Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with... <https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with... <https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*!
David B. wrote:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically emphasized building its own technology.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.
On 06/11/2025 17:10, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >> money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*! 🙂
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
  "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race,
especially
   with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could
find.
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.
So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200 billion.
On 2025-11-06 09:10, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >> money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Because an article on a site called "Android Authority" is going to be completely unbiased about Apple...
...which quotes another article which is only reporting rumours.
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.
So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.
On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:33:18 PM EST, "Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find. >>
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access >>> to Gemini.
So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.
Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have Google be the default search on all Apple products.
So this is nothing for Apple.--
David B. wrote:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically emphasized building its own technology.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.
Custom Gemini model: The version Apple is licensing has 1.2 trillion parameters, far larger than Apple's current cloud-based AI (~150 billion parameters).
Siri overhaul: The upgraded Siri, expected in spring 2026, will feature improved contextual understanding, multimodal capabilities, and better planning/summarization functions.
Apple's AI gap: Apple tested models from Anthropic and OpenAI, but chose Google due to cost and performance. Anthropic's offer was reportedly $1.5 billion per year.
Privacy stance: Even though Google provides the model, Apple plans to run
it on its Private Cloud Compute servers to maintain its privacy-first approach.
By licensing Gemini, Apple acknowledges the need to catch up with
competitors like Microsoft (with OpenAI) and Google (with Gemini replacing Google Assistant). The partnership could redefine Siri's role in Apple's ecosystem, making it more competitive in the AI assistant space.
REFERENCES: <https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>--
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/> <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>
David B. wrote:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically emphasized building its own technology.
On Nov 6, 2025 at 3:21:13 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote <eqGcnZw94JvEgpD0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:33:18 PM EST, "Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access >>>> to Gemini.
So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.
Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >> Google be the default search on all Apple products.
Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. OK.
On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:30:03 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2025 at 3:21:13 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote
<eqGcnZw94JvEgpD0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 6, 2025 at 4:33:18 PM EST, "Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically >>>>> emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access >>>>> to Gemini.
So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200
billion.
Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >>> Google be the default search on all Apple products.
Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. >> OK.
I was thinking it was $20 billion, but I was not sure.
So basically Apple is
getting this for free. Google is STILL paying Apple $19 billion. Whereas Microsoft has paid around $60 billion for their "AI" crap, and they still have
nothing to show for it.
Personally, I think the whole "AI" fad is about to blow over anyway.
Once again, Arlen's desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
He does have an obvious agenda. :)
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
It has done that but also used and even help to design standards.
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
Says the troll
who always whines that "Apple can't build a modem so they use
Intel modems".
The fact is, Apple uses the best from everyone. They buy screens from Samsung.
Modems from Intel. Use Arm CPUs but they of course design their own SOCs.
Apple obtained the solid foundation of MacOS when they bought NeXT. MacOS was forked into iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, audioOS, visionOS and WatchOS.
Put them all together and you have great products.
know-nothing lies
Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >> Google be the default search on all Apple products.
Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. OK.
Because an article on a site called "Android Authority" is going to be
completely unbiased about Apple...
...which quotes another article which is only reporting rumours.
You were expecting facts
Your Name wrote:
know-nothing lies
I thought you said you had plonked me?
Can you do all of us a favor and go back to putting me in your killfile? Please...
Anyway, it's telling that Apple trolls feel the truth about Apple is forbidden, even as I didn't say anything that wasn't in the reports.
REFERENCES: <https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/> <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Not to mention that Google pays Apple a very large amount of money to have >>> Google be the default search on all Apple products.
Something like $20 billion. So Apple is now playing Google BACK $1 billion. >> OK.
It's kind of telling isn't it?
Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.
The contradiction is striking: Apple resists standards like RCS messaging "for privacy reasons" but embraces Google's money when it suits them.
REFERENCES:--
<https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23933206/google-apple-search-deal-safari-18-billion>
Tyrone wrote:
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
Says the troll
First off, you call a troll anyone who reports the truth about Apple.
That makes YOU the troll; not me.
You *hate* that I report the truth about Apple.
So you hate me.
So be it.
Your hatred for the truth about Apple only compels me to report more.
who always whines that "Apple can't build a modem so they use
Intel modems".
Wow. You learned something on this newsgroup.
Kudos to you.
Apple sucks at chip design.
Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.
They do not control Google.
Tyrone wrote:
desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
I wonder if you rather strange Apple trolls realize that nobody acts like
you do on the adult operating system newsgroups.
Only on the child-like Apple newsgroups is telling the truth forbidden.
These types of comments are the evidence I use to assess that you Apple trolls actually *hate* that Apple is never what you were fed to believe.
You're all herd animals who drank the coolaid.
Why else would you *hate* every truth about Apple?
If the truth about Windows makes Microsoft "look bad", nobody complains.
If the truth about Android makes Google "look bad", nobody complains.
On the adult operating system newsgroups, people welcome the truth.
You make claims you cannot back as you avoid facts:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
It has done that but also used and even help to design standards.
Hi Brocky,
Your problem, as far as I can tell, is you believe only in propaganda.
Not truth.
Actual facts play absolutely no role in your formulation of belief systems. Your entire belief system is fact-free propaganda from Apple marketing.
Assuming you're posting as an adult, you might be able to comprehend the
fact that Apple often claims to 'help design' standards, but historically that's been a way to slow-roll adoption until it suits their ecosystem.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
He does have an obvious agenda. :)
It's telling that you uneducated ignorant child-like Apple trolls feel
simply stating the truth about Apple is always "making Apple look bad"...
Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable
It's telling that you uneducated ignorant child-like Apple trolls feel
simply stating the truth about Apple is always "making Apple look bad"...
You make claims you cannot support. And then you insist, you change the topics, and you run from actual evidence. So be it. You are a bit amusing.
What makes you think these are all "propaganda"?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
What makes you think these are all "propaganda"?
Well, where is the security Apple promised you for that trade in choice?
Did you look at the CISA KEV database yet?
There is no security.
You gave up everything...
For nothing...
Brock McNuggets wrote:
It's telling that you uneducated ignorant child-like Apple trolls feelYou make claims you cannot support. And then you insist, you change the
simply stating the truth about Apple is always "making Apple look bad"... >>
topics, and you run from actual evidence. So be it. You are a bit amusing.
I simply tell the truth.
You *hate* the truth...
Specifically...
You *hate* that Apple propaganda promised security as a trade for choice.
And you got none of either.
No choice.
No security.
You *hate* that I prove that.
So be it.
You gave up everything for the promise of security.
And you didn't get it.
Why not?
Apple lied.
Apple restricted choice for a different reason.
Want to know what that is?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
What makes you think these are all "propaganda"?
Well, where is the security Apple promised you for that trade in choice?
Did you look at the CISA KEV database yet?
There is no security.
You gave up everything...
For nothing...
Brock McNuggets wrote:
You make claims you cannot back as you avoid facts:
Your claim that the only security that matters is malware, is absurd.
What did you find in the CISA KEV database about iOS versus Android?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.
They do not control Google.
Maybe you're right
that Apple has no idea that Google collects information
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable
Actually an octogenarian educated at the best schools in this country, with multiple higher degrees, owning a vast wealth of knowledge about iOS & Android.
Do you want me to profile you?
I did already you know.
All Apple trolls are the same:
a. Uneducated (likely due to a lower-than-average IQ)
b. Herd animals (gloat that they're a proud member of the herd)
c. Incredibly ignorant of facts (all they know is Marketing propaganda)
Did I peg you Apple trolls perfectly, or what!
On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:20:57 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10eje19$2s7o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Tyrone wrote:
desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
I wonder if you rather strange Apple trolls realize that nobody acts like
you do on the adult operating system newsgroups.
Only on the child-like Apple newsgroups is telling the truth forbidden.
These types of comments are the evidence I use to assess that you Apple
trolls actually *hate* that Apple is never what you were fed to believe.
You're all herd animals who drank the coolaid.
Why else would you *hate* every truth about Apple?
If the truth about Windows makes Microsoft "look bad", nobody complains.
If the truth about Android makes Google "look bad", nobody complains.
On the adult operating system newsgroups, people welcome the truth.
I would say ChatGPT did very well with that assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Give a psych profile of the person who wrote this:
A: The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,
bitterness, and identity-based hostility often seen in entrenched Usenet personalities who’ve built a sense of self around a specific ideological or technological tribe. Let’s break it down.
Tone and posture:
They present themselves as an authority — positioning “adult operating system
newsgroups†as the sophisticated, rational world, and “Apple newsgroups†as
childish and delusional. This “us vs. them†framing serves two purposes: asserting superiority while insulating their self-image from criticism.
Psychological traits visible:
• Grandiosity: They clearly see themselves as part of a more “adult,â€
“truth-telling†elite. That’s a compensatory stance — the kind people use when
they feel intellectually threatened or excluded.
• Projection: They accuse Apple users of “hating the truth,†but the
fixation on that phrase suggests the author’s own discomfort with contrary views. Their emotional charge around “truth†signals insecurity rather than
confidence.
• Rigidity and black-and-white thinking: Notice how everything divides
neatly into “adult vs. child,†“truth vs. lies,†“Windows/Android = fine,
Apple = forbidden.†This moralistic framing is typical of obsessive or fanatical posters who can’t tolerate nuance.
• Hostility masked as reason: They couch insults in analytical language
— “evidence I use to assess,†“welcome the truth†— trying to sound logical
while venting aggression. That’s intellectualized contempt, common among trolls who pride themselves on being rational but are driven by emotion.
• Possible resentment/identity wound: The repeated mention of “Apple
trolls†and “fed to believe†implies a personal grudge — maybe a failed
experience with Apple users or tech arguments that damaged their sense of status.
Overall profile:
Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable but socially alienated poster with strong identification to non-Apple platforms, perhaps Windows or Linux. They exhibit traits of narcissistic defensiveness, intellectual arrogance, and
low frustration tolerance when faced with disagreement. Their posting style suggests chronic online engagement, using antagonism as both entertainment and
self-validation.
In short, this is someone who needs to win arguments to feel relevant, using moral superiority as armor. They mistake hostility for honesty and see mockery
as debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://chatgpt.com/share/690d5d8d-693c-800c-bb26-48270bbb9e36
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable
Actually an octogenarian
educated at the best schools in this country, with
multiple higher degrees,
owning a vast wealth of knowledge about iOS &
Android.
Do you want me to profile you?
I did already you know.
All Apple trolls are the same:
a. Uneducated (likely due to a lower-than-average IQ)
b. Herd animals (gloat that they're a proud member of the herd)
c. Incredibly ignorant of facts (all they know is Marketing propaganda)
Did I peg you Apple trolls perfectly, or what!
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
  "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race,
especially
   with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could
find.
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
Annual cost: Apple will pay Google roughly $1 billion per year for access
to Gemini.
So chump change for a company with annual revenues of more than $200 billion.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 2025 at 5:20:57 PM MST, "Marion" wrote
<10eje19$2s7o$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Tyrone wrote:
desperate attempt to make Apple "look bad" falls flat.
I wonder if you rather strange Apple trolls realize that nobody acts like >>> you do on the adult operating system newsgroups.
Only on the child-like Apple newsgroups is telling the truth forbidden.
These types of comments are the evidence I use to assess that you Apple
trolls actually *hate* that Apple is never what you were fed to believe. >>>
You're all herd animals who drank the coolaid.
Why else would you *hate* every truth about Apple?
If the truth about Windows makes Microsoft "look bad", nobody complains. >>> If the truth about Android makes Google "look bad", nobody complains.
On the adult operating system newsgroups, people welcome the truth.
