3) One of the reasons for the ban is to allow the state to assess infrastructure changes. Some of these datacenters are being built with a "If you build it, they will come" attitude when it comes to infrastructure demands like electricity and water. In decades past when companies built datacenters, they had to plan for these things and some datacenters built their own power and water plants.

If you have looked at Windows laptops recently that's already happened. RAM and SSDs are soldered on many of them.

Apple working with Adobe to make sure their flagship program works is a very different thing than accusing Apple of conspiring with Adobe to rig performance metrics to fool consumers in thinking the M1 was faster than it is.

Many of us do not put full faith in benchmarks as the only facts; however, benchmarks can be used as general guidelines as to whether one machine performs better than another. The conspiracy that somehow Apple and Adobe were colluding to fool consumers seems very paranoid especially when history seems to contradict it. One would think if Apple and Adobe colluded on the M series of chips that Adobe would have ARM specific versions right after Apple launched their ARM processors. They did not which suggests Adobe like every other software developer had to spend some time updating their code.

And how would anyone besides you know your work flow? Benchmarks simulate general work flow. Some reviewers devise their own benchmarks that mimic what they do; however, they concede they cannot anticipate every person's needs. If you find a reviewer/benchmark that uses your work flow, go with it.

Who's means who is

There is a difference between what the OP is stating in that Adobe and Apple have conspired to give their customers false impressions of performance on ARM and Adobe optimizing their software on a specific platform for their customers. From what I remember, Adobe did not have ARM versions of their software right away when Apple launched their M series processors. The main reason I remember is Intel launched a PR campaign against Apple silicon where they tried to rig different benchmarks, one of which compared a released Adobe program on x86 vs a beta version of that program on Apple Silicon. Obviously the beta version was not optimized yet and was not faster. However when the program was released, Apple version was clearly faster.

Read the article again: "A sweetheart deal between the companies means TSMC effectively eats the cost of the defects that inevitably crop up in a new manufacturing process."

1) The question is which company eats the defects, but that question specifically deals with new nodes as yields in new nodes start out low. The A18 Pro is not being produced on a new node. 2) For a new node only, if Apple only pays for finished goods, an A18 Pro with 5 or 6 cores is considered a finished good so Apple . 3) All of these points are speculation on the part of outsiders. Neither Apple nor TSMC has divulged their contract terms.

You still have not committed to whether you are complaining that Apple is used binned chips or praising them. You just want to complain about Apple no matter what they do. Instead you resort to name calling. That is who you are.

Bahahahahahahaha. You NEVER asked me for a link. You simply stated you couldn't find one therefore none existed. Let me repeat what I said earlier. WE BOTH KNOW Signal based E2EE is a feature the Google has that is not in Universal Profile 1.0. It does not exist in Universal Profile 4.0. You have yet to address that point. Seeing how you are unable to address any other points, that one point keeps destroying your arguments.