No, it is because doors take up a lot of space. A typical door is 3 feet wide, and requires 7-14 feet of empty space to operate [0]. You can't place any furniture, toiletries, or luggage racks in this space. For a typical hotel room of 300sq feet, this "dead space" represents 3-5% of the room. Removing the door allows hotels to decrease the size of each room, and fit more rooms on each floor, increasing profit.
This is why many newer hotels choose to sliding doors, which barely take up any space, or just remove doors entirely.
[0] For a door of r=3 feet, A door swings a minimum of 90 degrees, which takes 3.14 * 3*2 / 4 = 7.065 sq feet at a minimum to 14.1 sq feet to operate.
My understanding is that Apple didn't add USB-C to iPhones because they planned to remove all ports from the iPhone entirely. They envisioned it as a wireless only device.
EU regulation stopped this from happening, and now once they added USB-C it's difficult to take this feature away. I predict we'll be stuck with the USB-C port and form factor on most phones for the next decade.
This was a common trope on Reddit but makes literally zero sense. There are a ton of wired accessories that this would make completely useless overnight, including things like CarPlay.
You probably viewed this as a common trope because you were not aware of the actual source of the rumors. No, these are not claims are not from reddit, they're from Mark Gurman in 2018.
> Apple designers eventually hope to remove most of the external ports and buttons on the iPhone, including the charger, according to people familiar with the company’s work. During the development of the iPhone X, Apple weighed removing the wired charging system entirely. That wasn’t feasible at the time because wireless charging was still slower than traditional methods. [0]
Actual rumors include a prototype of said phone making rounds around the office.
And again, Mark Gurman from 2025:
> "But all of these changes were supposed to be just the tip of the iceberg: Apple had originally hoped to get ever more ambitious with this model... An even bigger idea was to make the Air device Apple’s first completely port-free iPhone. That would mean losing the USB-C connector and going all-in on wireless charging and syncing data with the cloud."
> "But Apple ultimately decided not to adopt a port-free design with the new iPhone, which will still have a USB-C connector. One major reason: There were concerns that removing USB-C would upset European Union regulators, who mandated the iPhone switch to USB-C and are scrutinizing the company’s business practices." [1]
Mark Gurman’s track record with Apple is spotty at best. He may have been the original source of the rumor, but Reddit’s enormously anti-Apple user base is more than happy to grab onto any notion that Apple might do something even slightly unpopular and run wild. One dude with one report and middling accuracy does not a reliable narrative make, no matter how many times it’s reposted.
Apple prototypes a lot of shit internally. I am utterly certain they had prototypes of wireless-only phones. I am wholly unconvinced they had anything resembling firm plans at a leadership level to actually move forward with such a device. Apple has been more than happy to poke a finger in the eye of the EU repeatedly to see what their real limits are; I doubt they suddenly got cold feet over this one issue.
This is completely illogical. There is no world that wireless charging or data transfer was going to be as good as wired. Was the iPhone all the sudden not going to work in the millions of cars that had wired CarPlay?
This is a silly reason to hold back if that was their plan. You can buy, for $20 and up, little USB-sticks that allow wired-CarPlay cars to do wireless CarPlay. Apple could manufacture 100 million of those, at a cost of $5 for the boards and maybe $8 in glass and aluminum, and sell them at a huge profit for $79.99 and advertise them as a revolutionary breakthrough they invented.
Wired CarPlay is not holding Apple back. I think they just figure it’d be harder for them to repair partially-bricked iPhones if they had no port to do DFU or whatever. That or they actually have done the market research and customers said they’d hold off on buying a portless iPhone because it’s a stupid idea.
So can you also do 10Gbps data transfers wirelessly like the iPhone Pros do? Can I just plug up my phone to any old monitor with a USB C port or use a standard video cord?
Apple prototypes a lot of stuff including a smart car. Despite what people think, Apple doesn’t do everything at the whim of the EU.
I didn’t say there were no reasons that smart/pro customers should dread a portless phone and appreciate the port. Of course there are reasons!
