Apple doesn't want that. It almost killed them back in their PPC days. In fact few companies pushed for HTML5 and the adherence to web standards more then Apple. This is not because they are wonderful but because Microsoft was in the process of providing tools which would turn the web into a Microsoft only environment. But thanks to Apple (WebKit and iPhone), Google (Chrome), and Mozilla (Firefox) this never came to pass.

Apple will always be in the minority. As such, Apple will always benefit from an environment where making things cross-platform is easier rather then harder. Many companies appear to switch to a "lock-in" style ecosystem once they can no longer compete. They just milk their users for everything they can while bleeding users. But such actions are always the beginning of the end - companies or products generally don't survive. Oh VMWare, you will be missed.

Many complaints of Apple appear to originate from those who want web standards to move even faster. From their perspective Apple is holding everyone back. If I were in their shoes I would also be pissed. But there is a big difference between slowly adopting standards and introducing proprietary standards to own the web. Apple is slow, not malicious. They are not trying to diminish the web's capacity as an application platform. But it is true that Apple is not advancing web standards nearly as much as they used to.

But back to the main topic of should Google sell Chrome. No. At least not as long as all other Google services / applications also work with other browsers. If Google switches to only supporting Chrome then one would have an argument that Google is forcing Chrome on users thereby generating a Monopoly of sorts. So far I don't see that happening.

Please... Trump is not that stupid. He is just lying to his supporters - same as always. He knows quite well that consumers will be paying the tariffs. But how else can he put a tax on Americans without them noticing while at the same time passing tax cuts for himself and his donor friends? The fact he can put together a plan that bypasses Congress while being accepted by his supporters is.... impressive.

Now I am not saying that Trump is smart -- he obviously thinks this is a good long term move for him when in fact he will be burning down the Republican party. But it is best to assume that that majority of what he says is a lie and should be ignored. It is just him attempting to control the populous.

The simple reality is that Trump looks at the 1T$ in imported goods and thinks "I want some of that - ". Tax dollars come it to pay for his tax cuts and he stimulates industry to return to the US. Win, win from his perspective. And as a bonus all the trading partners can come kiss his ass and offer bribes. What is not for him to love? The fact it will destroy trust in the US for generations is not his concern.

I always thought Zelenskyy made a big mistake by thinking Trump had empathy. He doesn't care that Ukrainians or Russians get killed. What he cares about is his ego which is centred around his bank account. A better approach when dealing with Trump would be something like:

If Zelenskyy said something like this then you can bet there would be an additional 100B worth of military transfers to Ukraine. That is just who Trump is. I expected Zelenskyy to know better considering the people he has to deal with.

This is actually not true. The maximum size of the engine (due to licensing requirements) is 660 cc. And while it is true that smaller engines generally consume less fuel, this is not always the case.

One achieves more power from a given engine displacement by revving to higher RPM. Power equals torque times RPM so if you can increase the RPM with minimal impact on torque then you will generate more power.

With a 660 cc limit you can break it into 4 cylinders with each cylinder having a relatively short throw but a large bore. Now you have a higher revving engine at the expense of some torque. Overall, a power gain, but at the cost of reduced mileage due to the increased rev limit. But what else can they do to facilitate higher speeds and a 660 cc size limit? A turbo perhaps?

A 1.5L Honda engine will actually consume less fuel then a typical Kei truck. And it is more powerful and more reliable and better in every other way except for possibly weight.

A quick look at motorcycle engines also demonstrates this phenomena. My 1L BMW generates 170HP and consumes more fuel when driving on a highway then my old 1.5L Toyota. All this despite the fact the motorcycle is 5 times lighter. Both have great engines, but only one of them was designed to be efficient.

If they wanted to have fuel efficient Kei vehicles they would get rid of the 660 cc limitation and just let Toyota and Honda do whatever they wanted. As it stands, the designers are fighting to squeeze out enough power to drive on a highway while conforming to licensing requirements. This comes at the cost of efficiency.

Kei vehicles must conform to specific requirements and are designed for use as farm or work vehicles. It is a class of vehicles with minimal licensing / insurance costs. The Japanese government does not want everyone using such vehicles, just those that require them to minimize the cost of doing business. As such, they are very simple, very inexpensive, and kind of crappy. Designed for rural areas - not urban.

