My company had an Ugly Christmas Sweater contest this year. One guy wore a typical Christmas sweater...with an unlabeled picture of Pai pinned to it. He handily won the contest with the most votes by far.
The nice thing about the solar roof is that you don’t actually need to trust that it can withstand hail. Why? Because they’ve put their money where their mouth is by offering a lifetime warranty on it. If it ever fails due to hail, they’ll foot the bill. And that’s the lifetime of the house, just to be clear, rather than the 30-year estimated useful life for the solar component itself.
Of course, given that it’d cost something like $80,000 to outfit my modestly-sized home with these tiles and the necessary Powerwall battery units (based on the automated estimate their site gave me a few months back), I should hope that it comes with a decent warranty.
While all of that is good, nothing beats a wired Ethernet connection. That's why I always connect via Ethernet to wireless routers I bring with me that I've configured to act as bridges for the public WiFi hotspots I visit. I get the low latency and security of a wired connection while also gaining the benefits of wireless. It's the best of both worlds.
Note that I said "routers", plural. For maximum convenience, I've purchased separate wireless routers for each public hotspot I visit, that way I don't have to waste any time reconfiguring them each time I visit a different hotspot. I just pull out the appropriate one, plug it into my UPS, and away I go with simple but secure Internet surfing. And adding VPN to the mix is as easy as using Ethernet to connect a VPN-serving router to the bridge-mode router, then using a cellular hotspot to connect to the VPN. You still get all the benefits of both a wired connection and VPN while being able to enjoy Internet access anywhere you can find a public hotspot. As a nice bonus, you only ever need one VPN-serving router and one cellular hotspot in total, rather than one device per hotspot as was the case with my bridge-mode routers, so it saves on costs.
Some might try to suggest that even with those savings it still costs more than it's worth, but I don't think you can put a price on the level of convenience, security, and speed that I enjoy thanks to this setup.
but they will use their excuse that it was to save battery life
No they won’t, because it wasn’t designed to save battery life. The fact that people like you are still alleging that false notion, despite evidence to the contrary and the fact that it’s been made clear both in media and comments at tech sites that that is NOT what’s happening boggles my mind.
What’s actually happening is that older batteries or ones in out-of-spec conditions (e.g. sub-freezing temperatures) are incapable of supplying the necessary voltage for peak performance, so devices have been spontaneously powering down when that happens. Apple’s software update capped peak performance only when needed on those devices (i.e. when it detected a set of conditions that would indicate a high likelihood the device would spontaneously shut down), and only to the degree necessary (i.e. less severe conditions call for lighter throttling), apparently reducing crashes by 70% so far. They’ve indicated their intent to continue fine-tuning the feature to increase its accuracy.
Given that the alternative to throttling performance is a spontaneous shutdown, I’d actually suggest that this feature is better viewed as a performance boost, since 90% or 80% performance is far better than 0%.
Also, regarding your claims about battery life, I’m still using a 5 year-old iPhone 5s for my everyday phone. It still lasts through the weekend (albeit barely) on the charge it has when I leave the office on Friday. And I can change the battery. iFixit sells a $29 replacement kit with everything I need, including a new battery, to replace my battery, though I haven’t had the need to do so yet.
The one thing you said that I do agree with is that they failed to notify the user appropriately. They were already telling users when their battery dropped below 80% of its original capacity, but they should have been telling users when this throttling occurred and why it was occurring. To me, that’s the one thing they got wrong in this situation, but they absolutely shouldn’t be removing this feature, nor even making it a toggleable setting. If anything, this feature should be an industry standard.
It's not possible recall all the processors that ever existed. Society doesn't have the resources even to think about such a thing.
Issuing a recall doesn't mean that you'll successfully buyback every item that was sold. There may not even be a buyback program. And how quickly you've forgotten that society has dealt with far larger recalls, even in just the last year, in fact.
Take VW's emissions scandal, for instance, which affected over 11 million vehicles. They were forced to recall vehicles spanning nearly a decade after they advertised performance numbers that were only achievable thanks to their use of a "cheat mode" that cut necessary corners. Fixes were possible, but they either cost VW money or resulted in worse performance. Many vehicles were "fixed" via software updates that were administered via the recall program—oftentimes resulting in worse performance—with many of those buyers receiving compensation for the difference in value between what was advertised and what they actually received.
Likewise, Intel could be forced to recall chips spanning the last decade or more after they advertised performance numbers that may have only been achievable thanks to a design that bypassed necessary security checks at the time they were needed. Fixes are (in some cases) possible, but they they either cost Intel money or result in worse performance. Many chips can be "fixed" via software updates—resulting in worse performance for some/all use cases—and it stands to reason that affected buyers are entitled to receive compensation for the difference in value between what was advertised and what they actually received.