But Apple could definitely make the “non-pro” phone portless- exactly the way they arbitrarily force USB 2.0 speeds (hello 2004!) even on the iPhone 17 non-pro’s port - rendering it worse than Wi-Fi for data transfers.
They must have market research proving it would cost them sales. That’s the only thing holding them back.
Compared to 40 minutes for a charge? Have you used wireless CarPlay? There is a noticeable delay from pressing a button on the display in your car and your phone reacting.
Also the iPhone Pro models support up to 10Gbps wired for data transfer. Now let’s talk about using external video. I don’t need a special dongle. I can use a standard USB 3 cable just like I use with my computer.
Or if I need HDMI, again I can use the same USB 3 to HDMI cable that works with Mac or the God awful Microsoft Surface (not the convertible) I had to use for a year at a prior job.
Then we can get into simple things like how do you connect mass storage devices to your phone or audio equipment?
Sure after plugging in an USB-C extender, an USB-C to headphone adapter and an USB-C to HDMI adapter. I'm sure that will be as convenient as a phone, that directly has these interfaces. At that point you could even design the phone without any port and buy a Bluetooth to USB-C adapter instead.
- Ethernet - I have to do the same for every MacBook for the past decade - use an adapter. The iPhone can use the same adapter.
- I don’t need a USB-C to headphone adapter, there are plenty of USB C headphones and the mixer my wife uses has a USB C interface for computers and it works with her iPad and I assume my phone. It shows up as an audio input/output device. You plug up a regular old USB C to USB C cable.
- you don’t need an “HDMI adapter”, you use the same USB C to HDMI cord that computers have used since USB C was introduced on computers over a decade ago.
USB C has supported video natively for over a decade. I use the same USB C - USB C cable to plug up my phone to my external monitor that I use for my Mac
Bluetooth doesn’t transmit data at 10Gbps like USB C does on an iPhone Pro or even USB 2 speeds of the cheaper iPhones.
You don’t need special Apple compatible dongles for any of these use cases. They all support the standard USB protocols
Proxmox is a hypervisor OS, and its value comes from its virtualization and container-management features. These features include being able to pause, resume, snapshot, backup/restore from snapshot, and live-migrate VMs or LXCs to another server in just a couple hundred milliseconds of downtime. Once you run docker on the hypervisor itself, you lose these features, which defeats the purpose of running Proxmox in the first place.
There's also the security angle. Containers managed by Proxmox are strongly isolated from the host, but containers running on Docker sidestep this isolation model. Docker is not insecure by design, but it greatly increases the attack surface. If the hypervisor gets compromised, the entire cluster of servers will also get compromised. In general, as little software as possible should be installed on the host.
What's the reason Proxmox can't just implement Kubernetes on the host for running docker across a set of Proxmox nodes though. I mean they implemented a system like Ceph for distributed storage.
I’m convinced that in its early years, Tether operated as a scam, skimming deposits and creating coins out of thin air. But once they realized they had accidentally created a money-printing machine, they attempted to become legit and quietly buried the evidence of their past.
Tether is still banned in NY, AFAICT (Maybe I'm wrong here).
> But once they realized they had accidentally created a money-printing machine
So that's a joke right? They on-purposely created a money-printing machine. But my god, the fraud was so profitable they needed a way to make it legit because no one wants to live in Panama.
Take a moment and truly envision the alternative. What if we don't explore space? Are we content remaining confined to Earth for eternity? Do we stay on earth and watch ourselves destroy the environment, watch our resources dwindle, and sit back as the sun decays into a red giant and envelopes our planet?
The choice is obvious.
In my opinion, after a certain point, will become an economic necessity; i.e. a lack of resources on earth & cheaper manufacturing costs in space will drive humanity spacebound.
And in the basement of Bloomberg’s London headquarters, there’s also a reconstructed Roman temple dedicated to Mithras. It's free and open to the public. Interestingly, after it was discovered, they dismantled it, moved it elsewhere, then later rebuilt it piece by piece:
https://www.bloomberg.org/arts/advancing-the-arts-around-wor...