I would say ChatGPT did very well with that assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Give a psych profile of the person who wrote this:
A: The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,
bitterness, and identity-based hostility often seen in entrenched Usenet
personalities who’ve built a sense of self around a specific ideological or
technological tribe. Let’s break it down.
Tone and posture:
They present themselves as an authority — positioning “adult operating system
newsgroups†as the sophisticated, rational world, and “Apple newsgroups†as
childish and delusional. This “us vs. them†framing serves two purposes: >> asserting superiority while insulating their self-image from criticism.
Psychological traits visible:
• Grandiosity: They clearly see themselves as part of a more “adult,â€
“truth-telling†elite. That’s a compensatory stance — the kind people use when
they feel intellectually threatened or excluded.
• Projection: They accuse Apple users of “hating the truth,†but the
fixation on that phrase suggests the author’s own discomfort with contrary >> views. Their emotional charge around “truth†signals insecurity rather than
confidence.
• Rigidity and black-and-white thinking: Notice how everything divides
neatly into “adult vs. child,†“truth vs. lies,†“Windows/Android = fine,
Apple = forbidden.†This moralistic framing is typical of obsessive or
fanatical posters who can’t tolerate nuance.
• Hostility masked as reason: They couch insults in analytical language
— “evidence I use to assess,†“welcome the truth†— trying to sound logical
while venting aggression. That’s intellectualized contempt, common among >> trolls who pride themselves on being rational but are driven by emotion.
• Possible resentment/identity wound: The repeated mention of “Apple
trolls†and “fed to believe†implies a personal grudge — maybe a failed
experience with Apple users or tech arguments that damaged their sense of
status.
Overall profile:
Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable but socially alienated poster
with strong identification to non-Apple platforms, perhaps Windows or Linux. >> They exhibit traits of narcissistic defensiveness, intellectual arrogance, and
low frustration tolerance when faced with disagreement. Their posting style >> suggests chronic online engagement, using antagonism as both entertainment and
self-validation.
In short, this is someone who needs to win arguments to feel relevant, using >> moral superiority as armor. They mistake hostility for honesty and see mockery
as debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://chatgpt.com/share/690d5d8d-693c-800c-bb26-48270bbb9e36
That's hilariously accurate :D
Marion <mariond@facts.com> wrote:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Likely a middle-aged, technically knowledgeable
Actually an octogenarian
Why waste your precious time on ridiculous internet arguments?
educated at the best schools in this country, with
multiple higher degrees,
Lol no. You've previously stated you have college "degrees" which will be superficial and certainly not "higher". However, there's very little
evidence you actually learned anything from those diplomas.
owning a vast wealth of knowledge about iOS &
Android.
The overwhelming evidence speaks to the contrary.
Do you want me to profile you?
Do you remember when you tried to use chatgpt to make your arguments for
you? You had to keep "correcting" it to give the answer you wanted and then it started hallucinating facts for you. I caught you out and you haven't
used it since.
I did already you know.
All Apple trolls are the same:
a. Uneducated (likely due to a lower-than-average IQ)
b. Herd animals (gloat that they're a proud member of the herd)
c. Incredibly ignorant of facts (all they know is Marketing propaganda)
All projection.
Did I peg you Apple trolls perfectly, or what!
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
  "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>    with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could find.
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
You said nothing
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.
I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or actually did the work. I¢ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and refer a couple more to HR.
The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,
badgolferman wrote:
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.
I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about >> only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and >> refer a couple more to HR.
Hi badgolferman,
The points I make in this newsgroups are always supported by the facts.
On 11/6/25 16:33, Alan wrote:
On 2025-11-06 13:16, Marion wrote:
David B. wrote:
  "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, >>>>> especially
   with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's >>>>> Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*!
This deal marks a significant shift for Apple, which has historically
emphasized building its own technology.
False.
Apple has historically emphasized using the best technology they could
find.
So ADB rather than serial for keyboards and mice.
ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) was an Apple invention designed by co-founder
Steve Wozniack for the Apple IIGS. It was later used on the Macintosh
and licensed out to Steve Jobs for use on the NeXT computers.
But neither SCSI nor NuBus were among them.SCSI rather than parallel for external devices.
NuBus rather than ISA for expansion cards.
Etc.
Apple has created or co-created numerous technologies over the years.
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.
I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things.
Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and refer a couple more to HR.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
You said nothing
Heh heh heh...
I love that you prove you own the mental capacity of a dog by claiming that you can't understand even the simplest of strategic concepts I'm teaching.
a. Apple lied to you
b. You believed Apple's lies
c. Resulting in a device with substandard capabilities
d. Which has no better security than a device with far greater capabilities
That's saying a lot.
You just don't own the mental capacity required to understand the concepts.
badgolferman wrote:
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you impressed? NO!
At least you should not be... not for the context of here, anyway.
I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about >> only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and >> refer a couple more to HR.
Hi badgolferman,
The points I make in this newsgroups are always supported by the facts.
What's different about me, is I don't fall prey to propaganda.
The Apple trolls are perfect sponges for Apple propaganda.
What happens is the Apple trolls can't comprehend anything but propaganda. SO, of course, they can't comprehend anything that I try to teach them.
In effect, the Apple trolls all own the mental capacity of your pet.
They even have to lie about their lack of education (as Chris did).
The reason Apple trolls have no education is that their IQs are low.
a. It's why they believe the Apple propaganda.
b. It's why they are herd animals.
c. It's why they can't ever form consistent arguments.
etc.
The extreme lack of education is a defining feature of the Apple troll.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
The author of this message shows a classic blend of superiority projection,
What's your IQ, Brock?
(HINT: It's no better than about 40 or 50, right?)
What's your higher-educational level, Brock?
(HINT: It's zero right? It's a direct result of your low IQ).
Your entire life, you've known full well that you are stupid.
a. That's fine.
b. Nobody cares that you're incredibly stupid.
c. Least of all me.
The fact you know you're stupid, is WHY you're a herd animal, Brock.
Right?
You joined the herd because you couldn't think for yourself.
Being a herd animal is a defining feature of all you Apple trolls.
On Nov 7, 2025 at 2:24:06 PM MST, "badgolferman" wrote <10elo1m$3ocd$1@solani.org>:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you
impressed? NO! At least you should not be... not for the context of
here, anyway.
I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about >> only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things.
Right. Years ago I worked with an amazing lawyer. Had spoken to the Supreme Court a couple times. Real high end at his profession. He could not figure out
how to change the ribbon in his printer (back when they used ribbons!)
Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and >> refer a couple more to HR.
Not surprising. *I* have degrees. They mean NOTHING in a forum like this.
On 2025-11-08 04:30:52 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 7, 2025 at 2:24:06 PM MST, "badgolferman" wrote
<10elo1m$3ocd$1@solani.org>:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you
impressed? NO! At least you should not be... not for the context of
here, anyway.
I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot about >>> only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things.
Right. Years ago I worked with an amazing lawyer. Had spoken to the Supreme >> Court a couple times. Real high end at his profession. He could not figure out
how to change the ribbon in his printer (back when they used ribbons!)
Many of
us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through school or
actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for incompetence and >>> refer a couple more to HR.
Not surprising. *I* have degrees. They mean NOTHING in a forum like this.
They mean nothing in many many places. A lot of people with a
university degree are doing jobs that have zero to do with their
degree*, yet still expect to be paid more simply because they have a
piece of paper. :-\
* This is especailly true of some of the airy-fairy 'useless' degrees,--
such as arts, philosophy, politics, etc.
a. Apple lied. In what relevant way? You cannot say. I did not hold Apple up as an expert here. You just are running to your narrative that is not relevant.
What is relevant is evidence. And you run from it:
1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/
Nope. And you run from the facts.
1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/
I have a masters myself
Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.
They do not control Google.
Maybe you're right
I am.
Did you look at the CISA KEV database yet?
There is no security.
You gave up everything...
For nothing...
That database does not support what you think it does.
You keep making that claim
What did you find in the CISA KEV database about iOS versus Android?
I found you do not understand what the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) database is.
REFERENCES:
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/>
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/> >> <https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>
Good info. I think you are making a point the links do not support. So be it.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
REFERENCES:
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/05/apple-considers-paying-1b-per-year-to-use-google-gemini-in-siri>
<https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/05/google-gemini-1-billion-deal-apple-siri/> >>> <https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/apple-to-pay-google-1-billion-per-year-for-siris-custom-gemini-ai-model-report-says/>
<https://www.techrepublic.com/article/news-apple-google-deal-revamped-siri/>
<https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/apple-nears-deal-to-pay-google-1b-annually-to-power-new-siri-report-says/>
Good info. I think you are making a point the links do not support. So be it.
Huh? WTF?
I claim that Apple is paying Google a billion dollars per year for AI.
And yet, you Apple trolls brazenly deny that well-known published fact?
Why?
What is wrong with you very strange Apple trolls that you deny all facts?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
You keep making that claim
Because it's true.
Apple claims to lock up iOS "for your security".
But... there is no added security.
You lost everything.
For nothing.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
What did you find in the CISA KEV database about iOS versus Android?
I found you do not understand what the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities >> (KEV) database is.
Heh heh heh...
You (claim) to own a Masters degree, right Brock?
Good. That means you should be able to carry on an adult conversation then.
Tell us all... Brock...
Q: What does the CISA KEV database tell you about iOS versus Android?
A: ?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
I have a masters myself
Bullshit.
I have assessed your IQ at below normal, Brock.
Well below normal.
How do I know that?
Because you can't formulate an adult response to anything.
If you have a Masters degree, tell us what it's in, Brock.
Then I will ask you some questions like I did Chris (who claimed a PhD).
Brock McNuggets wrote:
a. Apple lied. In what relevant way? You cannot say. I did not hold Apple up >> as an expert here. You just are running to your narrative that is not
relevant.
The fact you Apple trolls always prove to own the cognitive capacity of a
dog notwithstanding, the fact that you trolls don't know Apple's excuses
for why they locked up iOS, is telling all of us that you know nothing.
I wonder if you realize that every statement from Apple trolls reeks of
your ignorance since EVERYONE IN THE WORLD knows what Apple's excuse is.
Everyone in the world.
Except you Apple trolls.
Look it up, Brock.
Tell us what you found is the REASON Apple "said" they locked up iOS?
Q: What does Apple claim is the REASON they locked up iOS?
A: ?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Apple says they "care about your privacy"...
Except... when Google pays them not to care about your privacy.
They do not control Google.
Maybe you're right
I am.
Given your (claimed) Masters degree, Let's assume you own a normal IQ.
OK?
I'm being gracious here...
Don't let me down, Brock!
Assuming you own a normal IQ, how do YOU rationalize the fact that Apple claims to care greatly about our privacy against the fact that Apple
receives billions from Google for allowing Google its deep presence?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
What is relevant is evidence. And you run from it:
1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/ --
Android devices are 50x more likely to be infected than iOS devices, showing >> the starkest difference in malware prevalence.
I've said for decades, that Android has more malware than iOS, Brock.
The fact you lie so brazenly by saying "I run from it", is telling.
Do you even realize your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on a brazen lie?
I repeat emphatically:
*I never said Android doesn't have more malware than iOS.*
How am I "running" from that well-known commonly accepted baseic fact?
HINT: You lied.
-----
What does the CISA KEV database tell you about iOS versus Android?
-----
And I went into quite some detail to help you understand:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy to help you! The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities database (KEV) shows that both iOS and Android have vulnerabilities, and that they have been actively exploited in the wild. Historically, Android devices appear more frequently. This is due to more device types and slower patch adoption, whereas iOS issues are fewer but can be high-impact and high-profile when they
occur.
How you treat me is a reflection of your capacity
Given your (claimed) Masters degree, Let's assume you own a normal IQ.