Things are still shaking out, so we don't know how bad the performance hit will be. If it ends up being 0% for everyone, then all is well and Intel shouldn't be forced to pay. Unfortunately, there are some workflows (e.g. servers running VPSes) that so far as I know are still expected to see significant performance hits. If that ends up being the case, it's perfectly reasonable to demand that Intel issue a recall in which they either buyback those chips from the affected buyers or else provide compensation for the loss of performance that those buyers were promised (in much the same way that Sony was forced to pay PS3 users/buyback PS3s from users affected by the removal of Other OS).
Serious reply in response to a decent joke: GIMPS is the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search, which is more or less like SETI@home or Folding@home, but for Mersenne primes. I wasn't aware what it was, so I figured I'd share. Also, I had forgotten that Prime95, which is oftentimes used to stress cooling solutions in PCs, was actually created for use in finding large prime numbers, and was apparently developed by GIMPS.
I wouldn't mind having a browser extension that gives me a thumbs up/down indictor for the signal:noise ratio of an article. I try to stay away from fluff pieces, but every now and then one of them bucks the clickbait-y headline trend with something that sounds reasonable (or else manages to get linked from somewhere reputable) and pulls me in. And, inevitably, I end up wasting however much time I spend reading the piece. Having an extension that adds an indictor at the top telling me thatthe article will be a waste of my time would be quite welcome.
If they could refine it further so that it highlights the actual content of the piece, allowing me to skip by any wasted prose designed to keep me on the page for as long as possible, or could even give me a numerical signal:noise estimation, I'd likethe extension even more.
The Trump administration is calling on the government of Iran to stop blocking Instagram and other social media sites while encouraging Iranians to use special software to circumvent controls.
Meanwhile, Iranians are calling on the government of America to start blocking Trump from Twitter and other social media sites while encouraging Americans to use the "block" button to remove him from their feeds.
How about you write acceptable English first? I read your comment, and I interpreted it the same way Joe_Dragon did.
You misused the word "with", so don't blame him or anyone else for misunderstanding what you intended. You seem to have intended "with" in "go all Apple with custom torque screw drives" to be read—contrary to its definition—as "by using", but in the context in which it was used it's more readily interpreted—according to its definition—as "in addition to". Which is exactly how he and I both read it and is exactly how most people with a grasp of the language would also interpret it.
Don't fault others when they misinterpret your misused words. Accept responsibility for your part in the misunderstanding and do better next time.
Does it matter? Serious question. A display like this isn’t for precision work. It’s for enjoying the most cinematic experience possible in your palatial estate. At typical viewing distances for a display of this size you’d be hard-pressed to notice any individual dead or stuck-live pixels, even under adverse conditions.
Why look for things to complain about, rather than just enjoying them for what they are?
What a load of FUD. The situation you're describing isn't what's happening.
A message warning users that their battery is dying has been in iOS for at least the last year or two, so I think it's safe to say that most users have had no problem with them, given that no one seems to have been bothered by them up to this point. That said, while dying batteries are certainly a directly related problem, they aren't the core issue at the root of this problem.
The root problem here is an unexpected drop in voltage, which can happen in adverse conditionswith any phone, even a brand new one. These voltage drops can occur years prior to the battery actually dying, though they are more common as batteries get older. When the phone can't get the voltage it needs from the battery, the only alternative to a slowdown is a spontaneous shutdown of the phone, possibly corrupting memory in the process.
Moreover, the phone only throttles when necessary and to the degree necessary. While it may throttle your brand new phone a little while you're outdoors in the freezing winter weather, it'll resume running at full throttle once the battery has had time to warm back up. Likewise, while it may throttle your heavily used phone that has gone through hundreds of cycles, it may not throttle my lightly used, same-model phone that has only gone through a hundred cycles.
All of which is to say, I'd expect that any user—having been properly informed via the sort of message described by the GP—would be glad that they own a phone capable of uninterrupted operation at the maximum level of performance possible under whatever set of conditions they find themselves in, as opposed to the "alternative" of spontaneously shutting down because the phone doesn't know its own limits.
All of the best-selling models of 2017 come with adaptive cruise control (even the humble Corollas and Civics). When all of the best-selling models have something, it’s hard to paint it as a luxury beyond the reach of mere mortals.
The average age of light vehicles in the US currently stands at around 11.5 years, so it’ll take a few years before the feature is virtually ubiquitous, but it’s only a small matter of time at this point. Just as seat belts, air bags, and anti-lock brakes before them, so too will adaptive cruise control, lane assist, and collision detection/mitigation become standard safety features across nearly all cars on the road.
