It's a 25 point policy, and half of it is not exactly the same as Democratic Socialists in the US.

It's very obviously fictional.

I think that most people who watched it will assume it’s well researched

To be fair, the question of whether it’s historically accurate is irrelevant because the film obviously doesn’t depict real events with real cardinals… even to the viewer who knows nothing about who is who in the real-life Catholic hierarchy, the terrorist event that triggers a major plot twist should be a big clue that this is a fictional thriller, not a documentary. Apart from that, the setting is contemporary so history has nothing to do with it.

So it’s a gossipy political thriller where the setting is the Vatican, not the White House or the House of Lords. The question remains: is it a reasonably faithful depiction of the way a real papal conclave operates, in both procedure and the negotiation/clique-forming/decision-making process? Catholic friends of mine who know much more than I do about what goes on in Rome actually have the opposite fear: that it is all too realistic and exposes too much about the power games that go on instead of earnestly seeking the good of the faith, and of the faithful. If that’s the case, then in the long run it can only be good because, as Christ Himself said: “you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

Edit: to be fair, there are some flashbacks in the film to historical events taking place in Latin America, IIRC these are also fictionalized but yeah, I could imagine someone who knows the history of that particular situation being able to say that it's innacurately depicted; however that's not the key theme of the film's narrative, which is a contemporary papal election. By contrast the film "The Two Popes" does deserve the historically-inaccurate tag, because it depicts a meeting between two real-life people which definitely never happened and is purely the imagination of the playwright who asked himself "what if?" In that case, I do wish that the film would preface itself by making it clear that it is purely a flight of fancy in order to explore ideas around faith, theology and succession because I'm sure a lot of people really do believe that Francis did have private conversations with Benedikt and received his endorsement.

I don't see why the miraculous hypothesis gets to get away with not explaining why and how the miracle was done. Why should we reject it being a fraud just because we don't know how it was done, while accepting a miracle which we also don't know how was done?

I think it's pretty common (maybe even required?) not to know how a miracle was done. The whole point seems to be that it was not done by known means.

That doesn't make it any more reasonable to accept as an explanation.

Every version of 2048 I've played spawns 2s and 4s. 4s are more rare.

It's very hard to take this article seriously when I'm flashbanged with one of the worst AI illustrations I've seen in my life right off the bat. Did the author even look at the image before publishing this?

It's worse than one of those "holding the hot end of the soldering iron" stock photos.

Yep, solder iron holds itself. Multi meter (pointing away from the user for some reason) displays fever dream nonsense.

With such tough competition, I guess https://www.hacker-stockphotos.com/ is out of business now?

Good lord you weren't wrong. How can anyone look at that image and think "yes, this is the professional look I want"?

I wish there was a way to leverage my M1 Mac to use this on my iPhone Pro 14. Like a private connection between my phone and computer to use the more powerful chip, even if it's limited to when I'm at home on the same Wi-Fi. Latency shouldn't be too bad.

But I think Apple is going to limit iPhones from doing something like that to boost sales of the 15 Pro and the future gens.

Yes, I would love the escalation path to be: on-device -> owned Mac -> "private cloud"

Not while people can't use the Apple one on Linux or Android.

I think for a lot of the password managers out there, the majority of their revenue comes from Apple users. The ones that don't rely on Apple users will be fine.

I mean, my parents will immediately move to this from BitWarden.

There is still a place for password managers, but if I'm the LastPass CEO, writing is on the wall with this announcement... They will see a large exodus of customers that use Apple OS.

It doesn't scale linearly.

Indeed, so arguing that if revenue is 24m a day that a 1 hour outage loses 1m is wrong

Arguing it is $1,000,000.00 is wrong.

Arguing that it represents the order of magnitude of potential damage is cogent.

There are more options than those two. Pebble watches were built open enough to allow Rebble to get developed and let Pebble watches be used to this day, despite being officially unsupported. A lot of mainstream Android phones support LineageOS. A lot of older iPhones with older iOS versions can be jailbroken and used to this day with tweaks.

> Pebble watches were built

Were, past tense, being the operative word. If I don't already have one, the ability to put an alternative OS on a pebble watch, while cool, isn't particularly useful.

I guess there's the android watch thing?

This is up to the creators, not YouTube.

YouTube demonetizes for socio-political reasons forcing creators to seek alternative advertising, so no, it is up to YouTube, not the creators.

If that was true then more popular creators who already get enough money wouldn't add sponsored segments, and creators who don't get many videos demonetized wouldn't add it either.

But there is no limit to greed so people add them anyway, only way youtube could stop that would be to ban such segments and remove videos with them from the platform.