Own? Not sure that is the word you are looking for.
Assuming you own a normal IQ, how do YOU rationalize the fact that Apple
claims to care greatly about our privacy against the fact that Apple
receives billions from Google for allowing Google its deep presence?
Again, good to see you ASKING about things you are struggling to understand. That is commendable. Happy to help.
Apple has put a lot of effort into keeping user data private on its devices. Things like on-device Siri processing, on-device dictation, Mail Privacy Protection, App Tracking Transparency, and end-to-end encryption for iMessage and FaceTime all help keep personal data from anyone else. Apple also encrypts
sensitive information in iCloud with keys tied to your device -- so your Health data, iCloud Keychain passwords, and Home data are never shared, even with Apple.
Android devices tend to rely more heavily on Google services, which often sync
data to the cloud by default and don't offer the same level of device-level isolation for things like voice commands, app activity, or health and location
data. I think Samsung has been working to do better here... but I have not really followed it much. If you have newer data that shows Android (or at least Samsung) has caught up, please share. We can learn from each other!
It is not in contention that Apple does make money from Google by keeping it as the default search engine in Safari, but that deal doesn't mean Apple sees your search data. Safari also has Intelligent Tracking Prevention, and App Tracking Transparency gives you better control over which apps can track you, and how.
While there are always exceptions, Apple's approach is generally about keeping
your data on your device whenever possible, whereas Android¢s ecosystem leans more on cloud processing, which can expose more information to third-party tracking.
You are the one focused on their marketing. Not me.
On Nov 7, 2025 at 10:19:02 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote <10emjs5$2c3jj$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-08 04:30:52 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 7, 2025 at 2:24:06 PM MST, "badgolferman" wroteThey mean nothing in many many places. A lot of people with a
<10elo1m$3ocd$1@solani.org>:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:Right. Years ago I worked with an amazing lawyer. Had spoken to the
As if degrees matter. *I* have degrees. Many others do. Are you
impressed? NO! At least you should not be... not for the context of
here, anyway.
I work with lots of people who have PhD degrees. They may know a lot
about only one thing, but absolutely nothing about a great many things. >>>
Supreme Court a couple times. Real high end at his profession. He could >>> not figure out how to change the ribbon in his printer (back when they
used ribbons!)
Many of us look at them and wonder whether they were pushed through
school or actually did the work. I’ve had to fire at least one for
incompetence and refer a couple more to HR.
Not surprising. *I* have degrees. They mean NOTHING in a forum like this. >>
university degree are doing jobs that have zero to do with their
degree*, yet still expect to be paid more simply because they have a
piece of paper. :-\
Agreed. And a lot of people have experience which is far more valuable. Not that I am against degrees -- I have a masters myself, but it is not the only path nor the best path for everyone. I got mine because to open doors for teaching opportunities.
* This is especailly true of some of the airy-fairy 'useless' degrees,
such as arts, philosophy, politics, etc.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Given your (claimed) Masters degree, Let's assume you own a normal IQ.
Own? Not sure that is the word you are looking for.
You own your IQ. Or lack thereof...
Assuming you own a normal IQ, how do YOU rationalize the fact that Apple >>> claims to care greatly about our privacy against the fact that Apple
receives billions from Google for allowing Google its deep presence?
Again, good to see you ASKING about things you are struggling to understand. >> That is commendable. Happy to help.
Heh heh heh...
You're the one claiming there is only one security metric.
Not me.
Apple has put a lot of effort into keeping user data private on its devices. >> Things like on-device Siri processing, on-device dictation, Mail Privacy
Protection, App Tracking Transparency, and end-to-end encryption for iMessage
and FaceTime all help keep personal data from anyone else. Apple also encrypts
sensitive information in iCloud with keys tied to your device -- so your
Health data, iCloud Keychain passwords, and Home data are never shared, even >> with Apple.
Why then does Apple location tracking suck in privacy compared to Android?
From: Marion <mariond@facts.com>
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless
FACTS about Apple/Google crowd-sourced Wi-Fi & Cellular location tracking
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:48:11 -0700
Message-ID: <10eo6pq$20q4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Android devices tend to rely more heavily on Google services, which often sync
data to the cloud by default and don't offer the same level of device-level >> isolation for things like voice commands, app activity, or health and location
data. I think Samsung has been working to do better here... but I have not >> really followed it much. If you have newer data that shows Android (or at
least Samsung) has caught up, please share. We can learn from each other!
Why is it that Android has privacy controls which iOS sorely lacks, Brock?
From: Marion <mariond@facts.com>
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless
FACTS about Apple/Google crowd-sourced Wi-Fi & Cellular location tracking
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:48:11 -0700
Message-ID: <10eo6pq$20q4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
It is not in contention that Apple does make money from Google by keeping it >> as the default search engine in Safari, but that deal doesn't mean Apple sees
your search data. Safari also has Intelligent Tracking Prevention, and App >> Tracking Transparency gives you better control over which apps can track you,
and how.
If iOS is so great, Brock, why can't you have any privacy on iOS then?
From: Marion <mariond@facts.com>
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless
FACTS about Apple/Google crowd-sourced Wi-Fi & Cellular location tracking
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:48:11 -0700
Message-ID: <10eo6pq$20q4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
While there are always exceptions, Apple's approach is generally about keeping
your data on your device whenever possible, whereas Android’s ecosystem leans
more on cloud processing, which can expose more information to third-party >> tracking.
The question is why is iOS's privacy always far less than that of Android?--
From: Marion <mariond@facts.com>
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless
FACTS about Apple/Google crowd-sourced Wi-Fi & Cellular location tracking
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:48:11 -0700
Message-ID: <10eo6pq$20q4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Don't even get me started about the lack of GPS location spoofing privacy
on iOS or the lack of system wide firewall privacy on iOS or the lack of being able to run the Tor Browser on iOS, etc....,
Brock McNuggets wrote:
How you treat me is a reflection of your capacity
If you want me to treat you like an adult, then act like an adult first.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
-----
What does the CISA KEV database tell you about iOS versus Android?
-----
And I went into quite some detail to help you understand:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy to help you! The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities database (KEV) shows >> that both iOS and Android have vulnerabilities, and that they have been
actively exploited in the wild. Historically, Android devices appear more
frequently. This is due to more device types and slower patch adoption,
whereas iOS issues are fewer but can be high-impact and high-profile when they
occur.
Happy you asked and hopefully this helps you be more accurate as you move
forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heh heh heh...
Try again.
KEV database existence: True. CISA maintains a "Known Exploited Vulnerabilities" (KEV) catalog listing vulnerabilities actively exploited in the wild.
* Both iOS and Android have vulnerabilities: True. Both platforms have security flaws, and some have been actively exploited.
* Android more frequently listed: Generally true. Android's ecosystem has many
manufacturers and slower OS updates, so vulnerabilities often linger longer.
If you want me to treat you like an adult, then act like an adult first.
How you treat me is a reflection on YOU. While I would love to see you present
yourself better, it is not my job, nor my concern, to help you do so. Carry on
with your agenda and your confirmation bias, just do not expect me to pretend to not see it.
Part of the problem is that these days governments are stupidly trying
to push everyone into going to university, but for most people it's a
waste of time** and they would be much better off going to a technical
/ trade school and / or doing apprenticeships
Apple generally keeps your location safer than Android.
iOS does most location
processing on the device, encrypts shared locations end-to-end, and gives detailed control over what apps can see and when.
It can even share only an
approximate location and notifies you when apps track in the background. Android offers similar controls but a lot of location data still goes to Google for things like Maps and ads, and privacy can vary depending on the device. Overall, Apple's approach keeps your location more private, while Android leans more on flexibility and cloud features.
Sadly you repeat that a lot but offer no evidence. And you ignore the counter evidence:
1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/
Q: What does the CISA KEV database tell you about iOS versus Android?
A: ?
Happy to help you! The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities database (KEV) shows that both iOS and Android have vulnerabilities, and that they have been actively exploited in the wild. Historically, Android devices appear more frequently. This is due to more device types and slower patch adoption, whereas iOS issues are fewer but can be high-impact and high-profile when they
occur.
What is wrong with you very strange Apple trolls that you deny all facts?
You shoot down your own straw men very well. LOL!
Brock McNuggets wrote:
What is wrong with you very strange Apple trolls that you deny all facts? >>You shoot down your own straw men very well. LOL!
As long as you wholly uneducated ignorant Apple trolls don't brazenly deny Apple is paying Google a billion dollars a year for what Apple tried to create (and failed miserably at), I've got no beef with you on that.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
If you want me to treat you like an adult, then act like an adult first.
How you treat me is a reflection on YOU. While I would love to see you present
yourself better, it is not my job, nor my concern, to help you do so. Carry on
with your agenda and your confirmation bias, just do not expect me to pretend
to not see it.
Bullshit.
I treat you as an adult only when you act like an adult.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
KEV database existence: True. CISA maintains a "Known Exploited
Vulnerabilities" (KEV) catalog listing vulnerabilities actively exploited in >> the wild.
We've been looking at the CISA KEV database for *years*, Brock.
You're only finding out about it now.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Q: What does the CISA KEV database tell you about iOS versus Android?
A: ?
Happy to help you! The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities database (KEV) shows >> that both iOS and Android have vulnerabilities, and that they have been
actively exploited in the wild. Historically, Android devices appear more
frequently. This is due to more device types and slower patch adoption,
whereas iOS issues are fewer but can be high-impact and high-profile when they
occur.
Heh heh heh... tell us Brock.--
Q: How many iOS exploits vs Android exploits are in that CISA KEV database? A: ?
C'mon. We know the answer. Do you?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Sadly you repeat that a lot but offer no evidence. And you ignore the counter
evidence:
1. https://www.getastra.com/blog/security-audit/malware-statistics/
How many times have you posted your absurd claim that the only metric you know anything about in terms of security on Android vs iOS is malware?
Brock McNuggets wrote:
Apple generally keeps your location safer than Android.
Bullshit. Why can't you run the Tor browser on iOS, for example?
iOS does most location
processing on the device, encrypts shared locations end-to-end, and gives
detailed control over what apps can see and when.
And yet,
iOS doesn't give you the toggles that you need to stay private.
For details, see the thread I referenced for you.
From: Marion <mariond@facts.com>
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless
FACTS about Apple/Google crowd-sourced Wi-Fi & Cellular location tracking
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:48:11 -0700
Message-ID: <10eo6pq$20q4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
It can even share only an
approximate location and notifies you when apps track in the background.
Android offers similar controls but a lot of location data still goes to
Google for things like Maps and ads, and privacy can vary depending on the >> device. Overall, Apple's approach keeps your location more private, while
Android leans more on flexibility and cloud features.
Bullshit.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
I have a masters myself
Bullshit.
I have assessed your IQ at below normal, Brock.
Well below normal.
How do I know that?
Because you can't formulate an adult response to anything.
If you have a Masters degree, tell us what it's in, Brock.
Then I will ask you some questions like I did Chris (who claimed a PhD).
Marion <mariond@facts.com> wrote in news:10eo1b9$2mbo$1 @nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com:
Brock McNuggets wrote:
I have a masters myself
Bullshit.
I have assessed your IQ at below normal, Brock.
Well below normal.
How do I know that?
Because you can't formulate an adult response to anything.
If you have a Masters degree, tell us what it's in, Brock.
Then I will ask you some questions like I did Chris (who claimed a PhD).
Marion,
Unfortunately, you’ve had the misfortune of encountering the individual commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is Brock McNuggets, also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
Brock has been a persistent presence on USENET for over two decades, engaging in disruptive and trolling behavior that shows no sign of abating. He claims to hold two academic degrees — one in Psychology and a Master’s in Information Technology. However, the latter was reportedly obtained from Kaplan University, a for-profit institution widely criticized during that period (circa 2008) for its lax academic standards and “degree mill” reputation.