What you describe does happen, minus the “problem” part. After all, if the 80 guy is moving like that then he’s leaving a void in his wake because he’s the fastest one around. As such, there isn’t anyone immediately behind him who puts on their brakes, except in the rare circumstance where they happened to get behind Mr. 80 right as he came up on the 70 guy, despite their ability to see what was about to happen.
Your “problem” regarding emergencies isn’t actually a problem. I take it you’ve never worked in or been in a restaurant when their card machines suddenly went down? I’ve been at a few places (as a patron or shopper) when that sort of thing happened, and while cash is obviously preferred in those situations, the places I was at simply pulled out some pre-Internet gear for handling credit cards for the people who lacked cash. They wrote up the receipts, added the card numbers to a paper register, and then made a carbon copy of the card for proof that it was provided. Whenever the power/Internet/whatever came back up, they then went back through and processed all of those backlogged transactions.
I support keeping cash around for many of the reasons you and others espouse, but I can assure you that the credit card system is more robust than you think.
Given that iOS 10 (specifically 10.2.1) introduced this feature to your phone and you admit it ran fine under iOS 10, you'd have a tough time making a case against Apple (iOS 11 only added the feature for models after yours). Moreover, you'd have a tough time arguing that you suffered any sort of wrong, given that the alternative behavior (which you ostensibly would have to claim was preferable) was that your phone would randomly shut off when the battery was incapable of supplying the necessary current.
But hey, you can sue anyone for any reason at all, no matter how flimsy the case, so feel free.
Actually, I'd suggest that this is more accurately viewed as a speed improvement, not a slowdown. I know, I know, it sounds weird, but hear me out.
Prior to this fix, the affected phones weren't necessarily capable of supplying sufficient voltage during peak demand, so they would simply shut down spontaneously sometimes (potentially corrupting data in the process), resulting in a 100% reduction in performance. As such, while the peak performance of these phones may now be lower than what it was when they were brand new, it's still a marked improvement over the 100% reduction that they suffered under those same conditions prior to the fix.
This isn't a choice between a slower phone with more battery life on a single charge vs. a faster phone with less battery life on a single charge. This is a choice between a phone that is operational and one that isn't. While it'd be nice if such a feature wasn't necessary, the fact is that Apple made the right choice in this matter, and that by doing so they have actually prolonged the useful lifespan of these phones by allowing them to remain operational in situations where previously they wouldn't have been.
Someone posted the results of some speed tests they had performed and it indicated that the performance degradation is driven by a software check on the handset version, not the condition of the battery.
Given that we have hard evidence to the contrary, that person is wrong. Take a look at Geekbench's test results, which demonstrate a multimodal distribution for any given model's performance. Were your anecdotal claims true, we'd see all units of a particular model showing reduced performance. Instead, however, we're merely seeing some units of a particular model demonstrating reduced performance, indicating that it's a factor other than the handset version that's the determining factor.
But even if you distrust Geekbench's results, remember why this topic is even being discussed: a guy got his battery serviced and noticed his iPhone's performance improved afterwards. If performance was tied to the handset, that wouldn't have been the case. There have been numerous additional anecdotes to that same effect since then, as well as numerous people posting benchmark scores to back up those observations, so at this point it's pretty clear that the reduction in performance is not tied to the handset and that the guy you read was mistaken in some way.
As for your suggested resolutions, removing this feature would be extraordinarily foolhardy. Your suggestions would make sense if this was nothing more than a "low power mode" sort of feature that was designed to stretch a battery's life out for as long as possible on a single charge, but that is not at all what this is. What is happening here is that the battery is incapable of supplying enough voltage during peak demand, resulting in the phone spontaneously powering down during heavy use, potentially corrupting data in the process.
I agree that Apple needs to significantly improve their messaging, particularly in terms of informing iPhone users what's happening, but by no means should they remove this feature. This isn't a "let the user toggle it off in settings" sort of feature. This is a "why haven't other manufacturer's implemented this as standard?!" feature, since the choice is between reduced performance and NO performance.
Of course, I expect that other manufacturers will handle their messaging a bit better...
You make some really great points, especially regarding the flipped security prompts between the real and digital worlds, as well as the benefits that passwords provide. And I agree as well that I glossed right over the distinction between identification and authentication, so thank you for calling attention to that. That said, while I heartily agree with most of your overarching points, let me quibble with some of the specifics of what you said.
For instance, you seem to be suggesting that signatures are good because they're an explicit action, with the implication being that facial recognition is bad because there's nothing explicit about providing a facial scan. The problem with that analysis, however, is that it's conflating authentication (i.e. establishing one's identity) and authorization (i.e. giving permission). While my signature serves as both authentication (because I'm ostensibly the only one that can provide my signature) and authorization (because the act of providing it grants permission for the requested activity), a facial scan merely provides authentication. Authorization is given via a separate set of explicit steps, such as—in the case of an iPhone X at a cash register—double-tapping the power button and then holding the phone near the reader.
