Always loved the Surface Duo. I really liked the separation of the screens too; felt like dual monitors vs. ultrawide. It also forced the technology to focus the valueprop on multitasking versus more immersive/more bigger/more better. I'm curious about the iPhonr Duo; I have not been a huge fan of iPadOS or iOS, the former making me often wish for a macOS experience and the later having felt slower and less responsive over time (mostly due to animation speeds/aesthetic choices rather than a hardware defect).
Ah. about 30 seconds ago they mentioned in the (still ongoing) keynote they said it was removed to recoup space for internals. I recall the 3.5mm jack removal being motivated along similar lines. I wonder, assuming the space where the SIM slot would've gone was filled with increased battery size, what that delta would in duration. I'm from the US, cursory reading about global eSIM adoption surprised me (only 30% and most of that 30% is in the US vs. my assumption of >50%). What prevents adoption elsewhere? Consumer demand for swapping? Curious to hear your POV on it.
eSIMs give a lot of control back to the carrier. My carrier does not allow transferring eSIMs between phones, but I can trivially move their physical SIM card.
I don't trust carriers to get things right, and I don't see any benefit in switching my main card to eSIM - I inserted the physical card once when I bought the phone, and it's going to stay there until I get a new phone, simple as that.
How is it superior when viewing w/o an account is impossible? From my POV this was the moment X/Twitter completely rejected its stated mission of being a town square.
Doesn't the FEC already regulate contribution limits? The debate is where the line is and when the line comes into play. Society is a constant negotiation between individual freedoms and collective safety/social order. You have already ceded some rights in this vein. It is not controversial to see an unfairness in some citizens/their vehicles having many magnitudes more influence over the common citizen. Citizens United is a conduit to a standard that can be hacked by money. Arguably, the dilution of your own political leverage in this paradigm is a greater inhibition to your rights than a stricter contribution limit ever could be, in the long term.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The real world doesn't require us to negate the commentary that the ultra wealthy people/corporations could be doing a lot more good than they're currently doing on the basis that the government is spending money irresponsibly/against the greater good.
This is a thought terminating cliche. This is just the latest move in a long term strategic effort to undermine Canada's sovereignty. Zoom out, and that in it of itself is part of an even broader strategic effort to reorganize alliances which built the world order.
Everywhere there are criticisms of Trump, his administration, and their goals, there is always this commentary which not only fails to serve as an accurate representation of present situations, but more importantly, it serves to distract from the chronology of events which led us here, blinding the broader conversation from creating inferences of what will happen next which stifles the conversation from its most natural next reply: What are they actually doing, and what do we do if it does not benefit us?
When I was in photography class in college, I created backplates in photoshop for still life portraits of small trinkets I was photographing. The photos were taken on black and white film and developed in the campus dark room. Led to some impressive photos. In our class's critiques, I explained how it was done. A lot of peers went from impressed to meh'd. The point: the black and white film laundered the new-age manipulation, and a digitally signed photo from a modern camera remains vulnerable to the same premise.