Over the years, those who have interacted with him have noted that his communication often demonstrates limited comprehension and poor technical understanding. Despite presenting himself as a technical expert, his discussions frequently reveal significant gaps in knowledge.
For further insight into his long history of online activity and trolling behavior, the links below provide detailed information and context.
<https://tinyurl.com/WhatIsSnit>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitliesmethods>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snit-Reviews>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitwhopperlie>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snit-teddybear>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitonduck>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitongoogle>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse1>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse2>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse3>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse4>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse5>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse6>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse7>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse8>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse9>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse10>
<https://tinyurl.com/Snitdrugabuse11>
Here is one of the best explanations of the snit Michael Glasser of Prescott Arizona
troll.
Notice the date is from 2004.
"36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004"
<http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
How you treat me, and others, is a reflection of YOU, no matter your excuses.
Unfortunately, you’ve had the misfortune of encountering the individual commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is Brock McNuggets, also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
Jon Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, you’ve had the misfortune of encountering the
individual commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is
Brock McNuggets, also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
*Snit video purportedly detailing iOS showing Wi-Fi dBm over time*
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over
time*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZue
c56EWB0>
I've been on Usenet for decades, where I wrote my own newsreader,
where it's work to plonk someone, but only Snit & Alan Baker among a
few others have the honor of being in my killfile.
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent
discussion.
Jon Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, you’ve had the misfortune of encountering the individual
commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is Brock
McNuggets, also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
*Snit video purportedly detailing iOS showing Wi-Fi dBm over time*
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over
time*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec5
6EWB0>
I've been on Usenet for decades, where I wrote my own newsreader, where
it's work to plonk someone, but only Snit & Alan Baker among a few
others have the honor of being in my killfile.
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
Jon Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, youÂ’ve had the misfortune of encountering the individual
commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is Brock McNuggets, >> also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
Brock McNuggets wrote:
How you treat me, and others, is a reflection of YOU, no matter your excuses.
I repeat for effect a well-known fact everyone here is aware of...
I treat you like an adult only when you act like an adult.
When you brazenly deny every fact about Apple that you hate (which is every fact about Apple), then you're not acting like an adult.
You're acting like an uneducated ignorant religious zealot Apple troll.
And I treat you as you act.
Try me.
Act like an adult.
Watch how different my responses will be to your queries & concerns.--
You might even learn something about Apple from your efforts.
Marion <mariond@facts.com> news:10erdlp$19jj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com Mon, 10 Nov 2025 01:03:54 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
Jon Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, you’ve had the misfortune of encountering the individual >>> commonly referred to online as “Snit.†His real name is Brock
McNuggets, also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
*Snit video purportedly detailing iOS showing Wi-Fi dBm over time*
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over
time*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>
I've been on Usenet for decades, where I wrote my own newsreader, where
it's work to plonk someone, but only Snit & Alan Baker among a few
others have the honor of being in my killfile.
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
Brock is the Snit you know, yes. He's worn out his welcome in alt.computer.workshop so has been attempting to re-establish himself on comp.os.linux.advocacy
Jon Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, youÂ’ve had the misfortune of encountering the individual
commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is Brock McNuggets, >> also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
*Snit video purportedly detailing iOS showing Wi-Fi dBm over time*
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>
I've been on Usenet for decades, where I wrote my own newsreader, where
it's work to plonk someone, but only Snit & Alan Baker among a few others have the honor of being in my killfile.
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
On Nov 9, 2025 at 6:03:54 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10erdlp$19jj$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Jon Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, you’ve had the misfortune of encountering the individual >>> commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is Brock McNuggets, >>> also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
*Snit video purportedly detailing iOS showing Wi-Fi dBm over time*
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time* >> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>
I've been on Usenet for decades, where I wrote my own newsreader, where
it's work to plonk someone, but only Snit & Alan Baker among a few others
have the honor of being in my killfile.
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
There is a reason
on Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, you’ve had the misfortune of encountering the
individual commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is
Brock McNuggets, also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
*Snit video purportedly detailing iOS showing Wi-Fi dBm over time*
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over
time*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZue
c56EWB0>
One and the same snit.
The reference to COLA in the first video is comp.os.linux.advocacy which snit has been trolling for a very long time.
Here is snit's YT channel.
https://www.youtube.com/@PrescottComputerGuy
You'll notice that the voice is the same as the link you posted.
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent
discussion.
It's 100% that they are one in the same.
I wrote a balloon floating in the air program for my C-64. Actually I
didn't write it but copied it from the programming guide. lol
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
Speaks volumes that you needed *someone else* to tell you that *your* discussion was unintelligent.
Not for the first time, you need some introspection.
Chris wrote:
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
Speaks volumes that you needed *someone else* to tell you that *your*
discussion was unintelligent.
Not for the first time, you need some introspection.
Well, to be clear, Snit is an Apple troll, and I did peg him as such.
You Apple trolls defend Apple to the death, no matter what.
a. But worse, you Apple trolls own the logical thoght of a small child.
b. So your arguments are always that of a small child.
I proved this "Brock" troll was using the arguments which lacked sense.
Once I knew it was Snit, it all came together since his IQ is around 40.
For example, Snit, in his desperate defense of nothing working on iOS
claimed a decibel is the same as a megabit-per-second in this video.
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
The whole concept of an Apple troll is consistent among all of you:
a. All Apple trolls own a vastly substandard IQ
b. Hence, it's why Apple trolls are religious zealot herd animals
c. Apple trolls can not think for themselves - they follow the herd
Since Apple trolls look for affirmation from the herd, they hate people who can think for themselves, which, of course, is why Apple trolls hate me.
So be it.
Apple trolls always paste Apple marketing bullshit propaganda as proof.
Which is exactly what Snit/Brock did.
The Apple trolls don't own the intellect to parse Apple's brilliant BS.
......why you are considered a troll worth ignoring.
You contribute nothing to the discussion snitty.
You are a nasty vindictive SOB.
You are a technical zero snit. What you know about technology could
fit in a thimble.
So stop googling for answers to topics which you have no fucking clue
about. It's so transparent and you are not fooling anyone especially
people who have a vast knowledge of technology.
Jon Pierre Chubre' wrote:
on Pierre Chubre' wrote:
Unfortunately, youÂ’ve had the misfortune of encountering the
individual commonly referred to online as “Snit.” His real name is
Brock McNuggets, also known as Michael Glasser of Prescott, Arizona.
This Snit?
*Snit video purportedly detailing iOS showing Wi-Fi dBm over time*
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over
time*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>
One and the same snit.
The reference to COLA in the first video is comp.os.linux.advocacy which
snit has been trolling for a very long time.
Here is snit's YT channel.
https://www.youtube.com/@PrescottComputerGuy
You'll notice that the voice is the same as the link you posted.
Thanks for the confirmation. Snit & Alan Baker (different people, same attitude) post to Usenet purely for their own sadistic amusement.
In decades of posting on Usenet, my killfile only contains a handful.
Since I wrote my own newsreader on Redhat/Centos, since ported to Windows (gVim/Telnet), it's effort to plonk someone but they both earned the honor.
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent
discussion.
It's 100% that they are one in the same.
Well, that's the last time I'll ever respond to Brock McNuggets" then.
Thanks for the heads up.
He started reasonable... but then went off into cutting and pasting Apple marketing bullshit as if Apple marketing propaganda was the God's truth.
I wrote a balloon floating in the air program for my C-64. Actually I
didn't write it but copied it from the programming guide. lol
The Commodore 64 in the 1980s was to home computing what the Raspberry Pi
is today, where I commend you on that. What we did, when Radio Shack
started selling the speech synthesizer chip, was insert it into a Commodore 64 case and get it to output speech.
The first sentence?
"Hello, my name is Otto. How are you?"
(One of the people working with me on that in grad school was Dutch.)
Gefängnis wrote:
......why you are considered a troll worth ignoring.
You contribute nothing to the discussion snitty.
You are a nasty vindictive SOB.
You are a technical zero snit. What you know about technology could
fit in a thimble.
So stop googling for answers to topics which you have no fucking clue
about. It's so transparent and you are not fooling anyone especially
people who have a vast knowledge of technology.
The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) Catalog is a reliable list
of CVEs that are confirmed to be exploited in the wild where CISA publishes the catalog in CSV & JSON formats, which include searchable fields such as vendor, product, CVE ID & description.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
What happened in my case, was I had explained that I've analyzed the CISA
KEV database (see source code I wrote myself below) and I asked "Brock" to run it (or an equivalent code that Chris had adapted for the same intent).
But this Brock guy kept pasting Apple's (admittedly brilliant) bullshit propaganda that iOS is "safer" than Android even though there is no proof.
In fact, every metric other than malware shows iOS to be worse than
Android, or, at best, about equal (which the CISA KEV database shows).
Chris wrote:
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
Speaks volumes that you needed *someone else* to tell you that *your*
discussion was unintelligent.
Not for the first time, you need some introspection.
Well, to be clear, Snit is an Apple troll, and I did peg him as such.
You Apple trolls defend Apple to the death, no matter what.
a. But worse, you Apple trolls own the logical thoght of a small child.
b. So your arguments are always that of a small child.
I proved this "Brock" troll was using the arguments which lacked sense.
Once I knew it was Snit, it all came together since his IQ is around 40.
For example, Snit, in his desperate defense of nothing working on iOS
claimed a decibel is the same as a megabit-per-second in this video.
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with... <https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Chris wrote:
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion.
Speaks volumes that you needed *someone else* to tell you that *your*
discussion was unintelligent.
Not for the first time, you need some introspection.
Well, to be clear, Snit is an Apple troll, and I did peg him as such.
You Apple trolls defend Apple to the death, no matter what.
a. But worse, you Apple trolls own the logical thoght of a small child.
b. So your arguments are always that of a small child.
I proved this "Brock" troll was using the arguments which lacked sense.
Once I knew it was Snit, it all came together since his IQ is around 40.
Marion <mariond@facts.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
If Brock is Snit, that's the end of any possible intelligent discussion. >>>Speaks volumes that you needed *someone else* to tell you that *your*
discussion was unintelligent.
Not for the first time, you need some introspection.
Well, to be clear, Snit is an Apple troll, and I did peg him as such.
You Apple trolls defend Apple to the death, no matter what.
a. But worse, you Apple trolls own the logical thoght of a small child.
b. So your arguments are always that of a small child.
I proved this "Brock" troll was using the arguments which lacked sense.
Once I knew it was Snit, it all came together since his IQ is around 40.
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court defines 70 as “mentally retardation†- was able to engage you in a discussion for several days before you even noticed.
Your ad hominem attacks keep back firing, don’t they.
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >> money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >> money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >>> money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their
default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a
deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI
effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't
know the garbage is even there).
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a
discussion for several days before you even noticed.
Chris wrote:
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court >> defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a
discussion for several days before you even noticed.
As I said, he is an Apple troll. They're all the same.
Snit & Alan Baker are both about a 40 or 50 IQ.
There's no doubt about it.
All the Apple trolls own a substandard IQ.
It's a key reason *why* they're Apple trolls after all.
1. Low IQ (hence no formal education is possible, hence they know nothing)
2. Herd animals (hence, they let the Apple herd make all their decisions)
3. Cut-and-paste Apple marketing propaganda (it's a herd-animal tactic).
This Brock, much as Snit & Alan Baker before him - understood absolutely nothing. The only thing he could do was cut and paste Apple propaganda.