The size limitations of the Kei vehicles are not because Japanese are smaller but is because the Japanese government wants these vehicles to be uncomfortable. They want to dissuade people from using such vehicles for general travel. They are great cheap work vehicles but that is about it. Get a Honda civic if you want a small vehicle with a great ride and probably better fuel mileage.

All that being said, I would love to purchase a Kei truck for work on a farm. Tire availability is a bit of an issue, but these vehicles would be far less expensive to operate for typical "farm" tasks. The majority of farm tasks anyway. Most people are not hauling livestock every day. But driving to town to pick up the refurbished hydraulic cylinders -- perfect application for such a truck. Prevents wear on the expensive heavy duty vehicles.

Indeed, these are truly "Trumped" up claims.

So Apple is going to be moving production to the US to avoid tariffs? Hardly... Apple is building a data centre / investing into the AI hype. No production is being moved to the US. Apple is keeping the data centre close to minimize latency and to keep the facilities readily accessible by Apple staff. Tariffs do not come into play here.

Flatpaks definitely suffer from the problems you have identified. Default behaviour is to be far too secure for most Linux users. That being said, it is really easy to remove these limitations using something like Flatseal.

There is insufficient bandwidth for full HDMI. So the iOS device compresses output video and the HDMI adapter decompresses it.

I agree - took a philosophy of logic course which was great. Basically a course on how to make a point, convince people, and spot when you are being manipulated. If everyone had such skills then Democracy would be far more effective.

But I will note that removing funding from research in humanities does not imply it will no longer be taught. It implies that you will not get a government grant if pursuing your PhD. You will have to find your own sources of funding. I could see many of the most talented researchers moving in order to continue their research. So there will be long-term problems due to this decision but I doubt they will be felt in the next decade. And if future governments decide to reverse course then it will not take much time to recover.

Was this not the Slashdot motto? I can not seem to find any reference to it anymore - either in the official Slashdot marketing or in the stories being posted.

Or perhaps use the methane for aviation. Aviation is one of the few applications that requires a hydrocarbon based source of energy.

You actually think Elon wants right to repair? The guy who owns Tesla?

Probably not, but the M4 chip supports an additional external display so you can have dual displays while leaving your laptop open. Not certain when the M4 will come to the Air but they will probably make the transition at some point soon. I suspect once they have burned through there stock of M3 chips.

Light posts are still a good idea, but I suggest that they are turned off most of the time. They can remain off unless pedestrians are detected nearby and it is determined they should turn on. The big difference here is lights should be for pedestrians and not for drivers.

I find nighttime driving with street lights to be far more difficult then without. Especially if there is a light layer of water on the road - the resulting glare from street lights makes everything more difficult to see. Most notably, pedestrians or cyclists with inadequate lighting. Other motorists are not a problem as they are always well illuminated.

Having street lights illuminate only when pedestrians / cyclists are close by would give drivers advanced warning that such hazards are present. So turning the lights off will not only save power but also increase safety by emphasizing the presence of pedestrians and cyclists.

Such behaviour would require that we identify when lights are not able to correctly detect cyclists / pedestrians. Lights that do not behave correctly actually become a liability. But if all the lights are connected via a wireless sensor network and detected events are communicated to a central source, it should be reasonable to identify those lights that never detect events despite being adjacent to lights which always detect multiple events. Keeping the system accurate and reliable should not be a problem. I say this but they still haven't solved the problem of automatically identifying intersections which do not correctly identify vehicles.

Low-intensity (green highlight) is defined as 0% to 2%. One would assume the majority in the US is at 0%. The use of green in place of nothing simply indicates that samples were performed in that geographical area. The more interesting thing to see is GPS jamming on previous dates. Turn time back to the start of the Ukraine conflict to see the contrast between before and after.

Terrorism - the act of violence against civilians in order to invoke political change.

Looks to me like these attacks were aimed at members of Hezbollah and not civilians. Some civilians were probably injured as a result but they were not the targets. Only those pagers owned by Hezbollah were impacted - after all, Hezbollah installed the explosives in their own pagers. As such, this is not terrorism but is an act of war against Hezbollah. Considering they were already trying to kill each other, this is not much of an escalation.