“Let’s not indulge US regulators fantasies that they get to dictate the product design of cars from non-US countries.”

Of course governments have the ability to decide what products are sold in their countries and how.

They ultimately don't have that power. All they can do is block the sale of products. Arguably, that power gives them leverage to negotiate the availability of some products or features. But as this Apple case shows, this negotiating leverage is limited.

Why would it be ok that a monopoly business prevents free competition and consumer choice by only allowing certain or a single model provider that likely gives them kickback via some opaque business deal?

> EU regulators' fantasies that they get to dictate the product design of products from non-EU countries.

They should get to regulate the design of products from non-EU countries only those that are sold inside EU.

The fact that it is not cost effective for Apple to design two separate products(software or hardware) for EU and non-EU is an Apple problem.

BBC calling encryption "controversial privacy tech" is deeply disappointing and dangerous.

It is controversial.. amongst people who have concerns about private communications and society, from a regulatory and governance perspective.

It's uncontroversial amongst people who value their privacy.

The tension between the two camps (there are obviously nuances and this is a false dichotomy) is at a current peak. It's an ongoing controversy. It's a matter of public debate.

You might have liked it better if the angle had been "...which the government, controversially, wants to clamp down on" or something.

I wondered how it could be considered 'controversial', but they do quote at least a couple groups speaking against it. The NSPCC for instance, who incidentally also warned parents about a Harry Potter video game because their children might want to learn more about the game:

>“Parents should also be aware that players may want to find out more about the game using other platforms such as YouTube, Twitch, Reddit and Discord, where other game fans can discuss strategies and experiences.

Calling something controversial is a favorite propaganda technique employed by "news" outlets. It's another form of selective reporting and framing. It carries negative connotations, and has really no objective standard by which it can be wrong since you'll always find somebody against any issue.

After you notice it, you'll notice it everywhere.

> It carries negative connotations

Interesting I'm not a native English speaker but in news articles I have always interpreted "controversial" as meaning "under discussion" (perhaps even around a 50/50 divide) hence why they are writing an article about it.

I feel it is the news outlet trying to justify why the topic is important to read about since most people reading it will interpret the issue at hand as having a "common" stance. Usually it is used in topics that are very binary, for or against.

It does have negative connotations. And it does get used by news corporations to influence opinion. I have rarely if ever seen them feel the need to explain why a topic they report is important or newsworthy, and just stating without evidence that something is controversial really doesn't either.

> Usually it is used in topics that are very binary, for or against.

It can be for those topics, but very rarely to describe the side of such topics with which they align.

The UK government seems a lot more willing to embrace the panopticon in the name of protecting people from terrorists, child sex traffickers, human rights activists, Catholics, jaywalkers, you name it.

From their viewpoint, you have to think about what happens if, after they became aware of this vulnerability, there was then a crash because they weren't prompt and aggressive enough in addressing it. That's the kind of thing that ruins your entire company forever.

Yep - Boeing is still dealing with it years later.

(As they should - I’m still very mad at them.)

Same company that is planning to deprive customers of CarPlay even though virtually all of their customers want it.

He is, but it's certainly not plausible.

It raises questions that James Comer keeps raising to attack Fauci, but which never seem to get anywhere close to being proven. It's now been four years. The various libels against Fauci remain unsupported.

It should be noted that massive tree-planting efforts do not magically create "forest". They create tree plantations. Forest is a complex ecosystem that takes some time.

It's reasonable to say this is wrong. But really, this seems like a tiny subset of users. Who bought a Mac Pro in 2023 after Apple Silicon had been out for 3 years already? Almost nobody, because it wasn't a real performance improvement by that time. For those extremely niche folks for which it was somehow still beneficial, they definitely won't want to still be using such a machine in 2028. They will have moved on to something like an M5 Ultra Mac Studio or whatever form the Mac Pro takes next.

Which shady marketing? Because I found out about the APPro 2 support from Apple.

Not sure what is up with this, but I just flew from Italy to the US with my AirPods Pro 3 and did not experience any issues. So it's apparently not present 100% of the time.

Also: battery life is VASTLY improved on the APP 3. Rated time is 8 hrs and I'm getting closer to 9.