In that case they will get banned, because Facebook does not allow advertisers to let the targeted group know why they were targeted.

https://twitter.com/dmarti/status/1389737052091027460/photo/...

This is not even an option, since it will just make it easier to share files illegally and defeat the whole purpose of having an online movie store.

I disagree. Piracy was and still is very much a service problem. Just because people would have access to DRM-free movies does not mean they would automatically fire up bittorrent and start trading torrent files with their friends. That's still far too inconvenient.

I have lots of DRM-free games on GOG for instance. So do people I know. We've never had a single thought about pirating these. We're grown ups, we don't have time for that kind of thing.

it was already easy to obtain that very song or movie illegally.

Allowing a download doesn't _cause_ more piracy - it just makes the user have more power and control over their content they purchased.

This line of reasoning is why we have invasive drm that doesn’t work. It’s just another case of drm only hurting legitimate customers and not stopping piracy even in the slightest.

> they likely have reallocated fab capacity they had planned for the successor to the M1 back to making the M1

Got any proof or something? This is a bold claim to make.

Some benchmark sites claim they saw performance reports. Whether they make those up to see more traffic, I cannot tell. If I worked at Apple, I would not tell :)

For example https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-apple_m1x-1898 talks about a 12 Core CPU but with only 16GB RAM.

I use an iPhone, but in my opinion the stock Android looks and feels much better than the launchers that manufacturers put on. Especially the latest versions of Android look great.

Draw a thin line of ice and it bounces of the water.

This is a step in the right direction from Apple. Now they only need to add a passwords section to iCloud.com.

So you're suggesting that carriers want to make more money? Interesting...

> Its inherent fragility means that transmission boosting ‘cell’ antennae are generally required every 100–300 m—which is far more spatially dense than the transmission masts required for older 2G, 3G and 4G technology, using lower frequency waves

I can see that it's necessary to place 5G masts more densely in order to deliver the promised transmission rates and coverage but it seems like a bad solution to a greater problem. Assuming the trend continues one would need even more cells to deliver 6G, 7G etc. Are there no other ways of increasing the bandwidth without placing a mast at every city corner?

The high frequencies are one of the techniques in 5G that enable faster data transmission. Another is beamforming: instead of broadcasting data in all directions, it is only sent in the direction of your smartphone. The thing is, there's no change for the receiving smartphone (same RF transmission power), just reduction in interference for others.

[edit: thereby, you can have more devices talking on the same frequency without disturbing each other, since they are separated by the "beams"]