Really, this drives at something important that I think you were trying to get at: authorization should be an active, explicit step. But there's nothing saying authentication needs to be too. It can be (in which case, like with signatures, it can serve as authorization as well), but it doesn't need to be. In fact, I'd suggest that authentication is better when it's passive, since it means the user isn't being needlessly interrupted.
But on the topic of using facial recognition for authorizing activities, I don't think that's a valid concern, since so far as I know we're not actually doing that today. Certainly, none of the examples you gave do so, since we authorize "install software" and "delete everything" by clicking buttons or swiping in UIs, with facial recognition merely being used as a means for authenticating our identities as a prerequisite to authorization. Even with "reveal private information" there is an authorization happening: the act of trying to access your private information on your device is itself a confirmation of your intent to reveal that private information to yourself. Again, facial recognition isn't being used for authorization.
Even so, I have no desire to see passwords go away. There are different situations we deal with, different concerns at play, and, frankly, different preferences and tolerances between different users. To me, a facial scan in the hands of a government that may use it for all sorts of nefarious purposes is very different from a facial scan being securely stored on-device by a device I trust. Likewise, if I deal with highly-sensitive information, a facial scan may never cross my/my organization's threshold for being "good enough" at establishing one's identity, whereas a password does. And for those sorts of situations, a password will almost certainly continue to be better (until we come up with the hypothetical replacement that you talked about).
But, setting aside the very real, very valid concerns about the accuracy of the current implementations we have for facial recognition, I'd assert that in a few years' time facial recognition will actually be better than passwords in the vast majority of everyday situations, since they'll be providing "good enough" authentication without any form of interruption to the user, making for a better design.
And really, that's what we should be striving for, since it more closely mimics reality. I don't authorize requests from coworkers before I initiate face-to-face discussions, nor would I make them go through a separate step to authenticate their identity before our discussions. Our continued presence in the conversation acts as an authorization to share information with each other, and our faces serve as "good enough" forms of authentication. An ideal device design is one that's able to achieve something comparable.
Right now, that design comes with a long list of trade-offs, but I'm hopeful that in a few years that won't be the case.
Except the reporter wasn't simply reporting what the Google researcher said apparently. At least not originally. Let me play Devil's Advocate for a sec.
Here's the actual complaint Keeper is making, and if you compare some of the text they mention that was contained in the original version of the article to the twice-revised version that's currently posted, there are some differences in the phrasing and verbiage that affect the factual accuracy of the statements being made.
For instance, just look at the URL for the article and you can see that the headline has changed. It currently reads:
For 8 days Windows bundled a password manager with a critical plugin flaw: Plugin for Win 10 version of Keeper had bug allowing sites to steal passwords
which, from what I can tell, seems to be an accurate statement (though Keeper disputes it on a technicality). But note the differences from the original headline:
Microsoft is forcing users to install a critically flawed password manager: Win 10 version of Keeper has a 16-month old bug allowing sites to steal passwords
which was false at the time of publication since the bug has been fixed prior to publication and the new bug wasn't the same as the previous one (though it was very similar). The complaint goes on to list dozens of other statements across the various iterations of the article, each of which they've taken issue with.
That said, let me take my Devil's Advocate cap off and say that I don't really think that the Keeper case has much merit, since most of the "false" statements seem to be minor technicalities at best. As an example, they contend that "Keeper" didn't have any bugs, since it was the Keeper browser extension that was buggy, not the Keeper app itself. They also contend that the buggy extension wasn't "bundled", which is technically correct, but it's installed via the bundled app, so to an end user it would have seemed no different than if it had been bundled. So, yay for being technically correct?
Really, I think they're taking issue with the connotations of the original headline and the bad press it created, and they're just trying to prop up their case with as many slight inaccuracies as they can find, no matter how slight.
How about everyone? After all, when was the last time you started a conversation with someone you know by asking someone to authenticate their identity, rather than recognizing who they were and talking to them like normal? These companies are attempting to mimic the way things work in reality, which, generally speaking, is a good thing...when it’s done right.
Netflix has been pretty awesome about this stuff for years, in fact. Prior to the current plans (i.e. back when they didn’t have profiles and only offered two screens), Netflix used to state in their terms that each account was “per household”, and then they had a generous definition for “household” that made it applicable to everyone from unrelated roommates living together to college students away at school. And they were really smart when they added multiple profiles per account, since they all share a single login, including access to billing details, which acts as a natural disincentive against sharing your account too far and wide.
Slashdot Mirror
My company had an Ugly Christmas Sweater contest this year. One guy wore a typical Christmas sweater...with an unlabeled picture of Pai pinned to it. He handily won the contest with the most votes by far.