I correctly pegged him as an Apple troll.
Apple trolls all own an IQ around 40 or 50.
Snit claimed that a decibel is the same as a megabit, which is absurd.
He even made a video about it. Which is hilarious. Who is that stupid?
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, the Apple trolls ARE that stupid.
Alan Baker claimed it's impossible to change Usenet headers for God's sake. For weeks on end, even as I changed mine on the fly to prove it to him.
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
And yet, because these Apple trolls own an IQ of around 40 or 50...
They understand nothing.
The reason they're Apple trolls is that by being a religious nut-case
zealot, it makes them feel like they're part of a herd.
They feel they "belong" in the Apple propaganda herd.
And they do.
Snit fabricated that iOS could graphically show all local Wi-Fi access
point signal strength in decibels in real time when he made that up.
To "prove" that iOS could graphically show the signal strength in decibels
of all nearby Wi-Fi access points, he made a hilarious video which only proved that his IQ hovers somewhere between a 40 or 50.
Ask HIM why he was so sure that his absurd video "proved" that it shows the signal strength of all nearby access points in decibels on iOS.
People *that* incredibly stupid should not even exist.
And yet, they exist.
Snit & Alan Baker are proof that people *that* stupid, actually do exist.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote <10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, >>>> is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their
default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a
deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI
effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't
know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, >>>>> is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their >>>> default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a
deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI
effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't
know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people thinking it could well happen.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply
extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to
the gullible with more money than sense.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:55:40 PM MST, "Marion" wrote <10etqhc$1oab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Chris wrote:
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court >>> defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a
discussion for several days before you even noticed.
As I said, he is an Apple troll. They're all the same.
Snit & Alan Baker are both about a 40 or 50 IQ.
There's no doubt about it.
All the Apple trolls own a substandard IQ.
It's a key reason *why* they're Apple trolls after all.
1. Low IQ (hence no formal education is possible, hence they know nothing) >> 2. Herd animals (hence, they let the Apple herd make all their decisions)
3. Cut-and-paste Apple marketing propaganda (it's a herd-animal tactic).
This Brock, much as Snit & Alan Baker before him - understood absolutely
nothing. The only thing he could do was cut and paste Apple propaganda.
I correctly pegged him as an Apple troll.
Apple trolls all own an IQ around 40 or 50.
Snit claimed that a decibel is the same as a megabit, which is absurd.
He even made a video about it. Which is hilarious. Who is that stupid?
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, the Apple trolls ARE that stupid.
Alan Baker claimed it's impossible to change Usenet headers for God's sake. >> For weeks on end, even as I changed mine on the fly to prove it to him.
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
And yet, because these Apple trolls own an IQ of around 40 or 50...
They understand nothing.
The reason they're Apple trolls is that by being a religious nut-case
zealot, it makes them feel like they're part of a herd.
They feel they "belong" in the Apple propaganda herd.
And they do.
Snit fabricated that iOS could graphically show all local Wi-Fi access
point signal strength in decibels in real time when he made that up.
To "prove" that iOS could graphically show the signal strength in decibels >> of all nearby Wi-Fi access points, he made a hilarious video which only
proved that his IQ hovers somewhere between a 40 or 50.
Ask HIM why he was so sure that his absurd video "proved" that it shows the >> signal strength of all nearby access points in decibels on iOS.
People *that* incredibly stupid should not even exist.
And yet, they exist.
Snit & Alan Baker are proof that people *that* stupid, actually do exist.
You've managed to pack a remarkable amount of projection into one post. You spend your time ranting about "IQ" and "herd animals" because you've got nothing factual to stand on.
You keep repeating the same false claim about that Wi-Fi video as if saying it
louder will make it true. iOS doesn't allow third-party apps to continuously scan all nearby access points or show their dBm values -- it's a well-known privacy restriction. The demo you're mocking never claimed otherwise. What you
are really complaining about is that Apple has BETTER SECURITY, which is the very thing you deny. Make up your mind!
So once we strip away the name-calling and the recycled "Apple troll" nonsense, what's left? Nothing. No argument. No facts. Just a tantrum dressed up as analysis. You're not exposing anyone's ignorance here -- you're broadcasting your own.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 6:21:11 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:55:40 PM MST, "Marion" wrote
<10etqhc$1oab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Chris wrote:You've managed to pack a remarkable amount of projection into one post. You >> spend your time ranting about "IQ" and "herd animals" because you've got
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court >>>> defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a
discussion for several days before you even noticed.
As I said, he is an Apple troll. They're all the same.
Snit & Alan Baker are both about a 40 or 50 IQ.
There's no doubt about it.
All the Apple trolls own a substandard IQ.
It's a key reason *why* they're Apple trolls after all.
1. Low IQ (hence no formal education is possible, hence they know nothing) >>> 2. Herd animals (hence, they let the Apple herd make all their decisions) >>> 3. Cut-and-paste Apple marketing propaganda (it's a herd-animal tactic). >>>
This Brock, much as Snit & Alan Baker before him - understood absolutely >>> nothing. The only thing he could do was cut and paste Apple propaganda.
I correctly pegged him as an Apple troll.
Apple trolls all own an IQ around 40 or 50.
Snit claimed that a decibel is the same as a megabit, which is absurd.
He even made a video about it. Which is hilarious. Who is that stupid?
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, the Apple trolls ARE that stupid.
Alan Baker claimed it's impossible to change Usenet headers for God's sake. >>> For weeks on end, even as I changed mine on the fly to prove it to him.
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
And yet, because these Apple trolls own an IQ of around 40 or 50...
They understand nothing.
The reason they're Apple trolls is that by being a religious nut-case
zealot, it makes them feel like they're part of a herd.
They feel they "belong" in the Apple propaganda herd.
And they do.
Snit fabricated that iOS could graphically show all local Wi-Fi access
point signal strength in decibels in real time when he made that up.
To "prove" that iOS could graphically show the signal strength in decibels >>> of all nearby Wi-Fi access points, he made a hilarious video which only
proved that his IQ hovers somewhere between a 40 or 50.
Ask HIM why he was so sure that his absurd video "proved" that it shows the >>> signal strength of all nearby access points in decibels on iOS.
People *that* incredibly stupid should not even exist.
And yet, they exist.
Snit & Alan Baker are proof that people *that* stupid, actually do exist. >>
nothing factual to stand on.
You keep repeating the same false claim about that Wi-Fi video as if saying it
louder will make it true. iOS doesn't allow third-party apps to continuously >> scan all nearby access points or show their dBm values -- it's a well-known >> privacy restriction. The demo you're mocking never claimed otherwise. What you
are really complaining about is that Apple has BETTER SECURITY, which is the >> very thing you deny. Make up your mind!
So once we strip away the name-calling and the recycled "Apple troll"
nonsense, what's left? Nothing. No argument. No facts. Just a tantrum dressed
up as analysis. You're not exposing anyone's ignorance here -- you're
broadcasting your own.
When Arlen gets to the "fabrication" stage, he knows he has lost.
A few months ago he accused me (and others) of "fabricating" the fact that there is an SMB Server app in the Apple App Store that you can install on any iPhone/iPad and turn it into a network server, using standard SMB server networking. His ONLY "proof" was that "since Android can't do that, iOS certainly can't do that".
He was showing screen shots of him using a Web
server on Android to "prove" that an SMB server can't be done on iOS. Hello?
What kind of "proof" is that?
It is called Lan Drive SMB Server and it works. He admitted to "furiously Googling" in his retarded attempt to prove us wrong. He always claims to have several iPhones/iPads, yet it NEVER occurred to him to install it and try it.
But since he clearly knows nothing about iOS, he obviously has no iPhones or iPads. He also had no idea that the built-in iOS Files app can network wirelessly to a Windows PC (and Mac and Linux) to transfer files back and forth, again using SMB networking. I pointed out that I do that regularly (Connect to Windows PCs) to move files.
His claim was "there is no way to get
a photo from Windows to an iPhone without using iCloud servers". After I posted VERY long and VERY detailed step-by-step instructions on how to do it, he ran away.
You have clearly beaten him into submission, since he is now refusing to talk with you any longer. As if that is Big Deal.
He will continue to make absurd
claims that are NEVER backed up by the links he posts. In fact, many times the
links he does post specifically refute his claims. He then resorts to childish
insults (low IQ Apple Trolls) when he is proven wrong.
All the while claiming
to be an adult with "several degrees". As if "degrees" make any difference here.
Adults don't behave like this. Arlen (and his sock puppets) are the only trolls here.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 5:22:15 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote <bP-dndoptaMqHI_0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 6:21:11 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets"
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:55:40 PM MST, "Marion" wrote
<10etqhc$1oab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Chris wrote:You've managed to pack a remarkable amount of projection into one post. You >>> spend your time ranting about "IQ" and "herd animals" because you've got >>> nothing factual to stand on.
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court
defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a
discussion for several days before you even noticed.
As I said, he is an Apple troll. They're all the same.
Snit & Alan Baker are both about a 40 or 50 IQ.
There's no doubt about it.
All the Apple trolls own a substandard IQ.
It's a key reason *why* they're Apple trolls after all.
1. Low IQ (hence no formal education is possible, hence they know nothing) >>>> 2. Herd animals (hence, they let the Apple herd make all their decisions) >>>> 3. Cut-and-paste Apple marketing propaganda (it's a herd-animal tactic). >>>>
This Brock, much as Snit & Alan Baker before him - understood absolutely >>>> nothing. The only thing he could do was cut and paste Apple propaganda. >>>>
I correctly pegged him as an Apple troll.
Apple trolls all own an IQ around 40 or 50.
Snit claimed that a decibel is the same as a megabit, which is absurd. >>>> He even made a video about it. Which is hilarious. Who is that stupid? >>>> <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, the Apple trolls ARE that stupid.
Alan Baker claimed it's impossible to change Usenet headers for God's sake.
For weeks on end, even as I changed mine on the fly to prove it to him. >>>>
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/> >>>>
And yet, because these Apple trolls own an IQ of around 40 or 50...
They understand nothing.
The reason they're Apple trolls is that by being a religious nut-case
zealot, it makes them feel like they're part of a herd.
They feel they "belong" in the Apple propaganda herd.
And they do.
Snit fabricated that iOS could graphically show all local Wi-Fi access >>>> point signal strength in decibels in real time when he made that up.
To "prove" that iOS could graphically show the signal strength in decibels >>>> of all nearby Wi-Fi access points, he made a hilarious video which only >>>> proved that his IQ hovers somewhere between a 40 or 50.
Ask HIM why he was so sure that his absurd video "proved" that it shows the
signal strength of all nearby access points in decibels on iOS.
People *that* incredibly stupid should not even exist.
And yet, they exist.
Snit & Alan Baker are proof that people *that* stupid, actually do exist. >>>
You keep repeating the same false claim about that Wi-Fi video as if saying it
louder will make it true. iOS doesn't allow third-party apps to continuously
scan all nearby access points or show their dBm values -- it's a well-known >>> privacy restriction. The demo you're mocking never claimed otherwise. What you
are really complaining about is that Apple has BETTER SECURITY, which is the
very thing you deny. Make up your mind!
So once we strip away the name-calling and the recycled "Apple troll"
nonsense, what's left? Nothing. No argument. No facts. Just a tantrum dressed
up as analysis. You're not exposing anyone's ignorance here -- you're
broadcasting your own.
When Arlen gets to the "fabrication" stage, he knows he has lost.
A few months ago he accused me (and others) of "fabricating" the fact that >> there is an SMB Server app in the Apple App Store that you can install on any
iPhone/iPad and turn it into a network server, using standard SMB server
networking. His ONLY "proof" was that "since Android can't do that, iOS
certainly can't do that".
