He was not trying to advance the state of the neurological science, his memo was not a scholarly work. If it was it would have been submitted to a journal of neurology or sociology, it would have been properly researched with a careful statistical analysis, it would have documented his methodology and surveyed all the relevant research (not just cherry-picked & misrepresented studies). It wouldn't have been posted to an internal forum for software engineers, and it wouldn't have peppered in various attacks on the PC monoculture, etc.
There are lots of neurologists, evolutionary biologists, and sociologists that explore these issues and I haven't heard of them getting fired. But then, for the most part, they are trying to do real science and not trying pick a fight with "SJWs" on an internal company forum for a software company
You're allowed to have whatever opinions you want. You're not allowed to say whatever you want at work. It's that simple.
What if he had written that African-Americans are genetically inferior? What if he was saying that Jewish people aren't good at solitary programming? We wouldn't even be having this discussion. But no, he said those things about women and apparently you're cool with that.
It was a poorly research psuedo-sciencey political manifesto, couched in a lot of faux-rational language. Anyone with half a brain recognizes it immediately for what it was.
I personally wouldn't have fired him for it, but I would have shut that shit down. Google was dealing with a near-mutiny of offended internal engineers and real consequences for their ability to recruit, so I don't fault them too much for making the business decision to fire the guy.
The one written by a female software engineer at Google claiming that men are inherently inferior, violent, and evil and should be reduced to 10% of employees?
There is scientific consensus that men are, on average, taller than women. There is absolutely no scientific consensus that men are better wired neurologically for software engineering than women, which is what James Damore wrote.
James Damore is not a scientist specializing in evolutionary neurology and his memo was not a scholarly work. You can tell this easily because the memo wasn't submitted to a journal of neurology or even sociology, it was posted to an internal company forum aimed at software engineers. It was also poorly researched and cherry-picked studies (some of which apparently have been discredited).
If it's not science, then what is it? It's opinion, it's politics, and it's written with the specific intent of marginalizing an entire group of people with statements like 'women are better suited for pair programming because they are hard-wired for cooperative interaction'.
Guess what, that kind of thing annoys people. Google got a *lot* of internal feedback from engineers that were offended and there were serious concerns that this would affect recruiting. At that point they did what businesses do, they made a business decision.
No, but I have actually done the thing you said can't be done.
I never said that you couldn't disable 'open eye' checking for FaceID; you claimed that by default you could unlock an iPhone X by holding it up to an unconscious person--I said that was bullshit. I'm right, and you were wrong--it's as simple as that.
Sure, you can disable all security whatsoever (FaceID & passcode) and then you can unlock an iPhone by holding it up to a picture of a squirrel, I don't see how that's relevant.
For those keeping score, every claim you've made in this thread has been bullshit. You either don't understand technology or you're a liar, or both.
Here's the actual user admitting to this on reddit:
1. My brother(left) setup the face id. 2. Unlocks with his face. Does not with mine. 3. I entered the pin with the phone facing me. It it unlocked as expected. 4. Now I locked it again. 5. I raised it up to my face, and it unlocks. 6. It unlocks each time after that with my face
So it looks like you are completely wrong. How does that feel?
The difference is that I've also handled the actual device. I've seen the configuration options, I've tried them, and I've unlocked an iPhone X trained on my face with my eyes closed.
So you're the only one here that has touched an iPhone X? You're a sad, pathetic individual.
If it's no better than a fingerprint, then why is it needed?
One out of 50,000 people have similar enough fingerprints to you to unlock your phone, only one out of 1 million people have similar enough faces to unlock your phone. Also FaceID works if you're wearing gloves. So, it's better in at least some ways.
And it is worse than a fingerprint: twins can't fingerprint-unlock each others' phones. Hell, even non-twin adult siblings can face-unlock the same phone. And you can only put one face in the phone, so no, they didn't do it by putting both faces in the phone.
In your link they trained it on both faces. You can only calibrate one original face, but every time it fails to recognize a new face and then you input your passcode then it will add the new face data to the training set. And that's probably exactly what the Vietnam group did with the 3D mask, kept inputting the passcode until it would recognize the mask as the person.