My cottage in wales is built smack atop a roman road, and the garden follows the line of the agger. At some point it degraded so much that people started walking in the roadside ditch instead, which is now a holloway.
I have a friend in Bath who has an extremely fine Roman mosaic under his basement floor - found during construction a few centuries ago and they just left it in situ, put clay atop it and laid flags. He rediscovered it about 15 years ago when they pulled the flagstones up to put in a damp-proof course. Likely part of the baths complex as his house is a stones throw from them. Archaeologists documented it, and it was then buried under sand and a damp-proof course.
Yep, Roman ruins are all over the place. I cycle past a chunk of the old London Wall regularly. Lullingstone Villa in Kent was a cool school trip as a kid.
And then there's this little wall running across Cumbria/Northumbria...
Finding Roman archaeology isn't unusual, but from the story it sounds like what's unusual is how early the building is in Roman London's history, and how central it is to the earliest Roman settlement?
Actually they had moved it to where it was originally.
It was excavated then reconstructed by some 1950s office block.
I imagine Bloomberg either thought of this as a key feature, or it was part of planning consent for their head quarters.
Access is free, but it has been restricted to reduced crowding. When I’ve been there it seemed there seemed to be a Bloomberg employee tour on, I’m not sure how much access is controlled by Bloomberg, but it was a surprisingly long way down in the ground.
I’m not sure how much lower ground level was in Roman times.
I worked in that 1950s office block (Temple Court) and was involved in the sale of the site to Bloomberg.
The Temple of Mithras sat outside the office a few feet from the pavement with free public access at all times. It attracted very little interest though as there wasn't much to mark it out.
IIRC it had to be moved as part of the redevelopment and the idea to relocate to its original location were a very early part of the proposals. Not a big deal as part of a very large project and obviously a way for Bloomberg to gain favour with the City of London planners.
There are a few interesting videos on YouTube on the history e.g.
Based on a cursory search, I get the impression they haven't solved the particular cleaning problem the author did (i.e. removing places that just have restaurants rather than actually are restaurants). In one case on my food & drink list I have a place that is very highly reviewed, but is actually a museum; I doubt the reviews refer to the restaurant specifically.
It is interesting to play with though. Thanks for the reference!
They don't have a choice. ASML licenses the intellectual property for EUV lithography from the US government. Therefore they follow US export control laws on EUV machines.
Other posters have given the answer but here is the answer in an informative podcast released just over a month ago with some details on the development process from some ASML PR folks in San Diego (they have offices in the USA).
Key EUV research was funded by the US government, and developed at Lawrence Livermore/Berkeley Labs & Sandia national labs. The IP is owned by the US government and they created a licensing vehicle, Silicon Valley Labs, to commercialize the technology. ASML acquired licenses to these IPs with its acquisition of Silicon Valley Labs in 2001.
ASML acquired SVGI (Silicon Valley Group, doesn't seem to have been created as a licensing vehicle, apparently founded in 1977), but according to wikipedia it already had access to the technology (SVGI, Intel, and some other US chip manufacturers had access to the tech).
Nowhere in any of the press articles about the acquisition they mention EUV as being a factor (seems like standard industry consolidation instead). If anything they were really far from delivering EUV at the time (it took close to 20y).
This is really a major simplification and glosses over a lot. US National laboratories were involved but certainly didn't "develop all the initial technology". This page on the ASML website gives a good overview: https://www.asml.com/en/news/stories/2022/making-euv-lab-to-...
It seems you are confusing the details and conditions of a contract never disclosed publicly, of base research, where a EU based company spent 20 years and billions of EU funds to create a workable product.
In any case if the US adrenaline fueled diplomacy, starts violating hundreds of years old borders of it's allies, respect for ambiguous IP Laws, will be pretty low in the list of priorities. :-)
> It seems you are confusing the details and conditions of a contract never disclosed publicly
The details have never been disclosed but it is well known that this agreement fell within the domain of national security and export controls.