The nice thing about the solar roof is that you don’t actually need to trust that it can withstand hail. Why? Because they’ve put their money where their mouth is by offering a lifetime warranty on it. If it ever fails due to hail, they’ll foot the bill. And that’s the lifetime of the house, just to be clear, rather than the 30-year estimated useful life for the solar component itself.
Of course, given that it’d cost something like $80,000 to outfit my modestly-sized home with these tiles and the necessary Powerwall battery units (based on the automated estimate their site gave me a few months back), I should hope that it comes with a decent warranty.
While all of that is good, nothing beats a wired Ethernet connection. That's why I always connect via Ethernet to wireless routers I bring with me that I've configured to act as bridges for the public WiFi hotspots I visit. I get the low latency and security of a wired connection while also gaining the benefits of wireless. It's the best of both worlds.
Note that I said "routers", plural. For maximum convenience, I've purchased separate wireless routers for each public hotspot I visit, that way I don't have to waste any time reconfiguring them each time I visit a different hotspot. I just pull out the appropriate one, plug it into my UPS, and away I go with simple but secure Internet surfing. And adding VPN to the mix is as easy as using Ethernet to connect a VPN-serving router to the bridge-mode router, then using a cellular hotspot to connect to the VPN. You still get all the benefits of both a wired connection and VPN while being able to enjoy Internet access anywhere you can find a public hotspot. As a nice bonus, you only ever need one VPN-serving router and one cellular hotspot in total, rather than one device per hotspot as was the case with my bridge-mode routers, so it saves on costs.
Some might try to suggest that even with those savings it still costs more than it's worth, but I don't think you can put a price on the level of convenience, security, and speed that I enjoy thanks to this setup.
but they will use their excuse that it was to save battery life
No they won’t, because it wasn’t designed to save battery life. The fact that people like you are still alleging that false notion, despite evidence to the contrary and the fact that it’s been made clear both in media and comments at tech sites that that is NOT what’s happening boggles my mind.
What’s actually happening is that older batteries or ones in out-of-spec conditions (e.g. sub-freezing temperatures) are incapable of supplying the necessary voltage for peak performance, so devices have been spontaneously powering down when that happens. Apple’s software update capped peak performance only when needed on those devices (i.e. when it detected a set of conditions that would indicate a high likelihood the device would spontaneously shut down), and only to the degree necessary (i.e. less severe conditions call for lighter throttling), apparently reducing crashes by 70% so far. They’ve indicated their intent to continue fine-tuning the feature to increase its accuracy.
Given that the alternative to throttling performance is a spontaneous shutdown, I’d actually suggest that this feature is better viewed as a performance boost, since 90% or 80% performance is far better than 0%.
Also, regarding your claims about battery life, I’m still using a 5 year-old iPhone 5s for my everyday phone. It still lasts through the weekend (albeit barely) on the charge it has when I leave the office on Friday. And I can change the battery. iFixit sells a $29 replacement kit with everything I need, including a new battery, to replace my battery, though I haven’t had the need to do so yet.
The one thing you said that I do agree with is that they failed to notify the user appropriately. They were already telling users when their battery dropped below 80% of its original capacity, but they should have been telling users when this throttling occurred and why it was occurring. To me, that’s the one thing they got wrong in this situation, but they absolutely shouldn’t be removing this feature, nor even making it a toggleable setting. If anything, this feature should be an industry standard.
The original rules were entered into the federal register back in 2015, so yes, they were submitted.
It's not possible recall all the processors that ever existed. Society doesn't have the resources even to think about such a thing.
Issuing a recall doesn't mean that you'll successfully buyback every item that was sold. There may not even be a buyback program. And how quickly you've forgotten that society has dealt with far larger recalls, even in just the last year, in fact.
Take VW's emissions scandal, for instance, which affected over 11 million vehicles. They were forced to recall vehicles spanning nearly a decade after they advertised performance numbers that were only achievable thanks to their use of a "cheat mode" that cut necessary corners. Fixes were possible, but they either cost VW money or resulted in worse performance. Many vehicles were "fixed" via software updates that were administered via the recall program—oftentimes resulting in worse performance—with many of those buyers receiving compensation for the difference in value between what was advertised and what they actually received.
Likewise, Intel could be forced to recall chips spanning the last decade or more after they advertised performance numbers that may have only been achievable thanks to a design that bypassed necessary security checks at the time they were needed. Fixes are (in some cases) possible, but they they either cost Intel money or result in worse performance. Many chips can be "fixed" via software updates—resulting in worse performance for some/all use cases—and it stands to reason that affected buyers are entitled to receive compensation for the difference in value between what was advertised and what they actually received.