Got a citation for this? There's a mode that requires "attention" (e.g. open eyes), but it is not the default.
That's bullshit, you're completely wrong, stop getting all your info from Breitbart.
Seriously, does the fact that Apple exists bother you so much that you feel the need to manufacture lies on the internet, and then desperately hope that noone will call you on your bullshit?
Does she give you a secret passcode when you pick her up from daycare? No? Then how do you know that she's not an imposter? After all, her appearance is public knowledge.
Here's how:
1. trusted authentication hardware/sensors : You trust your own eyes, you are pretty certain that no one has done a MIM attack in the path from your visual cortex to the child's face.
2. weighing cost-to-defeat vs. benefit : sure it's possible to find another child and do elaborate plastic surgery or a mask, but that's a fantastical notion considering the costs involved when weighed against any possible benefit
3. chain of custody : Your daughter has been with you or with people you trust the entire time. One of them likely would have warned you that a black van appeared, took your daughter for a couple hours, and then returned her
4. If any of #1-#3 are in doubt then you can always fall back to asking her something only she would know (i.e., a secret)
This is, more or less, exactly the way that TouchID or FaceID works. The sensors are in a secure, encrypted domain that's outrageously difficult to hack and would require getting your phone out of your possession without you knowing it. Successfully hacking into your phone would be extremely expensive and thus not worth it. And whenever Apple becomes a little suspicious that someone is trying to hack in (i.e., when the phone gets rebooted, when you hit the power button 5 times, when the SW is updated, after 48 hours of you not logging in) then it reverts to a mode where it insists on you entering a secret.
You have made the child-like mistake of thinking that any form of security that is theoretically breakable is worthless. In fact, there is no such thing as perfect security--the goal is ALWAYS to increase the cost & effort required such that breaking the security is not economically practical.
1. your thumb-print never leaves the secure enclave of an iPhone, it's not stored electronically anywhere, there's no path for it to be extracted electronically at all. It would be *way* easier to get your thumb print off of a glass then it would to try to electronically hack it out of an iPhone
2. FaceID doesn't use 'image processing' because it doesn't use images, it uses infra-red depth sensing. If you just use it for authentication then it's basically the same deal as the thumbprint; secure enclave and whatnot--it doesn't leave your phone.
3. Apple does not sell your info, ever. Not because they are a naturally good or noble company, but because they would make less money if they did so. Their business model is based on selling physical pieces of hardware, not selling their customer data. They are basically the opposite of Google.
There's basically zero evidence to suggest that Apple is the least bit interested in selling your personal info to anyone. That would be a minuscule revenue stream compared to the billions of dollars they make off of iPhones; and it would put those much more substantial revenue streams at risk. They've made privacy & security part of their brand.
> When has Apple lost money on every unit it sold?
Every company loses money on 'every unit sold' until the point that they've paid back the R & D. That is true for literally every product ever made. When the R&D is especially capital-intensive (like a new car or rocket) then it takes longer. Pretty much every time this happens some moron looks at the shareholder report and says "Company X is losing $Y on every unit!!! They should stop making units!!!".
Companies that are growing fast don't give dividends, instead every $ of revenue is re-invested in expanding capacity, future R&D, etc. So look at any company in a capital-intensive business that then grew into something big, and you'll see a company that looks at least somewhat like Tesla.
But seriously, if you are so certain that Tesla is going to fail, they why not short it? Put every dollar you have into a short position on TSLA.
Slashdot Mirror
I missed that on my first read. Thanks.
He was not trying to advance the state of the neurological science, his memo was not a scholarly work. If it was it would have been submitted to a journal of neurology or sociology, it would have been properly researched with a careful statistical analysis, it would have documented his methodology and surveyed all the relevant research (not just cherry-picked & misrepresented studies). It wouldn't have been posted to an internal forum for software engineers, and it wouldn't have peppered in various attacks on the PC monoculture, etc.
There are lots of neurologists, evolutionary biologists, and sociologists that explore these issues and I haven't heard of them getting fired. But then, for the most part, they are trying to do real science and not trying pick a fight with "SJWs" on an internal company forum for a software company
You're allowed to have whatever opinions you want. You're not allowed to say whatever you want at work. It's that simple.