Here's a press release [1] directly from ASML that references these export controls. Even though this PR actually relaxing DUV controls with respect to the U.S., it reaffirms that "EUV systems are also subject to license requirements."
"To access EUV technology, Intel in 1997 formed the EUV LLC, which entered into a cooperative R&D agreement (CRADA) with DOE. As part of this agreement, Intel and its partners would pay $250 million over three years to cover the direct salary costs of government researchers at the national labs and acquire equipment and materials for the labs, as well as cover the costs of its own researchers dedicated to the project. In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use. At the time, it was the largest CRADA ever undertaken."
In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories were funded in the 1990s to perform basic research into the technical obstacles. The results of this successful effort were disseminated via a public/private partnership Cooperative R&D Agreement (CRADA) with the invention and rights wholly owned by the US government, but licensed and distributed under approval by DOE and Congress.
> To address the challenge of EUV lithography, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories were funded in the 1990s to perform basic research into the technical obstacles. The results of this successful effort were disseminated via a public/private partnership Cooperative R&D Agreement (CRADA) with the invention and rights wholly owned by the US government, but licensed and distributed under approval by DOE and Congress.[3] The CRADA consisted of a consortium of private companies and the Labs, manifested as an entity called the Extreme Ultraviolet Limited Liability Company (EUV LLC).[4]
> In 2001 SVG was acquired by ASML, leaving ASML as the sole benefactor of the critical technology.
Unless the situation has changed, the IP is still owned by the US government, and is licensed to ASML through their acquisition of Silicon Valley Group.
The ITAR licensing around their export from the United States and the conditions under which they may be (including flowing down the restrictions clauses) don't expire, generally.
From your own reference ( note this had 18 years of R&D by ASML ):
"By 2018, ASML succeeded in deploying the intellectual property from the EUV-LLC after several decades of developmental research, with incorporation of European-funded EUCLIDES (Extreme UV Concept Lithography Development System) and long-standing partner German optics manufacturer ZEISS and synchrotron light source supplier Oxford Instruments..."
In 1998, ASML formed a European industrial R&D consortium dubbed ‘EUCLIDES’ (Extreme UV Concept Lithography Development System) with ZEISS and Oxford Instruments. Then EUCLIDES joined forces with the American EUV LLC in 1999...
"The CRADA consisted of a consortium of private companies and the Labs, manifested as an entity called the Extreme Ultraviolet Limited Liability Company (EUV LLC)."
You keep pointing out European involvement as if that somehow displaced American involvement (and thus continued U.S. control, the subject of this thread).
Again, your first quote explicitly states that EUV-LLC was American. The second quote refers to the "Labs", which in this case were the Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Berkeley National Laboratories.
Apple may have developed the M4 from the ground up but they still licensed the ISA from ARM.
The EUV-LLC was 100% financed by the private companies in the consortium, ASML being one.
"To access EUV technology, Intel in 1997 formed the EUV LLC, which entered into a cooperative R&D agreement (CRADA) with DOE. As part of this agreement, Intel and its partners would pay $250 million over three years to cover the direct salary costs of government researchers at the national labs and acquire equipment and materials for the labs, as well as cover the costs of its own researchers dedicated to the project. In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use. At the time, it was the largest CRADA ever undertaken."
In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use
It is in the sense that the LLNL owns the EUV IP that ASML implemented, and ASML is using this IP after inheriting it from AMD+Motorola who sold off their stake in EUV LLC.
All NatLab-Private partnerships have this kind of a rider.
ASML is already starting another partnership with LLNL on next-gen EUV.
This is why many newer hotels choose to sliding doors, which barely take up any space, or just remove doors entirely.
[0] For a door of r=3 feet, A door swings a minimum of 90 degrees, which takes 3.14 * 3*2 / 4 = 7.065 sq feet at a minimum to 14.1 sq feet to operate.