That's all you can do. You got to take a bit off the table from time to time, or else you're just playing the lottery. I bought Apple at $4 a share pre-split. And I don't mean just the most recent 7-1 split, I mean all the splits. If I had kept it all I would now have more money than I could possibly spend. But I didn't. How could I?
Humans are terrible at correctly understanding what they are see when they lack a reference. As, for example, when looking at the sky. Almost all the interpretation done by the brain is related to something it considers known and of a known size. All that goes away when seeing something weird in the sky. So the brain makes a wild-ass guess.
Do you know many average Joes buying $17000 future contracts?
By "average joe" I meant people with traditional trading accounts. I should have been more clear. People who have accumulated wealth but the only way they invest it is through a brokerage house. There are a *lot* of people like that. People who love to jump on bandwagons when they hear about the latest thing. Such as those who clamor to get in on a hot IPO, for example. They have enough money to move the markets (for a while). Generally they don't do well in their trades. I didn't say these were designed for that type of investor, of course they're designed for the real money, but an early push will come from the unsophisticated.
And you're right, if and when it collapses the hindsight will be tremendous, with people calculating how much they could have made by shorting at just the right time. It's so easy after the fact, but wallet-busting beforehand.
Anybody who thinks this will make bitcoin go down is nuts. One of the biggest hurdles for the average joe has been getting his money in. Now that they can do it through their broker the price will spike.
And if you think the price will eventually go to zero, you may well be right, but trying to predict when will break you first.
I suspect that what really happened is that he started with his conclusion and then did the review. This seems to frequently be the case in tech reviews.
No it isn't a dismissal of the suit. Just a denial of the request to turn it into a class action. The lawyers plan to refile in order in an attempt to make it suitable for a class action, but that's their choice. They could just continue the suit on behalf of the named plaintiffs if they wanted to. And don't be an asshole.
Why do Facebook, Apple, and others thing public information (like what your face looks like) is more secure than a private key that exists only in your mind?
Got a cation for this, other than the same marketing wank that incorrectly claimed this would only be a problem for twins and kids under 13?
If you're going to exclude Apple's own statements then how could I possibly have a citation? So instead apply some logic. If it weren't true then the cases of false positives would be rampant.
My wife asks me to do things on her phone all the time while she's driving, so she can keep her eyes on the road. I know her passcode so I can do these things, and FaceID tries to scan every time the screen is turned on. That means, intentional or not, if she had an iPhone X with FaceID enabled, I'd be training it to recognize my face every single time I unlocked it using the passcode. Eventually, we'd both be able to unlock it.
This is true only if you are a close match to begin with. When a Face ID authentication fails, but is within a small failure threshold, and then the passcode is entered, another measurement is taken for training. The purpose of this is to learn as the face subtly changes, as they do. But if you and your wife are already a close match , and you know and enter the passcode, then it will augment its training from your face.
If you don't know or don't enter the passcode then no training is done.
So yes, this is definitely one more problem (among many) for Apple to solve, but it's not the huge security hole some are making it out to be. For me it's a tremendous convenience and reasonably safe, but if were in a situation where I was truly worried about security then I would disable it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing that's why he included the qualifier "only" in what he wrote.
You workstations cost $250 with a monitor? What kind of work, typing?
Wow, that was a sudden relocation of the goalposts.
That's all you can do. You got to take a bit off the table from time to time, or else you're just playing the lottery. I bought Apple at $4 a share pre-split. And I don't mean just the most recent 7-1 split, I mean all the splits. If I had kept it all I would now have more money than I could possibly spend. But I didn't. How could I?
Humans are terrible at correctly understanding what they are see when they lack a reference. As, for example, when looking at the sky. Almost all the interpretation done by the brain is related to something it considers known and of a known size. All that goes away when seeing something weird in the sky. So the brain makes a wild-ass guess.
By "average joe" I meant people with traditional trading accounts. I should have been more clear. People who have accumulated wealth but the only way they invest it is through a brokerage house. There are a *lot* of people like that. People who love to jump on bandwagons when they hear about the latest thing. Such as those who clamor to get in on a hot IPO, for example. They have enough money to move the markets (for a while). Generally they don't do well in their trades.
I didn't say these were designed for that type of investor, of course they're designed for the real money, but an early push will come from the unsophisticated.
And you're right, if and when it collapses the hindsight will be tremendous, with people calculating how much they could have made by shorting at just the right time. It's so easy after the fact, but wallet-busting beforehand.
You're not trading coins. You're making a bet on the price at some date in the future.
Attribution to who? The joke is everywhere. Do you know the original source?
Anybody who thinks this will make bitcoin go down is nuts. One of the biggest hurdles for the average joe has been getting his money in. Now that they can do it through their broker the price will spike.
And if you think the price will eventually go to zero, you may well be right, but trying to predict when will break you first.
It's not a felony to have a camera, so before you vigilante yourself right into the hoosegow you might want to check for evidence that it was in use.
I suspect that what really happened is that he started with his conclusion and then did the review. This seems to frequently be the case in tech reviews.
No it isn't a dismissal of the suit. Just a denial of the request to turn it into a class action. The lawyers plan to refile in order in an attempt to make it suitable for a class action, but that's their choice. They could just continue the suit on behalf of the named plaintiffs if they wanted to. And don't be an asshole.
It does it through a deal with Shazzam. I guess they like it enough to now think they should just buy the company.
What about VAT on the package? How do you avoid that, or if not, is it still worthwhile?
Why do you think that they think that?
No, that would be after the investigation begins, not beforehand.
Please show your work.
That's what humans do. Even your little post has some "we" vs. them in it.
Such wisdom from an AC.
Is that what happened? Did Musk fail at eight non-subsided businesses before? If not eight, then how many?
Even if the businesses he has run benefit from subsidies you cannot logically conclude that he is incapable of building a business otherwise.
The summary links to same page that you nearly linked to.
It is? How many cases do you know of? If that true I'd like to know about it. That would change my view.
If you're going to exclude Apple's own statements then how could I possibly have a citation? So instead apply some logic. If it weren't true then the cases of false positives would be rampant.
This is true only if you are a close match to begin with. When a Face ID authentication fails, but is within a small failure threshold, and then the passcode is entered, another measurement is taken for training. The purpose of this is to learn as the face subtly changes, as they do. But if you and your wife are already a close match , and you know and enter the passcode, then it will augment its training from your face.
If you don't know or don't enter the passcode then no training is done.
So yes, this is definitely one more problem (among many) for Apple to solve, but it's not the huge security hole some are making it out to be. For me it's a tremendous convenience and reasonably safe, but if were in a situation where I was truly worried about security then I would disable it.