I already addressed it. The poster is repeating the point. That doesn't make it more valid.
>Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities.
You might want to review world wide market share numbers before you try to defend that statement.
>Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons?
I'm suggesting Apple is using litigation expense as an avenue to destroy the business of their competitor, again. Apple has much deeper pockets than Qualcomm. It's very simple math.
I agree, there are always more way to make mistakes, 2nd law and all, but the process of assessing good study design, good protocol, good statistical methods, etc. are all the same as for manuscripts with non-null results. Many of these issues will, in theory, have been sorted at the funding level.
What holds us back, it seems to me, isn't process, it's culture and inertia.
For their Point #3 I'm guessing they are saying if they are sleeping or a mugger points their phone at their face. Fortunately, Face ID has focus detection, so if you aren't looking at it then it won't unlock. Which makes point #3 moot as well.
I think it would be really cool if it turned out that it could tell the difference between some pairs of identical twins due to seemingly imperceptible differences.
I'm sure it's not 100%, but I'd bet it's close. Certainly by young adulthood the identical twins I've been around have been relatively easy to distinguish.
That's sort of my theory. But I wonder how much of people's ability to distinguish identical twins is based on physical differences vs more subtle things like how they carry themselves/interact with the world.
Some twins I've known deliberately create physical differences like different hairstyle so other people can recognize them easily without interactions.
This is a strange (repeated) response. Google set up a web detour without users' consent, and has a flagger waving upset people back to canonical links.
Apple _is_ routing people back to the main road, not because of Google's suggesting it, but because it's the only reasonable thing to do.
The implication of your comment is that if Google has asked Apple to pass on the AMP links that they would do so, which I highly doubt.
A far more appropriate summary is: Apple is acting to correct Google's interference with web links; irrespective of Google's desires.
No, Apple's strength is refining, polishing, blending, and packaging existing electronic and software technologies.
Cars are more about mechanical engineering than electronics or software. Learning automotive design from scratch when you have no experience and barely any trained staff is not a trivial task.
Worse, a Level 5 autonomous car is not an existing consumer technology. At this point there's nothing to refine, and barely anything that could be bought in to start the refinement process.
Apple might as well go into house building, farming, or food products.
Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities.
Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? Overall a confusing argument.