They have all kinds of costs hosting GitHub, which is why there's per seat pricing for companies. If those prices are too low, they can always increase them. Charging on top of that per minute of using your own infrastructure felt greedy to me. And the fact that this was supposed to be tied to one of the lesser-maintained features of GitHub raised eyebrows on top of that.
Ever since Apple started making their phones big I've wanted a smaller one. I never bought a mini because it has a worse camera and that's more important to me.
My wife actually has a 13 mini and loves it. I also wish that there were good smaller phones, but I can't really blame companies for focusing on what sells.
I'm also curious who the market is for a thinner phone. I imagine pockets on some clothes women commonly wear might work better with a thinner phone, but those pockets are almost always too small in other dimensions to actually hold the phone
Pure speculation but the fact that it has a strap accessory. Feels like something for the younger generation. Life is on your phone. You take your phone everywhere but you don’t care about pro features. Reminds me how a lot of younger folks either don’t drive or are uninterested in it.
the strap is probably more for Asian markets. for instance whenever I go to Japan I see a lot of people still use straps (it's been a thing for years now). But here in California it's pretty rare to see slings used like that.
>I'm also curious who the market is for a thinner phone
Hm, i'd consider it (if i was upgrading yet again).
Why? My 15 Pro (not-Max) gets way too hot way too fast doing basically nothing and it p*sses me off - so, i'd rather not (yet?) take a bet if the new 17 Pro (Max) does better with an entire new thermal design - considering _something_ is _always_ off with new Apple hardware designs, starting with the iPhone 4...
they're saying in fewer words "watch what leaders say, not what they do"
iran might be saying a lot, but if it wanted war, it would have been attacking, the same way that israel is attacking gaza, not threatening gaza.
even now when iran has responded to israel's attacks, you still seem to care more about iran's threats than iran's missiles.
-----
on your very long aside, you are mislabelling the positive sum behaviour as zero-sum.
you might see the point in putting at least equal blame between israel and hamas for the conflict with the positive sum descriptor. israel is in a mutually beneficial escalation and continuation of violence with hamas. an extreme right wing populace in israel is a win both for hamas and for israel. neither care about the palestinians, nor the israelis.
> they're saying in fewer words "watch what leaders say, not what they do"
Didn't you reverse it? Didn't you mean to say what they do not what they say?
Iran conducted a terrorist network against Israel for decades. It's behind Lebanon, Syria etc. They also called for death to Israel and countless other examples. It's pretty clear what they want to do.
Would they use nuclear weapons against Israel?
No idea. Don't want to know. Just like I'm glad I don't know what Saddam or Assad would have done with their nuclear weapons (had Israel not bombed them away).
> even now when iran has responded to israel's attacks, you still seem to care more about iran's threats than iran's missiles.
Right now Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. They were able to kill quite a few Israelis (thankfully not as much because the strikes took down a lot of their launchers/missile caches). I'm concerned about what they say because I know where they are headed if they do somehow gain the weapons to kill everyone.
When someone says they want to kill you and your family: believe them.
> on your very long aside, you are mislabelling the positive sum behaviour as zero-sum.
Nope. Death to Israel is very much zero-sum.
The reason for your confusion is that Iran didn't attack Israel directly and mostly through proxy. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to destroy Israel, they are just cautious about it. Their goal is still the same.
> you might see the point in putting at least equal blame between israel and hamas
Nope. Israel tried to have peace with the Palestinians. Hamas blew up that peace by blowing up busses and coffee shops in the middle of Tel Aviv until that collapsed. They are a zero-sum player who won't settle for peace.
Israel built defense systems and shelters for its people. It ignored Hamas built rockets launched constantly at its cities and tried to "let them be". But they miscalculated. They saw Israeli tolerance as a weakness and assumed Israel doesn't have the stomach for a painful war. They are 100% at fault here and brought about the whole thing.
The fact that this is Hamas's fault doesn't absolve Israel of the brutality of this war and some of the awful things it did. It's just context.
> israel is in a mutually beneficial escalation and continuation of violence with hamas.
It's pretty bad that you lump all of Israel together but make the distinction for Hamas. Hamas made a choice to open a can of worms when Israel had one of the worst governments in its history.
> an extreme right wing populace in israel is a win both for hamas and for israel. neither care about the palestinians, nor the israelis.
I mostly agree, but it will be far worse for the Palestinians. Israel will survive regardless of the outcome. Palestinians don't have that privilege. As such Hamas is far worse, it is a suicide cult.
I doubt that the intersection of IRGC volunteers and potential university students is too big.
The gender ratio is similar in other Middle Eastern countries. Once women in the Islamic world get the legal right to educate themselves, they tend to make use of it much more than men do. It is a pathway towards personal independence.
That's a big leap. Nothing suggests a ground operation or occupation, which was the most costly part of the Iraq war, and importantly, was part of it from the beginning. Experience suggests that Trump would rather walk away from Iran after an exchange of strikes and claim victory then double down in a land war.
Trump's handling of military strikes/operations, which have been mostly symbolic. Killing Soleimani, and not retaliating to the retaliationary strikes. A completely useless strike on Shayrat airbase in Syria. Pulling out of Yemen strikes this year because it was ineffective (never admitting to this though). Trump wants to be known as a deal maker. I don't think that has changed, he's just become more delusional regarding the practicality.
There's no way of knowing that Russia wouldn't have incited the "rebellions" anyway. Once the writing was on the wall that the majority of Ukrainians didn't want to be Russia's puppets, Putin would likely have acted one way or the other. Why take chances?
It can't be coincidence that a few weeks ago users wanted to twist grok's arm and make it post right-wing aligned answers/opinions, but grok itself said it's programmed for unbiased/factual answers (for what it's worth). This is probably a test run gone wrong to make grok more aligned with Musk's opinions.