Things are still shaking out, so we don't know how bad the performance hit will be. If it ends up being 0% for everyone, then all is well and Intel shouldn't be forced to pay. Unfortunately, there are some workflows (e.g. servers running VPSes) that so far as I know are still expected to see significant performance hits. If that ends up being the case, it's perfectly reasonable to demand that Intel issue a recall in which they either buyback those chips from the affected buyers or else provide compensation for the loss of performance that those buyers were promised (in much the same way that Sony was forced to pay PS3 users/buyback PS3s from users affected by the removal of Other OS).
Serious reply in response to a decent joke: GIMPS is the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search, which is more or less like SETI@home or Folding@home, but for Mersenne primes. I wasn't aware what it was, so I figured I'd share. Also, I had forgotten that Prime95, which is oftentimes used to stress cooling solutions in PCs, was actually created for use in finding large prime numbers, and was apparently developed by GIMPS.
I wouldn't mind having a browser extension that gives me a thumbs up/down indictor for the signal:noise ratio of an article. I try to stay away from fluff pieces, but every now and then one of them bucks the clickbait-y headline trend with something that sounds reasonable (or else manages to get linked from somewhere reputable) and pulls me in. And, inevitably, I end up wasting however much time I spend reading the piece. Having an extension that adds an indictor at the top telling me thatthe article will be a waste of my time would be quite welcome.
If they could refine it further so that it highlights the actual content of the piece, allowing me to skip by any wasted prose designed to keep me on the page for as long as possible, or could even give me a numerical signal:noise estimation, I'd likethe extension even more.
Clearly I didn't plant my tongue far enough in my cheek if you've taken it as a serious suggestion that anyone's free speech should be curtailed.
The Trump administration is calling on the government of Iran to stop blocking Instagram and other social media sites while encouraging Iranians to use special software to circumvent controls.
Meanwhile, Iranians are calling on the government of America to start blocking Trump from Twitter and other social media sites while encouraging Americans to use the "block" button to remove him from their feeds.
Read.
How about you write acceptable English first? I read your comment, and I interpreted it the same way Joe_Dragon did.
You misused the word "with", so don't blame him or anyone else for misunderstanding what you intended. You seem to have intended "with" in "go all Apple with custom torque screw drives" to be read—contrary to its definition—as "by using", but in the context in which it was used it's more readily interpreted—according to its definition—as "in addition to". Which is exactly how he and I both read it and is exactly how most people with a grasp of the language would also interpret it.
Don't fault others when they misinterpret your misused words. Accept responsibility for your part in the misunderstanding and do better next time.
Does it matter? Serious question. A display like this isn’t for precision work. It’s for enjoying the most cinematic experience possible in your palatial estate. At typical viewing distances for a display of this size you’d be hard-pressed to notice any individual dead or stuck-live pixels, even under adverse conditions.
Why look for things to complain about, rather than just enjoying them for what they are?
We'll be sure to get that handled before the year's up.
Yours forever,
Disney
What a load of FUD. The situation you're describing isn't what's happening.
A message warning users that their battery is dying has been in iOS for at least the last year or two, so I think it's safe to say that most users have had no problem with them, given that no one seems to have been bothered by them up to this point. That said, while dying batteries are certainly a directly related problem, they aren't the core issue at the root of this problem.
The root problem here is an unexpected drop in voltage, which can happen in adverse conditionswith any phone, even a brand new one. These voltage drops can occur years prior to the battery actually dying, though they are more common as batteries get older. When the phone can't get the voltage it needs from the battery, the only alternative to a slowdown is a spontaneous shutdown of the phone, possibly corrupting memory in the process.
Moreover, the phone only throttles when necessary and to the degree necessary. While it may throttle your brand new phone a little while you're outdoors in the freezing winter weather, it'll resume running at full throttle once the battery has had time to warm back up. Likewise, while it may throttle your heavily used phone that has gone through hundreds of cycles, it may not throttle my lightly used, same-model phone that has only gone through a hundred cycles.
All of which is to say, I'd expect that any user—having been properly informed via the sort of message described by the GP—would be glad that they own a phone capable of uninterrupted operation at the maximum level of performance possible under whatever set of conditions they find themselves in, as opposed to the "alternative" of spontaneously shutting down because the phone doesn't know its own limits.
All of the best-selling models of 2017 come with adaptive cruise control (even the humble Corollas and Civics). When all of the best-selling models have something, it’s hard to paint it as a luxury beyond the reach of mere mortals.
The average age of light vehicles in the US currently stands at around 11.5 years, so it’ll take a few years before the feature is virtually ubiquitous, but it’s only a small matter of time at this point. Just as seat belts, air bags, and anti-lock brakes before them, so too will adaptive cruise control, lane assist, and collision detection/mitigation become standard safety features across nearly all cars on the road.