Have a MID? Do not get me wrong, that sounds VERY much like what I have been seeing from him.
But since he clearly knows nothing about iOS, he obviously has no iPhones or >> iPads. He also had no idea that the built-in iOS Files app can network
wirelessly to a Windows PC (and Mac and Linux) to transfer files back and
forth, again using SMB networking. I pointed out that I do that regularly >> (Connect to Windows PCs) to move files.
I have never done that... just looked at the app. I am guessing it is from the
three dot menu and "Connect to Server". If not, please correct me. Did not even know that was there.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 6:44:16 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote <0aWdnaHYWuhtCY_0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 7:45:17 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets"
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 5:22:15 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote
<bP-dndoptaMqHI_0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 6:21:11 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets"
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:55:40 PM MST, "Marion" wrote
<10etqhc$1oab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Chris wrote:
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court
defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a >>>>>>> discussion for several days before you even noticed.
As I said, he is an Apple troll. They're all the same.
Snit & Alan Baker are both about a 40 or 50 IQ.
There's no doubt about it.
All the Apple trolls own a substandard IQ.
It's a key reason *why* they're Apple trolls after all.
1. Low IQ (hence no formal education is possible, hence they know nothing)
2. Herd animals (hence, they let the Apple herd make all their decisions)
3. Cut-and-paste Apple marketing propaganda (it's a herd-animal tactic). >>>>>>
This Brock, much as Snit & Alan Baker before him - understood absolutely >>>>>> nothing. The only thing he could do was cut and paste Apple propaganda. >>>>>>
I correctly pegged him as an Apple troll.
Apple trolls all own an IQ around 40 or 50.
Snit claimed that a decibel is the same as a megabit, which is absurd. >>>>>> He even made a video about it. Which is hilarious. Who is that stupid? >>>>>> <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, the Apple trolls ARE that stupid.
Alan Baker claimed it's impossible to change Usenet headers for God's sake.
For weeks on end, even as I changed mine on the fly to prove it to him. >>>>>>
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/> >>>>>>
And yet, because these Apple trolls own an IQ of around 40 or 50... >>>>>> They understand nothing.
The reason they're Apple trolls is that by being a religious nut-case >>>>>> zealot, it makes them feel like they're part of a herd.
They feel they "belong" in the Apple propaganda herd.
And they do.
Snit fabricated that iOS could graphically show all local Wi-Fi access >>>>>> point signal strength in decibels in real time when he made that up. >>>>>>
To "prove" that iOS could graphically show the signal strength in decibels
of all nearby Wi-Fi access points, he made a hilarious video which only >>>>>> proved that his IQ hovers somewhere between a 40 or 50.
Ask HIM why he was so sure that his absurd video "proved" that it shows the
signal strength of all nearby access points in decibels on iOS.
People *that* incredibly stupid should not even exist.
And yet, they exist.
Snit & Alan Baker are proof that people *that* stupid, actually do exist.
You've managed to pack a remarkable amount of projection into one post. You
spend your time ranting about "IQ" and "herd animals" because you've got >>>>> nothing factual to stand on.
You keep repeating the same false claim about that Wi-Fi video as if saying it
louder will make it true. iOS doesn't allow third-party apps to continuously
scan all nearby access points or show their dBm values -- it's a well-known
privacy restriction. The demo you're mocking never claimed otherwise. What you
are really complaining about is that Apple has BETTER SECURITY, which is the
very thing you deny. Make up your mind!
So once we strip away the name-calling and the recycled "Apple troll" >>>>> nonsense, what's left? Nothing. No argument. No facts. Just a tantrum dressed
up as analysis. You're not exposing anyone's ignorance here -- you're >>>>> broadcasting your own.
When Arlen gets to the "fabrication" stage, he knows he has lost.
A few months ago he accused me (and others) of "fabricating" the fact that >>>> there is an SMB Server app in the Apple App Store that you can install on any
iPhone/iPad and turn it into a network server, using standard SMB server >>>> networking. His ONLY "proof" was that "since Android can't do that, iOS >>>> certainly can't do that".
Have a MID? Do not get me wrong, that sounds VERY much like what I have been
seeing from him.
It was in April - May 2025. Thread "How to copy a photo from Windows to iOS >> without needing Internet servers". Started on 4/17/2025 by Marion in
comp.mobile.ipad,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
There were others in the same period, all about copying files between iOS and
Windows. Arlen REFUSED to accept that the Files app can do this. He was
calling me an "Apple Troll" for daring to tell him he was full of shit.
He really is immune to facts.
But since he clearly knows nothing about iOS, he obviously has no iPhones or
iPads. He also had no idea that the built-in iOS Files app can network >>>> wirelessly to a Windows PC (and Mac and Linux) to transfer files back and >>>> forth, again using SMB networking. I pointed out that I do that regularly >>>> (Connect to Windows PCs) to move files.
I have never done that... just looked at the app. I am guessing it is from the
three dot menu and "Connect to Server". If not, please correct me. Did not >>> even know that was there.
Yes, that is how it works. Enter the IP address of your Windows PC. Login >> with your Windows login name and password. Pick the drive you want to copy >> to/from. Drill down to find the file(s) you want.
All makes sense.
This all assumes that you have Windows networking running. Which I have had >> running here at home for 25 years.
I started a "Tutorial" thread around the same time with instructions. Arlen >> was busy pointing out threads on Apple support forums to prove that it does >> not work. AGAIN, it never occurred to him to try it. Proving AGAIN that he has
no iOS devices and knows nothing about iOS.
With his extreme hatred why would he?
On Nov 10, 2025 at 7:45:17 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 5:22:15 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote
<bP-dndoptaMqHI_0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 6:21:11 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets"
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:55:40 PM MST, "Marion" wrote
<10etqhc$1oab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Chris wrote:You've managed to pack a remarkable amount of projection into one post. You
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court
defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a
discussion for several days before you even noticed.
As I said, he is an Apple troll. They're all the same.
Snit & Alan Baker are both about a 40 or 50 IQ.
There's no doubt about it.
All the Apple trolls own a substandard IQ.
It's a key reason *why* they're Apple trolls after all.
1. Low IQ (hence no formal education is possible, hence they know nothing)
2. Herd animals (hence, they let the Apple herd make all their decisions) >>>>> 3. Cut-and-paste Apple marketing propaganda (it's a herd-animal tactic). >>>>>
This Brock, much as Snit & Alan Baker before him - understood absolutely >>>>> nothing. The only thing he could do was cut and paste Apple propaganda. >>>>>
I correctly pegged him as an Apple troll.
Apple trolls all own an IQ around 40 or 50.
Snit claimed that a decibel is the same as a megabit, which is absurd. >>>>> He even made a video about it. Which is hilarious. Who is that stupid? >>>>> <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, the Apple trolls ARE that stupid.
Alan Baker claimed it's impossible to change Usenet headers for God's sake.
For weeks on end, even as I changed mine on the fly to prove it to him. >>>>>
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/> >>>>>
And yet, because these Apple trolls own an IQ of around 40 or 50...
They understand nothing.
The reason they're Apple trolls is that by being a religious nut-case >>>>> zealot, it makes them feel like they're part of a herd.
They feel they "belong" in the Apple propaganda herd.
And they do.
Snit fabricated that iOS could graphically show all local Wi-Fi access >>>>> point signal strength in decibels in real time when he made that up. >>>>>
To "prove" that iOS could graphically show the signal strength in decibels
of all nearby Wi-Fi access points, he made a hilarious video which only >>>>> proved that his IQ hovers somewhere between a 40 or 50.
Ask HIM why he was so sure that his absurd video "proved" that it shows the
signal strength of all nearby access points in decibels on iOS.
People *that* incredibly stupid should not even exist.
And yet, they exist.
Snit & Alan Baker are proof that people *that* stupid, actually do exist. >>>>
spend your time ranting about "IQ" and "herd animals" because you've got >>>> nothing factual to stand on.
You keep repeating the same false claim about that Wi-Fi video as if saying it
louder will make it true. iOS doesn't allow third-party apps to continuously
scan all nearby access points or show their dBm values -- it's a well-known
privacy restriction. The demo you're mocking never claimed otherwise. What you
are really complaining about is that Apple has BETTER SECURITY, which is the
very thing you deny. Make up your mind!
So once we strip away the name-calling and the recycled "Apple troll"
nonsense, what's left? Nothing. No argument. No facts. Just a tantrum dressed
up as analysis. You're not exposing anyone's ignorance here -- you're
broadcasting your own.
When Arlen gets to the "fabrication" stage, he knows he has lost.
A few months ago he accused me (and others) of "fabricating" the fact that >>> there is an SMB Server app in the Apple App Store that you can install on any
iPhone/iPad and turn it into a network server, using standard SMB server >>> networking. His ONLY "proof" was that "since Android can't do that, iOS >>> certainly can't do that".
Have a MID? Do not get me wrong, that sounds VERY much like what I have been >> seeing from him.
It was in April - May 2025. Thread "How to copy a photo from Windows to iOS without needing Internet servers". Started on 4/17/2025 by Marion in comp.mobile.ipad,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
There were others in the same period, all about copying files between iOS and Windows. Arlen REFUSED to accept that the Files app can do this. He was calling me an "Apple Troll" for daring to tell him he was full of shit.
But since he clearly knows nothing about iOS, he obviously has no iPhones or
iPads. He also had no idea that the built-in iOS Files app can network
wirelessly to a Windows PC (and Mac and Linux) to transfer files back and >>> forth, again using SMB networking. I pointed out that I do that regularly >>> (Connect to Windows PCs) to move files.
I have never done that... just looked at the app. I am guessing it is from the
three dot menu and "Connect to Server". If not, please correct me. Did not >> even know that was there.
Yes, that is how it works. Enter the IP address of your Windows PC. Login with your Windows login name and password. Pick the drive you want to copy to/from. Drill down to find the file(s) you want.
This all assumes that you have Windows networking running. Which I have had running here at home for 25 years.
I started a "Tutorial" thread around the same time with instructions. Arlen was busy pointing out threads on Apple support forums to prove that it does not work. AGAIN, it never occurred to him to try it. Proving AGAIN that he has
no iOS devices and knows nothing about iOS.
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-
gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple
has, is
money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be
their default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a
deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI
effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't know the garbage is even there).
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote <10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wroteDo a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their >>>>> default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, >>>>>> is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI
effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't
know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL! >>
thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply
extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the
claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have
quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to
the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the Internet. It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Now we all have more... and I have even more than most (third party,
with a third party driver).
But more than that, when mice came out there was little need on most computers. Folks using, say, Word Perfect 5.1 simply hit Shift+F7 to print... no mousy menu.
And of course the Internet has changed massively.
Because he SAYS he does.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 9:07:50 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 6:44:16 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote
<0aWdnaHYWuhtCY_0nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 7:45:17 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets"
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 5:22:15 PM MST, "Tyrone" wrote
<bP-dndoptaMqHI_0nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@supernews.com>:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 6:21:11 PM EST, "Brock McNuggets"
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:55:40 PM MST, "Marion" wrote
<10etqhc$1oab$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>:
Chris wrote:
Quite impressive that someone with such a low IQ - note: the Supreme Court
defines 70 as mentally retardation - was able to engage you in a >>>>>>>> discussion for several days before you even noticed.
As I said, he is an Apple troll. They're all the same.
Snit & Alan Baker are both about a 40 or 50 IQ.
There's no doubt about it.
All the Apple trolls own a substandard IQ.
It's a key reason *why* they're Apple trolls after all.
