Ah, but will there be any actual financial penalties against Apple to address the revenue they received as a result of this? Or would developers have to start their own cases to attempt to recover anything?

The end of the order says that they are referring the issue to the DoJ for criminal charges, which is where a fine would be issued if found guilty.

The problem is the chaos.

No competently run company is going to invest in more-expensive domestic production based on what the administration is doing because there can't be any expectation that policies will remain in place until production can be brought online. It doesn't even make sense to consider planning to onshore production because there's no reasonable expectation that the current policies will be in place in a month, much less in the year or more needed for a production change.

... Presumably by being someone with a family history of dementia and hopes for effective preventive measures and treatments which would presumably be taken orally, injected or infused?

I'd also call it a publicity stunt because DOJ leadership would have to prove themselves [even more?] utterly idiotic to let this go to a jury trial.

I can't imagine this ending in any way other than dropped charges, though they may draw it out to make it as painful as possible prior to that.

There wouldn't be a single factor driving it but a combination of many factors. Loss of coastline (and cities built along it) including greater susceptibility to storms for unaffected areas will obviously have economic costs, highly increased weather and storm variability will be significant (think monsoon rains, "atmospheric river," etc.), increased drought in some areas due to both temperature and weather pattern changes (see western US water rights among the states as the civil portion of this), mass movements of refugees (sure the US can close the southern border, but what happens if you get 50,000 migrants all deciding to come over at once in one area? Are you simply going to shoot all of them?).

Human extinction seems very unlikely, but the collapse of the infrastructure that allows creation of the infrastructure that allows modern life? That could be much more likely, particularly when you factor in military conflicts as well as purely climate-based changes and losses.

Correct, and a great example of this is "Greenspan's Bait and Switch" back in the Reagan years - basically a bunch of measures put in place to increase how much was being paid into FICA (which notably has a cap on how much income it applies to, so it's regressive) and slow outgo.

Any overage beyond current needs is put into a "trust fund" which is required by law to be kept in US Treasury Bonds, aka loaned to the US Government. For the truly cynical, think about it as years of loaning a bunch of money to your uncle, and around the time that money starts needing to be paid back your uncle starts looking for contract assassins (aka "privatization"). If Social Security can be killed then oh my! Guess all that money owed to it just doesn't need to be paid back.

If the money "borrowed" in that way had been spent in ways that would make providing the services it's for easier and more cost effective that would be one thing, but that's not how it works out because the best ROI for private capital is purchasing politicians and policy.

How is the sleep monitoring on the base model being done without a heart rate sensor, just with stillness as measured by the accelerometer?

No, they get arrested for conduct that would be criminal no matter where they did it. Facebook (2x) and Twitter (2x) were the (virtual) venues where the crimes were committed, but the crimes were attempting to organize a mob to burn down a courthouse, inciting and threatening to murder police, conspiracy to suppress votes and threatening to kill the President. The crimes would be just as criminal had they been done in person at a local bar (or any other physical location).

Which is exactly the same as in the UK.

> The crimes would be just as criminal had they been done in person at a local bar (or any other physical location).

I agree. Where the US differs is that because of the US's 1st amendment it's _not_ a crime to say those things even in a bar.

Anyway, all of that to say that americans are arrested for posting things on the internet, despite what people claim.

You say there are grants available, but given the current environment actually relying on those seems risky - even if you were actually to get the money up front it seems like it might get clawed back.

You are correct. This is a consideration at all levels of government currently, with faith in those grants' persistence varying based on an individual recipient's responsibilities.

Probably wouldn't be that difficult to organize down the y axis based on drive capacity, and the amount of pointless jostling around of small nodes makes it noticeably bog down as the years go by.

Interesting visualization though.