What you describe does happen, minus the “problem” part. After all, if the 80 guy is moving like that then he’s leaving a void in his wake because he’s the fastest one around. As such, there isn’t anyone immediately behind him who puts on their brakes, except in the rare circumstance where they happened to get behind Mr. 80 right as he came up on the 70 guy, despite their ability to see what was about to happen.
Your “problem” regarding emergencies isn’t actually a problem. I take it you’ve never worked in or been in a restaurant when their card machines suddenly went down? I’ve been at a few places (as a patron or shopper) when that sort of thing happened, and while cash is obviously preferred in those situations, the places I was at simply pulled out some pre-Internet gear for handling credit cards for the people who lacked cash. They wrote up the receipts, added the card numbers to a paper register, and then made a carbon copy of the card for proof that it was provided. Whenever the power/Internet/whatever came back up, they then went back through and processed all of those backlogged transactions.
I support keeping cash around for many of the reasons you and others espouse, but I can assure you that the credit card system is more robust than you think.
Given that iOS 10 (specifically 10.2.1) introduced this feature to your phone and you admit it ran fine under iOS 10, you'd have a tough time making a case against Apple (iOS 11 only added the feature for models after yours). Moreover, you'd have a tough time arguing that you suffered any sort of wrong, given that the alternative behavior (which you ostensibly would have to claim was preferable) was that your phone would randomly shut off when the battery was incapable of supplying the necessary current.
But hey, you can sue anyone for any reason at all, no matter how flimsy the case, so feel free.
Actually, I'd suggest that this is more accurately viewed as a speed improvement, not a slowdown. I know, I know, it sounds weird, but hear me out.
Prior to this fix, the affected phones weren't necessarily capable of supplying sufficient voltage during peak demand, so they would simply shut down spontaneously sometimes (potentially corrupting data in the process), resulting in a 100% reduction in performance. As such, while the peak performance of these phones may now be lower than what it was when they were brand new, it's still a marked improvement over the 100% reduction that they suffered under those same conditions prior to the fix.
This isn't a choice between a slower phone with more battery life on a single charge vs. a faster phone with less battery life on a single charge. This is a choice between a phone that is operational and one that isn't. While it'd be nice if such a feature wasn't necessary, the fact is that Apple made the right choice in this matter, and that by doing so they have actually prolonged the useful lifespan of these phones by allowing them to remain operational in situations where previously they wouldn't have been.
Someone posted the results of some speed tests they had performed and it indicated that the performance degradation is driven by a software check on the handset version, not the condition of the battery.
Given that we have hard evidence to the contrary, that person is wrong. Take a look at Geekbench's test results, which demonstrate a multimodal distribution for any given model's performance. Were your anecdotal claims true, we'd see all units of a particular model showing reduced performance. Instead, however, we're merely seeing some units of a particular model demonstrating reduced performance, indicating that it's a factor other than the handset version that's the determining factor.
But even if you distrust Geekbench's results, remember why this topic is even being discussed: a guy got his battery serviced and noticed his iPhone's performance improved afterwards. If performance was tied to the handset, that wouldn't have been the case. There have been numerous additional anecdotes to that same effect since then, as well as numerous people posting benchmark scores to back up those observations, so at this point it's pretty clear that the reduction in performance is not tied to the handset and that the guy you read was mistaken in some way.
As for your suggested resolutions, removing this feature would be extraordinarily foolhardy. Your suggestions would make sense if this was nothing more than a "low power mode" sort of feature that was designed to stretch a battery's life out for as long as possible on a single charge, but that is not at all what this is. What is happening here is that the battery is incapable of supplying enough voltage during peak demand, resulting in the phone spontaneously powering down during heavy use, potentially corrupting data in the process.
I agree that Apple needs to significantly improve their messaging, particularly in terms of informing iPhone users what's happening, but by no means should they remove this feature. This isn't a "let the user toggle it off in settings" sort of feature. This is a "why haven't other manufacturer's implemented this as standard?!" feature, since the choice is between reduced performance and NO performance.
Of course, I expect that other manufacturers will handle their messaging a bit better...
The only confusion I have is in how this relates to Apple or a blockchain.
You make some really great points, especially regarding the flipped security prompts between the real and digital worlds, as well as the benefits that passwords provide. And I agree as well that I glossed right over the distinction between identification and authentication, so thank you for calling attention to that. That said, while I heartily agree with most of your overarching points, let me quibble with some of the specifics of what you said.
For instance, you seem to be suggesting that signatures are good because they're an explicit action, with the implication being that facial recognition is bad because there's nothing explicit about providing a facial scan. The problem with that analysis, however, is that it's conflating authentication (i.e. establishing one's identity) and authorization (i.e. giving permission). While my signature serves as both authentication (because I'm ostensibly the only one that can provide my signature) and authorization (because the act of providing it grants permission for the requested activity), a facial scan merely provides authentication. Authorization is given via a separate set of explicit steps, such as—in the case of an iPhone X at a cash register—double-tapping the power button and then holding the phone near the reader.