1. Low IQ (hence no formal education is possible, hence they know nothing)
2. Herd animals (hence, they let the Apple herd make all their decisions)
3. Cut-and-paste Apple marketing propaganda (it's a herd-animal tactic).
This Brock, much as Snit & Alan Baker before him - understood absolutely
nothing. The only thing he could do was cut and paste Apple propaganda. >>>>>>>
I correctly pegged him as an Apple troll.
Apple trolls all own an IQ around 40 or 50.
Snit claimed that a decibel is the same as a megabit, which is absurd. >>>>>>> He even made a video about it. Which is hilarious. Who is that stupid? >>>>>>> <https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo>
Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, the Apple trolls ARE that stupid.
Alan Baker claimed it's impossible to change Usenet headers for God's sake.
For weeks on end, even as I changed mine on the fly to prove it to him. >>>>>>>
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?* >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/> >>>>>>>
And yet, because these Apple trolls own an IQ of around 40 or 50... >>>>>>> They understand nothing.
The reason they're Apple trolls is that by being a religious nut-case >>>>>>> zealot, it makes them feel like they're part of a herd.
They feel they "belong" in the Apple propaganda herd.
And they do.
Snit fabricated that iOS could graphically show all local Wi-Fi access >>>>>>> point signal strength in decibels in real time when he made that up. >>>>>>>
To "prove" that iOS could graphically show the signal strength in decibels
of all nearby Wi-Fi access points, he made a hilarious video which only >>>>>>> proved that his IQ hovers somewhere between a 40 or 50.
Ask HIM why he was so sure that his absurd video "proved" that it shows the
signal strength of all nearby access points in decibels on iOS.
People *that* incredibly stupid should not even exist.
And yet, they exist.
Snit & Alan Baker are proof that people *that* stupid, actually do exist.
You've managed to pack a remarkable amount of projection into one post. You
spend your time ranting about "IQ" and "herd animals" because you've got >>>>>> nothing factual to stand on.
You keep repeating the same false claim about that Wi-Fi video as if saying it
louder will make it true. iOS doesn't allow third-party apps to continuously
scan all nearby access points or show their dBm values -- it's a well-known
privacy restriction. The demo you're mocking never claimed otherwise. What you
are really complaining about is that Apple has BETTER SECURITY, which is the
very thing you deny. Make up your mind!
So once we strip away the name-calling and the recycled "Apple troll" >>>>>> nonsense, what's left? Nothing. No argument. No facts. Just a tantrum dressed
up as analysis. You're not exposing anyone's ignorance here -- you're >>>>>> broadcasting your own.
When Arlen gets to the "fabrication" stage, he knows he has lost.
A few months ago he accused me (and others) of "fabricating" the fact that
there is an SMB Server app in the Apple App Store that you can install on any
iPhone/iPad and turn it into a network server, using standard SMB server >>>>> networking. His ONLY "proof" was that "since Android can't do that, iOS >>>>> certainly can't do that".
Have a MID? Do not get me wrong, that sounds VERY much like what I have been
seeing from him.
It was in April - May 2025. Thread "How to copy a photo from Windows to iOS
without needing Internet servers". Started on 4/17/2025 by Marion in
comp.mobile.ipad,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
There were others in the same period, all about copying files between iOS and
Windows. Arlen REFUSED to accept that the Files app can do this. He was >>> calling me an "Apple Troll" for daring to tell him he was full of shit.
He really is immune to facts.
But since he clearly knows nothing about iOS, he obviously has no iPhones or
iPads. He also had no idea that the built-in iOS Files app can network >>>>> wirelessly to a Windows PC (and Mac and Linux) to transfer files back and >>>>> forth, again using SMB networking. I pointed out that I do that regularly
(Connect to Windows PCs) to move files.
I have never done that... just looked at the app. I am guessing it is from the
three dot menu and "Connect to Server". If not, please correct me. Did not >>>> even know that was there.
Yes, that is how it works. Enter the IP address of your Windows PC. Login >>> with your Windows login name and password. Pick the drive you want to copy >>> to/from. Drill down to find the file(s) you want.
All makes sense.
This all assumes that you have Windows networking running. Which I have had >>> running here at home for 25 years.
I started a "Tutorial" thread around the same time with instructions. Arlen >>> was busy pointing out threads on Apple support forums to prove that it does >>> not work. AGAIN, it never occurred to him to try it. Proving AGAIN that he has
no iOS devices and knows nothing about iOS.
With his extreme hatred why would he?
Because he SAYS he does. And with his sterling track record here, why wouldn't we believe THIS claim?
On 2025-11-10 14:04, Your Name wrote:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple
has, is
money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be
their default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a
deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort.
I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI
effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will barely
ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't know the
garbage is even there).
I'm very sorry, but you sound EXACTLY like those who were suggesting ANY technological improvement was a "fad gimmick".
AI might not be very good now, but give it 5 years.
On 2025-11-10 23:56:11 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI >>>>> effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their >>>>>> default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, >>>>>>> is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort. >>>>>
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't >>>>> know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people
thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many
making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies
doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply
extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the
claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have
quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to
the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the Internet.
It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Depends on how you define "consumer".
The first computer sold with a mouse was the Xerox Alto, which had a three-button mouse, but that wasn't really aimed at the general public
and more for business / scientific use.
The next was the Sun-1 with a three-button mouse, but again aimed more
at business / scientific users.
Then it was the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which did have one button mice.
Now we all have more... and I have even more than most (third party,
with a third party driver).
The majority of people only really need two buttons (at most) and a
scroll wheel. Anything more than that is cumbersome and simply doesn't
get used (or interms of Apple's silly old 'squeeze me' button, not even
known about until triggered accidentally).
But more than that, when mice came out there was little need on most
computers. Folks using, say, Word Perfect 5.1 simply hit Shift+F7 to
print... no mousy menu.
Most people still probably just press command+p / ctrl-p to print anything.
--And of course the Internet has changed massively.
Tyrone wrote:
Because he SAYS he does.
Look Tyrone, stop bullshitting what happened because you're lying.
What happened was very clear:
1. I said no operating system could use privileged ports w/o admin.
2. People on Linux/Android & Windows groups agreed with me.
3. You said iOS could - but you're an Apple troll - I didn't believe you.
But you Apple trolls always fabricate imaginary functionality.
So I did not believe you (and I said so).
So stop it with this crap.
I didn't test it because I didn't believe you.
It's the first time in decades that an Apple troll has ever told the truth. You Apple trolls are constantly fabricating functionality for iOS, Tyrone.
Why?
Because you *hate* iOS has lacks functionality compared to other systems.
It's only iOS that can't do what every other operating system easily does.
Why can't iOS save photos to a normal user-defined timedate format?
Where are the wi-fi graphical debuggers on iOS (hint, it's brain dead).
Where are the encryption container tools on iOS (hint, it's brain dead). Where are the system wide free firewalls on iOS (hint, it's brain dead). Where are the location gps spoofing apps on iOS (hint, it's brain dead). Where are the true ad free youtube clones on iOS (hint, it's brain dead). Where are the basic IPA backup tools on iOS (hint, it's brain dead).
Where are the system wide foss ad blocking on iOS (hint, it's brain dead). Where's the foss torproject tor browser on iOS (hint, it's brain dead).
etc.
The very fact you Apple trolls claim all sorts of imaginary functionality
is the *reason* I didn't believe you, just as Apple trolls claimed this:
*It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/PZuec56EWB0>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0>
Like Alan Baker claiming it's impossible to change the nntp header.
*Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically ignorant?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
I could go on & on with you trolls fabricating that iOS has the Tor Browser (it doesn't) where you claim that Onion Browser is the same (it's not).
<https://onionbrowser.com/faqs>
"What's the difference between browsing with Tor on iOS
and browsing with Tor on my computer? The primary difference is
that Apple requires we use the WebKit browser component they provide.
With Tor Browser on Desktop and Android, the browser is built upon
Mozilla's Firefox / Gecko component, which offers greater control
and more reliability when it comes to implementing proxying
and anti-tracking techniques."
<https://support.torproject.org/tormobile/tormobile-3/>
"Can I run Tor Browser on an iOS device? Apple requires all
browsers on iOS to use something called Webkit,
which prevents any iOS browser from having the same privacy
protections as Tor Browser."
My point is you Apple trolls *hate* that iOS is brain dead compared to
every other operating system on the planet, where this Brock troll claimed that you lost that functionality for "safety" and yet you got no safety.
The fact you were correct once in two decades is why I didn't believe you. When I tested it (based on my own impetus, not on yours) I was shocked.
For once in the past two decades, you found one useful functionality on iOS that isn't already on every other common consumer operating system.
Like any adult, I immediately and profusely apologized and thanked you all. Because I'm an adult.
You're not.
You're a child.
All you Apple trolls own the same three traits of a 5th grade bully.
a. Your whole life you've been told you're stupid, Tyrone.
b. So you look to the herd for affirmation of all your choices.
c. It's why you gloat that you are 500th in a line outside the Apple store.
No normal person does that, Tyrone.
Just you Apple trolls do that.
Ever wonder why?
On 2025-11-10 23:56:11 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI >>>>> effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their >>>>>> default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, >>>>>>> is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>
re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort. >>>>>
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't >>>>> know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people
thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many
making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies
doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply
extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the
claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have
quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to
the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the Internet.
It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Depends on how you define "consumer".
The first computer sold with a mouse was the Xerox Alto, which had a three-button mouse, but that wasn't really aimed at the general public
and more for business / scientific use.
The next was the Sun-1 with a three-button mouse, but again aimed more
at business / scientific users.
Then it was the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which did have one button mice.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 8:15:40 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote <10eu9os$f73l$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 23:56:11 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI >>>>>> effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has,
is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>>
default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why >>>>>>> re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort. >>>>>>
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't >>>>>> know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people >>>> thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many >>> making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies >>> doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply
extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the >>>> claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have >>>> quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to >>>> the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the
Internet. It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Depends on how you define "consumer".
The first computer sold with a mouse was the Xerox Alto, which had a
three-button mouse, but that wasn't really aimed at the general public
and more for business / scientific use.
The next was the Sun-1 with a three-button mouse, but again aimed more
at business / scientific users.
Then it was the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which did have one button mice.
Was the Xerox Alto ever even actually sold to consumers?
And the Sun-1 did not ship with a mouse, but the Sun 2 did... that was, however, shortly before the Mac. The Lisa, though, was shortly before
the Sun 2. I am pretty sure it was the first commercially sold computer
that came with a mouse.
Now we all have more... and I have even more than most (third party,
with a third party driver).
The majority of people only really need two buttons (at most) and a
scroll wheel. Anything more than that is cumbersome and simply doesn't
get used (or interms of Apple's silly old 'squeeze me' button, not even
known about until triggered accidentally).
For me the main buttons I use in addition to the common ones (three and the scroll wheel) is fro next and previous. MacOS, more than other OSs, has a lot of tabs. I use tabs in Safari, Chrome, Pages, Numbers, and more. And in apps without tabs (or without tabs I tend to use) I still set next / previous to mean next / previous message and the like. But completely fair to say most do not do this -- and I use a third party driver to have it set like that per app.
But more than that, when mice came out there was little need on most
computers. Folks using, say, Word Perfect 5.1 simply hit Shift+F7 to
print... no mousy menu.
Most people still probably just press command+p / ctrl-p to print anything.
True... but in general menu usage.
And of course the Internet has changed massively.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 10:15:40 PM EST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:56:11 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI >>>>>> effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has,
is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>>
default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why >>>>>>> re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort. >>>>>>
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't >>>>>> know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people >>>> thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many >>> making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies >>> doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply
extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the >>>> claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have >>>> quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to >>>> the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the
Internet. It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Depends on how you define "consumer".
