Apple: the next iMac would adopt a new design and an Apple Silicon processor this year

For the first time since 2012, Apple would finally renew the design of its iMac. In 2021, Apple is preparing at least three new desktop Macs. According to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, who also released information on future MacBook Pros and iPhone 12 successors in recent days, Apple will announce an iMac and two Mac Pros in 2021. The transition to Apple Silicon processors gives a new blows to the computers of the Californian giant.     iMac: finally an edge-to-edge screen This year, the iMac could change completely. Mark Gurman indicates that the borders of his screen would be much smaller, like Pro Display XDR, the ultra high-end screen launched by Apple with the Mac Pro in 2019. The back of the computer would also abandon the curvature in favor of a completely flat frame.  This new iMac would also be equipped with an Apple Silicon processor, probably a more powerful chip than the Apple M1 chip currently present in the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and Mac mini. The 2021 iMac is reportedly

The Constitutional Council validates the offense of breach of confinement

The Constitutional Council validated, Friday, June 26, the criminal offense of violation of containment, created by the law of state of health emergency, an offense denounced as strongly contested but considered sufficiently precise and therefore "in conformity" with the Basic Law.
 
The Constitutional Council validates the offense of breach of confinement

The Council "judges that the legislator has sufficiently determined the field of the obligation" made to the citizens and "rejects the complaint drawn from the disregard of the principle of legality of the crimes and the penalties", he explains in a press release.

The offense created by article L.3136-1 of the public health code provides that a person fined more than three times for breach of confinement within 30 days is liable to a penalty of six months imprisonment and a fine of 3,750 euros. The "wise men" were seized by the Court of Cassation, which examined in May several priority questions of constitutionality (QPC) concerning this article.

"The legislator has not adopted imprecise provisions"
Before the Constitutional Council, the applicants' lawyers had squeezed out a text adopted in "precipitation", "escalation", responding to a repressive "need for display", which had seriously infringed fundamental rights, including that of an "effective remedy".




The Council judges that "neither the notion of verbalization, which designates the fact of drawing up a report of offense, nor the reference to" travel strictly essential for family and health needs "is imprecise or ambiguous".

In addition, "by retaining as a constitutive element of the offense the fact that the person had been previously verbalized 'on more than three occasions', the legislator did not adopt imprecise provisions".

In particular, underlines the Council, "these provisions do not allow that the same exit, which constitutes a single violation of the prohibition of exit, can be verbalized repeatedly".