Really, this drives at something important that I think you were trying to get at: authorization should be an active, explicit step. But there's nothing saying authentication needs to be too. It can be (in which case, like with signatures, it can serve as authorization as well), but it doesn't need to be. In fact, I'd suggest that authentication is better when it's passive, since it means the user isn't being needlessly interrupted.
But on the topic of using facial recognition for authorizing activities, I don't think that's a valid concern, since so far as I know we're not actually doing that today. Certainly, none of the examples you gave do so, since we authorize "install software" and "delete everything" by clicking buttons or swiping in UIs, with facial recognition merely being used as a means for authenticating our identities as a prerequisite to authorization. Even with "reveal private information" there is an authorization happening: the act of trying to access your private information on your device is itself a confirmation of your intent to reveal that private information to yourself. Again, facial recognition isn't being used for authorization.
Even so, I have no desire to see passwords go away. There are different situations we deal with, different concerns at play, and, frankly, different preferences and tolerances between different users. To me, a facial scan in the hands of a government that may use it for all sorts of nefarious purposes is very different from a facial scan being securely stored on-device by a device I trust. Likewise, if I deal with highly-sensitive information, a facial scan may never cross my/my organization's threshold for being "good enough" at establishing one's identity, whereas a password does. And for those sorts of situations, a password will almost certainly continue to be better (until we come up with the hypothetical replacement that you talked about).
But, setting aside the very real, very valid concerns about the accuracy of the current implementations we have for facial recognition, I'd assert that in a few years' time facial recognition will actually be better than passwords in the vast majority of everyday situations, since they'll be providing "good enough" authentication without any form of interruption to the user, making for a better design.
And really, that's what we should be striving for, since it more closely mimics reality. I don't authorize requests from coworkers before I initiate face-to-face discussions, nor would I make them go through a separate step to authenticate their identity before our discussions. Our continued presence in the conversation acts as an authorization to share information with each other, and our faces serve as "good enough" forms of authentication. An ideal device design is one that's able to achieve something comparable.
Right now, that design comes with a long list of trade-offs, but I'm hopeful that in a few years that won't be the case.
Except the reporter wasn't simply reporting what the Google researcher said apparently. At least not originally. Let me play Devil's Advocate for a sec.
Here's the actual complaint Keeper is making, and if you compare some of the text they mention that was contained in the original version of the article to the twice-revised version that's currently posted, there are some differences in the phrasing and verbiage that affect the factual accuracy of the statements being made.
For instance, just look at the URL for the article and you can see that the headline has changed. It currently reads:
For 8 days Windows bundled a password manager with a critical plugin flaw: Plugin for Win 10 version of Keeper had bug allowing sites to steal passwords
which, from what I can tell, seems to be an accurate statement (though Keeper disputes it on a technicality). But note the differences from the original headline:
Microsoft is forcing users to install a critically flawed password manager: Win 10 version of Keeper has a 16-month old bug allowing sites to steal passwords
which was false at the time of publication since the bug has been fixed prior to publication and the new bug wasn't the same as the previous one (though it was very similar). The complaint goes on to list dozens of other statements across the various iterations of the article, each of which they've taken issue with.
That said, let me take my Devil's Advocate cap off and say that I don't really think that the Keeper case has much merit, since most of the "false" statements seem to be minor technicalities at best. As an example, they contend that "Keeper" didn't have any bugs, since it was the Keeper browser extension that was buggy, not the Keeper app itself. They also contend that the buggy extension wasn't "bundled", which is technically correct, but it's installed via the bundled app, so to an end user it would have seemed no different than if it had been bundled. So, yay for being technically correct?
Really, I think they're taking issue with the connotations of the original headline and the bad press it created, and they're just trying to prop up their case with as many slight inaccuracies as they can find, no matter how slight.
How about everyone? After all, when was the last time you started a conversation with someone you know by asking someone to authenticate their identity, rather than recognizing who they were and talking to them like normal? These companies are attempting to mimic the way things work in reality, which, generally speaking, is a good thing...when it’s done right.
Netflix has been pretty awesome about this stuff for years, in fact. Prior to the current plans (i.e. back when they didn’t have profiles and only offered two screens), Netflix used to state in their terms that each account was “per household”, and then they had a generous definition for “household” that made it applicable to everyone from unrelated roommates living together to college students away at school. And they were really smart when they added multiple profiles per account, since they all share a single login, including access to billing details, which acts as a natural disincentive against sharing your account too far and wide.