The first computer sold with a mouse was the Xerox Alto, which had a
three-button mouse, but that wasn't really aimed at the general public
and more for business / scientific use.
The next was the Sun-1 with a three-button mouse, but again aimed more
at business / scientific users.
Then it was the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which did have one button mice.
You forgot the Three Rivers PERQ.
It came before the Sun. It was the first commercial, graphical
workstation. I actually used one of these in 1982 to 1984 or so,
running the Intran software that interfaced to a Xerox 9700 commercial
laser printer. It had a 3 button "puck" on the digitizer tablet.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERQ>
The Intran software was incredible, but the PERQ 1 hardware was sort of flaky.
I did a LOT of work on that, building fonts and forms for the Xerox 9700 printer, which was quite a mechanical marvel. The 9700 printed two 8.5" by 11" pages per second, (or 1 page per second both sides of the paper (duplex)) continuously. We had 2 of these in a commercial print shop. We routinely printed 1 to 2 million pages per month on each.
The advantage of the Intran software on the PERQ was that you drew the forms graphically on the screen, using the puck and digitizer tablet. On the 9700 printer, it was done VERY manually by writing a "program" in the text editor and then compiled by the FDL compiler (Form Description Language) that looked like this:
10 At 0,0 draw box 50 by 40
20 Text at 20,20 using font (whatever font you wanted) "Hello World"
30 At 23 draw horizontal line from 50 to 75 using (whatever line you wanted: solid/dotted/broken/thick/thin)
and on and on. Imagine building an IRS form (for example) like this. Each line/box/text/shading had to be specified like this. You had to manually measure (with the supplied handy dandy Xerox ruler) every line/box/shading/etc
on the form you were duplicating, so you knew exactly where everything needed to be and the dimensions. It was slow and no fun at all.
The PERQ came with a chess game and a billiards (pool) game that was very good. We wasted lots of time on that.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 10:15:40 PM EST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:56:11 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI >>>>>> effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their >>>>>>> default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why >>>>>>> re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has,
is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>>
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort. >>>>>>
barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't >>>>>> know the garbage is even there).
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people >>>> thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many >>> making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies >>> doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply
extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the >>>> claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have >>>> quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to >>>> the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the Internet.
It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Depends on how you define "consumer".
The first computer sold with a mouse was the Xerox Alto, which had a
three-button mouse, but that wasn't really aimed at the general public
and more for business / scientific use.
The next was the Sun-1 with a three-button mouse, but again aimed more
at business / scientific users.
Then it was the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which did have one button mice.
You forgot the Three Rivers PERQ. It came before the Sun. It was the first commercial, graphical workstation. I actually used one of these in 1982 to 1984 or so, running the Intran software that interfaced to a Xerox 9700 commercial laser printer. It had a 3 button "puck" on the digitizer tablet.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERQ>
The Intran software was incredible, but the PERQ 1 hardware was sort of flaky.
I did a LOT of work on that, building fonts and forms for the Xerox 9700 printer, which was quite a mechanical marvel. The 9700 printed two 8.5" by 11" pages per second, (or 1 page per second both sides of the paper (duplex)) continuously. We had 2 of these in a commercial print shop. We routinely printed 1 to 2 million pages per month on each.
The advantage of the Intran software on the PERQ was that you drew the forms graphically on the screen, using the puck and digitizer tablet. On the 9700 printer, it was done VERY manually by writing a "program" in the text editor and then compiled by the FDL compiler (Form Description Language) that looked like this:
10 At 0,0 draw box 50 by 40
20 Text at 20,20 using font (whatever font you wanted) "Hello World"
30 At 23 draw horizontal line from 50 to 75 using (whatever line you wanted: solid/dotted/broken/thick/thin)
and on and on. Imagine building an IRS form (for example) like this. Each line/box/text/shading had to be specified like this. You had to manually measure (with the supplied handy dandy Xerox ruler) every line/box/shading/etc
on the form you were duplicating, so you knew exactly where everything needed to be and the dimensions. It was slow and no fun at all.
The PERQ came with a chess game and a billiards (pool) game that was very good. We wasted lots of time on that.
On 2025-11-11 04:16:14 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 8:15:40 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10eu9os$f73l$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 23:56:11 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:Was the Xerox Alto ever even actually sold to consumers?
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI >>>>>>> effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will >>>>>>> barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't >>>>>>> know the garbage is even there).
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has,
is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>>>
default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why >>>>>>>> re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort. >>>>>>>
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people >>>>> thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many >>>> making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies >>>> doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply >>>>> extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the >>>>> claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have >>>>> quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to >>>>> the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the
Internet. It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Depends on how you define "consumer".
The first computer sold with a mouse was the Xerox Alto, which had a
three-button mouse, but that wasn't really aimed at the general public
and more for business / scientific use.
The next was the Sun-1 with a three-button mouse, but again aimed more
at business / scientific users.
Then it was the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which did have one button mice. >>
It was for sale and priced at $32,000 - $40,000 each. Apparently they
sold about 2000 of them, almost half to companies outside of Xerox
itself: <https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/5114/why-would-xerox-not-try-to-market-the-alto-to-the-public>
And the Sun-1 did not ship with a mouse, but the Sun 2 did... that was,
however, shortly before the Mac. The Lisa, though, was shortly before
the Sun 2. I am pretty sure it was the first commercially sold computer
that came with a mouse.
Although the Sun-1 may not have shipped with a mouse, there was still
an optional one available for use with it from Sun.
--Now we all have more... and I have even more than most (third party,
with a third party driver).
The majority of people only really need two buttons (at most) and a
scroll wheel. Anything more than that is cumbersome and simply doesn't
get used (or interms of Apple's silly old 'squeeze me' button, not even
known about until triggered accidentally).
For me the main buttons I use in addition to the common ones (three and the >> scroll wheel) is fro next and previous. MacOS, more than other OSs, has a lot
of tabs. I use tabs in Safari, Chrome, Pages, Numbers, and more. And in apps >> without tabs (or without tabs I tend to use) I still set next / previous to >> mean next / previous message and the like. But completely fair to say most do
not do this -- and I use a third party driver to have it set like that per >> app.
True... but in general menu usage.But more than that, when mice came out there was little need on most
computers. Folks using, say, Word Perfect 5.1 simply hit Shift+F7 to
print... no mousy menu.
Most people still probably just press command+p / ctrl-p to print anything. >>
And of course the Internet has changed massively.
Tyrone wrote:
Because he SAYS he does.
Look Tyrone, stop bullshitting what happened because you're lying.
What happened was very clear:
1. I said no operating system could use privileged ports w/o admin.
2. People on Linux/Android & Windows groups agreed with me.
3. You said iOS could - but you're an Apple troll - I didn't believe you.
But you Apple trolls always fabricate imaginary functionality.
So I did not believe you (and I said so).
On 2025-11-11 05:06:03 +0000, Tyrone said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 10:15:40 PM EST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-11-10 23:56:11 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:You forgot the Three Rivers PERQ.
On Nov 10, 2025 at 4:41:54 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10ett81$cbee$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 22:28:30 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
On Nov 10, 2025 at 3:04:00 PM MST, "Your Name" wrote
<10etngg$an9q$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-11-10 18:50:51 +0000, Tom Elam said:
On 11/6/2025 12:10 PM, Marion wrote:I wonder why *ANY* company has wasted time and money on a stupid 'AI >>>>>>> effort' ... it's simply yet another useless fad gimmick that will >>>>>>> barely ever touched by the vast majority of users (in fact most won't >>>>>>> know the garbage is even there).
Apple already uses Google for search, and Google pays Apple to be their
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has,
is money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially >>>>>>>>> with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini." >>>>>>>>
default search engine. AI is a huge investment. Like search, why >>>>>>>> re-invent it? $1 billion a year is a bargain. That billion is just a >>>>>>>> deduction in the money Apple already makes from Google!
Makes perfect sense to me. I wonder why Apple even had an AI effort. >>>>>>>
I heard the same thing about mice and the Internet. Yeah... just fads. LOL!
Do a search for "AI bubble burst" and you'll find lots of expert people >>>>> thinking it could well happen.
I absolutely agree it is likely to. TONS of money going into it and many >>>> making little or no profit. It will get consolidated into a few companies >>>> doing most of it.
Many companies that originally jumped on
the AI bandwagon have realised it doesn't work and have had to eomply >>>>> extra people just to ficx the mistakes, or at best doesn't achieve the >>>>> claimed efficiency results.
'Smart', AI, ... just the latest in a long line of useless tech
gimmicks over the years that nobody asked for, nobody wanted, and have >>>>> quickly come and gone. It's really just about selling newer devices to >>>>> the gullible with more money than sense.
You could be right... but I think it will be more like mice and the
Internet. It will change over time, of course, as they did.
Remember the first consumer mice had one button only.
Depends on how you define "consumer".
The first computer sold with a mouse was the Xerox Alto, which had a
three-button mouse, but that wasn't really aimed at the general public
and more for business / scientific use.
The next was the Sun-1 with a three-button mouse, but again aimed more
at business / scientific users.
Then it was the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which did have one button mice. >>
I didn't forget it ... I've never heard of it. :-)
On Nov 10, 2025 at 10:19:07 PM EST, "Marion" <mariond@facts.com> wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
Because he SAYS he does.
Look Tyrone, stop bullshitting what happened because you're lying.
Bullshitting? Nothing I said above was a lie.
What happened was very clear:
1. I said no operating system could use privileged ports w/o admin.
2. People on Linux/Android & Windows groups agreed with me.
3. You said iOS could - but you're an Apple troll - I didn't believe you.
But you Apple trolls always fabricate imaginary functionality.
So I did not believe you (and I said so).
Riiight. I ALWAYS "fabricate imaginary functionality". That's why I wrote up VERY detailed steps for dipshits like you to reproduce. Why the fuck would I do that if I was making it all up? Not everyone is a stupid child like you.
You were wrong, pure and simple. You were PROVEN to be wrong. You STILL can't admit it. YOU are the only "Apple Troll" here.
When ARE you going to grow up? When ARE you going to start accepting facts?
Look Tyrone, stop bullshitting what happened because you're lying.
Bullshitting? Nothing I said above was a lie.
Tyrone wrote:
Look Tyrone, stop bullshitting what happened because you're lying.
Bullshitting? Nothing I said above was a lie.
So stop it with this crap.
I didn't test it because I didn't believe you.
On 06/11/2025 17:10, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-
gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple
has, is
money. This is a direct quote from that article:
 "This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
  with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*! 🙂
On 11/6/2025 9:33 AM, David B. wrote:
On 06/11/2025 17:10, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple
has, is
money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
*EXCELLENT*! 🙂
Makes sense for Apple to do this.
They can work on their own AI model in the meantime.
Similar to mapping. For years, most iPhone users eschewed Apple Maps and
used Google Maps instead. But now, Apple Maps is comparable to Google
Maps, and, depending on the use, can be better.
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with... ><https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
On 06/11/2025 17:10, Marion wrote:
Apple is paying Google $1bn to upgrade Siri with...
<https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-paying-google-billion-siri-gemini-3612708/>
While Apple lost the ability to innovate long ago, one thing Apple has, is >> money. This is a direct quote from that article:
"This represents Apple's desperation to enter the AI race, especially
with its inability to build a model comparable to Google's Gemini."
Apple should just wait for the AI bubble to burst. Companies like
OpenAI and Anthropic will then sell pretty reasonably.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,089 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 153:51:01 |
| Calls: | 13,921 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,021 |
| D/L today: |
3,755 files (944M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,457,163 |