What if he had written that African-Americans are genetically inferior? What if he was saying that Jewish people aren't good at solitary programming? We wouldn't even be having this discussion. But no, he said those things about women and apparently you're cool with that.
It was a poorly research psuedo-sciencey political manifesto, couched in a lot of faux-rational language. Anyone with half a brain recognizes it immediately for what it was.
I personally wouldn't have fired him for it, but I would have shut that shit down. Google was dealing with a near-mutiny of offended internal engineers and real consequences for their ability to recruit, so I don't fault them too much for making the business decision to fire the guy.
The one written by a female software engineer at Google claiming that men are inherently inferior, violent, and evil and should be reduced to 10% of employees?
There is scientific consensus that men are, on average, taller than women. There is absolutely no scientific consensus that men are better wired neurologically for software engineering than women, which is what James Damore wrote.
James Damore is not a scientist specializing in evolutionary neurology and his memo was not a scholarly work. You can tell this easily because the memo wasn't submitted to a journal of neurology or even sociology, it was posted to an internal company forum aimed at software engineers. It was also poorly researched and cherry-picked studies (some of which apparently have been discredited).
If it's not science, then what is it? It's opinion, it's politics, and it's written with the specific intent of marginalizing an entire group of people with statements like 'women are better suited for pair programming because they are hard-wired for cooperative interaction'.
Guess what, that kind of thing annoys people. Google got a *lot* of internal feedback from engineers that were offended and there were serious concerns that this would affect recruiting. At that point they did what businesses do, they made a business decision.
"will SpaceX ever show a profit?" Elon Musk says he's going to do a lot. Some of that he's already done, some of that he hasn't...yet.
No, but I have actually done the thing you said can't be done.
I never said that you couldn't disable 'open eye' checking for FaceID; you claimed that by default you could unlock an iPhone X by holding it up to an unconscious person--I said that was bullshit. I'm right, and you were wrong--it's as simple as that.
Sure, you can disable all security whatsoever (FaceID & passcode) and then you can unlock an iPhone by holding it up to a picture of a squirrel, I don't see how that's relevant.
For those keeping score, every claim you've made in this thread has been bullshit. You either don't understand technology or you're a liar, or both.
You somehow managed to internalize the exact opposite of the moral of that xkcd strip. Bravo.
You assume that, of course.
Here's the actual user admitting to this on reddit:
1. My brother(left) setup the face id. 2. Unlocks with his face. Does not with mine. 3. I entered the pin with the phone facing me. It it unlocked as expected. 4. Now I locked it again. 5. I raised it up to my face, and it unlocks. 6. It unlocks each time after that with my face
https://www.reddit.com/r/iphon...
So it looks like you are completely wrong. How does that feel?
The difference is that I've also handled the actual device. I've seen the configuration options, I've tried them, and I've unlocked an iPhone X trained on my face with my eyes closed.
So you're the only one here that has touched an iPhone X? You're a sad, pathetic individual.
If it's no better than a fingerprint, then why is it needed?
One out of 50,000 people have similar enough fingerprints to you to unlock your phone, only one out of 1 million people have similar enough faces to unlock your phone. Also FaceID works if you're wearing gloves. So, it's better in at least some ways.
And it is worse than a fingerprint: twins can't fingerprint-unlock each others' phones. Hell, even non-twin adult siblings can face-unlock the same phone. And you can only put one face in the phone, so no, they didn't do it by putting both faces in the phone.
In your link they trained it on both faces. You can only calibrate one original face, but every time it fails to recognize a new face and then you input your passcode then it will add the new face data to the training set. And that's probably exactly what the Vietnam group did with the 3D mask, kept inputting the passcode until it would recognize the mask as the person.
Got a citation for this? There's a mode that requires "attention" (e.g. open eyes), but it is not the default.
That's bullshit, you're completely wrong, stop getting all your info from Breitbart.
https://support.apple.com/en-u...
