I have thoughts on the Air and all other iPhone models: They're too large. The iPhone 4 was perfectly sized and we have the technology now to build a super powerful phone of that size. I simply don't use my phone for anything that requires a larger screen. Smaller screens also encourages better UI design.
Exactly this. And the profit would be huge compared to any Mac. I suspect Apple dropped it just because they're making even more from selling oversized and over-specced phones.
Yeah, they probably lost almost zero customers by cutting the mini from the lineup. The people buying iPhones, in my experience, tend to just pick another iPhone. So they could simplify manufacturing, testing and so on and still sell the same number of phone, just more profitable ones.
The problem is they were two decades late digitizing the classroom. Now we're dealing with the aftermath with the educational system still not being capable of keeping up with societal progress.
that's dismissing that brains need time to evolve. what if brains need to be mature enough in and by themselves before they benefit from digital support? as in "no telly before 3-4, no smartphone before 14, prioritize pen and paper proficiency until 12-14" makes sense biological brain maturity?
then "give'm a computer ASAP" is the wrong answer.
I don't think giving children tech adults don't fully understand is a goal by itself. But children shouldn't be limited by their parents' shortcomings either. Strict age limits may seem like a safe approach, but children and their capacity to bypass those rules should not be underestimated.
It's the main lane where all coastal traffic passes, and one of the most dangerous and weather sensitive regions on the lane. Larger ships sail farther out when weather conditions don't allow for sailing the coast, but a lot of traffic including fishing vessels carrying fresh fish simply have to wait. So it's not as meaningless as geography makes it look.
Almost all of my iCloud relayed addresses are already @privaterelay.appleid.com, and they've been working perfectly. So I don't expect this to change any time soon.
For certain styles of coffee, crema in espresso is not necessarily desired — it typically has a high concentration of more bitter flavor compounds.
If you're drinking light, floral and acidic coffees, it's been relatively "trendy" recently to skim the crema off before drinking it.
I don't bother with that, but pulling two shots and removing the crema from one of them and trying them side by side is an interesting sensory experience — I'd encourage you to try, at least once!
Could be useful for mass production of espresso-based drinks (like the ones sold at convenience stores), and possibly various foods like Tiramisu.
An average coffee shop's espresso machine might use $200/month of electricity, so even though the percent saving (75%) is high, it's off a base that's small relative to other costs; possibly too small to be enticing.
I guess it's a matter of taste, and the quality of the coffee, but I love the crema. Personally I think removing it sounds a bit like picking the olives off the pizza.
This is completely false if the espresso is brewed with freshly ground and properly roasted beans with correct temperature and pressure. The texture of the crema also says a lot about the quality of the extraction.
And this is why you can't use "100 regular coffee drinkers" to judge the quality of the brewing method. Most people can't even taste (or care about) the difference between arabica and robusta beans or whether it's red or white wine.
Sure you can. You can absolutely use those 100 participants if your aim is to develop and market a process that can then be used to make a product for those same types of people. Samples generalise if your sample is representative, and in this case, for large commercial coffee extraction companies, third wave coffee aficionados are not in their target audience.
The product is moving into a different territory, though. I doubt these guys even know how to pull a proper espresso shot as a baseline for the test. I'm sure you can grind espresso coffee beans to a powder and just shake it until it achieves a flavor similar to espresso, but that doesn't mean the resulting drink can really compare to something that was brewed at the right temperature and pressure.
Technically you can also buy a bottle of grape juice from the grocery store, let it sit on the kitchen sink with a yeast lock for a few weeks and call it wine, and technically it even is, but it's also going to taste quite shitty.
> I doubt these guys even know how to pull a proper espresso shot as a baseline for the test.
You could just read the linked paper?
> Esp was prepared using a Sanremo Cube espresso machine. Brewing parameters were standardised following the supplier's guidelines: extraction time of 35 ± 3 s, pressure of 9 bar, and boiler temperature of 122 °C, with the corresponding group-head temperature of 94 ± 1 °C. A total of 21 g of ground coffee (GS = 2.6 ± 0.1; ∼262 μm) was placed in a ridged coffee basket and tamped using a constant-pressure tamper (MHW Flash Constant Pressure Tamper 2), applying 13.6 kg of force. The BR was reduced from 2 to 1.7 following the recommendations of the coffee roaster for better flavour (1 g of coffee grounds yielding 1.7 g of coffee brew).
1:1.7 is a bit short for my preferences (I like longer shots, usually aim for ~2.5); but otherwise that sure sounds like a pretty good double to me!
I jumped on this at first as well. But to be honest if their target demographic is industrial production of coffee like beverages (like those Star Bucks soda can ”coffees”), well then it might not be so bad. I was thinking that a lot of flavour compounds of espresso breaks down quite rapidly while the drink cools, so the method of cooling all drinks to equal temperatures could be enough to skew the results regardless, but again for commercial coffee based soft drinks this is already the case. Headline is a bit misleading though.
Exactly this. ISPs are tricky players when it comes to peering. A typical symptom: servers in local region/country can easily saturate the connection, when anything external gets cropped down to 20-50% of a declared full speed.
Supply and demand, why would they bother improving the infrastructure if people can't use it? Either be an early adopter, and help progress or sit at the back and wait.