Seriously, does the fact that Apple exists bother you so much that you feel the need to manufacture lies on the internet, and then desperately hope that noone will call you on your bullshit?
It uses special a 3d depth-sensing IR-based system.
It doesn't. In fact it doesn't use the front-facing video camera at all. Try again.
Does she give you a secret passcode when you pick her up from daycare? No? Then how do you know that she's not an imposter? After all, her appearance is public knowledge.
Here's how:
1. trusted authentication hardware/sensors : You trust your own eyes, you are pretty certain that no one has done a MIM attack in the path from your visual cortex to the child's face.
2. weighing cost-to-defeat vs. benefit : sure it's possible to find another child and do elaborate plastic surgery or a mask, but that's a fantastical notion considering the costs involved when weighed against any possible benefit
3. chain of custody : Your daughter has been with you or with people you trust the entire time. One of them likely would have warned you that a black van appeared, took your daughter for a couple hours, and then returned her
4. If any of #1-#3 are in doubt then you can always fall back to asking her something only she would know (i.e., a secret)
This is, more or less, exactly the way that TouchID or FaceID works. The sensors are in a secure, encrypted domain that's outrageously difficult to hack and would require getting your phone out of your possession without you knowing it. Successfully hacking into your phone would be extremely expensive and thus not worth it. And whenever Apple becomes a little suspicious that someone is trying to hack in (i.e., when the phone gets rebooted, when you hit the power button 5 times, when the SW is updated, after 48 hours of you not logging in) then it reverts to a mode where it insists on you entering a secret.
You have made the child-like mistake of thinking that any form of security that is theoretically breakable is worthless. In fact, there is no such thing as perfect security--the goal is ALWAYS to increase the cost & effort required such that breaking the security is not economically practical.
If it is no worse than a thumbprint, then why is it news? We've had fingerprint based unlocking for years--did you just now find out about it?.
Also, FaceID doesn't work if you're unconscious.
Also, if somebody is willing to beat you to death to get into your locked phone, then what form of security is going to stop that?
It seriously took 10 seconds to completely destroy your argument, maybe try harder next time.
In either case you can press the power button 5 times quickly to disable TouchID and require the passcode to be entered.
Go ahead. Keep in mind that any evidence you provide I will dismiss as being "fake".
Do you see now why we don't ask people to prove a negative?
1. your thumb-print never leaves the secure enclave of an iPhone, it's not stored electronically anywhere, there's no path for it to be extracted electronically at all. It would be *way* easier to get your thumb print off of a glass then it would to try to electronically hack it out of an iPhone
2. FaceID doesn't use 'image processing' because it doesn't use images, it uses infra-red depth sensing. If you just use it for authentication then it's basically the same deal as the thumbprint; secure enclave and whatnot--it doesn't leave your phone.
3. Apple does not sell your info, ever. Not because they are a naturally good or noble company, but because they would make less money if they did so. Their business model is based on selling physical pieces of hardware, not selling their customer data. They are basically the opposite of Google.
There's basically zero evidence to suggest that Apple is the least bit interested in selling your personal info to anyone. That would be a minuscule revenue stream compared to the billions of dollars they make off of iPhones; and it would put those much more substantial revenue streams at risk. They've made privacy & security part of their brand.
on items blessed by the smug /. technorati. Didn't you know?
I'm going to go order my platinum neckbeard trimmer now.
That's just how currency works.
nt
> When has Apple lost money on every unit it sold?
Every company loses money on 'every unit sold' until the point that they've paid back the R & D. That is true for literally every product ever made. When the R&D is especially capital-intensive (like a new car or rocket) then it takes longer. Pretty much every time this happens some moron looks at the shareholder report and says "Company X is losing $Y on every unit!!! They should stop making units!!!".
Companies that are growing fast don't give dividends, instead every $ of revenue is re-invested in expanding capacity, future R&D, etc. So look at any company in a capital-intensive business that then grew into something big, and you'll see a company that looks at least somewhat like Tesla.
But seriously, if you are so certain that Tesla is going to fail, they why not short it? Put every dollar you have into a short position on TSLA.
I'll see you back here in 2 years.
So, keep that in mind.