tl;dr 70% of emissions come from 100 corporations, and we know who they are. Anything you do as an individual is effectively irrelevant, and only collective action through the governments we elect can do anything right now.
To wit: "If affordable mass transit isn’t available, people will commute with cars. If local organic food is too expensive, they won’t opt out of fossil fuel-intensive super-market chains. If cheap mass produced goods flow endlessly, they will buy and buy and buy. This is the con-job of neoliberalism: to persuade us to address climate change through our pocket-books, rather than through power and politics.
Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt. But it’s only mass movements that have the power to alter the trajectory of the climate crisis. This requires of us first a resolute mental break from the spell cast by neoliberalism: to stop thinking like individuals."
So vote. If you care, voting for a serious government that plans to tackle this problem on our collective behalf is your most meaningful action.
But they're not really talking about doing anything special or interesting. They're talking about doing the boring stuff, that everyone should do. At least as it's talked about in the summary and article, they're doing the security equivalent of brushing their teeth—it's not very flashy, but it prevents a lot of problems before they start. It's just a necessary, boring step to protect the network. Take sites off the internet that don't need to be on the internet is a boring-ass solution to a problem, but it certainly makes it harder to infiltrate. Don't let the network be scanned by anyone that just wanders by. Boring solution, but it makes reconnaissance harder.
So I don't think they've really made any errors here. They're not making claims that Canada's infrastructure is impregnable, they're just saying they're trying to run a disciplined operation where unsecured, accessible servers aren't commonplace sitting ducks.
I'm going to point out up front that I'm not defending the design.
That said, I do not think the design is an accident. If you can't use it while it's plugged in, that's serving some aesthetic or practical purpose. I suspect that there are two reasons:
- Ive thought it was ugly - Nobody will unplug it if you can use it while it's plugged in, so it's not wireless. To force people to encounter it as a wireless device, it must be unplugged. This may be important to remind people that a port need not be used up to support the mouse.
Apple rarely does this sort of thing by accident. You may not agree with the decision (I don't), but it's hard to believe that they designed it and only realized after that it was impossible to put the charging port somewhere better.
If you're critical of Apple, this is a much more damning takeâ"someone actively made the decision to sign off on this weird design, and it's unclear what additional design goals are achieved by this configuration. As a piece of design work, it's purposeful but incoherent. A pity, since most people I talk to that have it like it when it's not flipped over and charging.
There's some interesting philosophy behind swearing and where the words get their power, and moreover, how one can use normally inoffensive words to be thoroughly offensive.
Whether you happen to like it or not, society places certain emphasis on words, and you can't claim that this doesn't matter. Indeed, I'm sure that you wouldn't swear profusely in front of your boss, or tell a police officer to go fuck themselves when they're giving you a ticket, or let loose on a judge in a courtroom. There is context to this propriety, of course, but there's something to be said for extending the courtesy you give to someone that has some power or influence over you to someone that is merely your colleague, or someone new that is relatively powerless.
I swim and cycle competitively and I also have high cholesterol, but the doctors here (Canada) specifically avoided statins because they can cause muscle cramping, which tends to reduce exercise volume. I'm not saying that there are no unscrupulous doctors here that are swayed by pitches from big pharmaceutical companies, but it does seem less likely when the system is actually concerned with your health and not you as an ongoing profit stream.
(The doctors also said the high cholesterol is likely genetic and not to worry about it, despite the history of heart disease in my family. Being an active athlete with a decent diet is already the most they could ask me to do.)
Why do you keep calling it 'slave labour'? It's not. The workers there are definitely paid less than in North America, but by Chinese standards the money is fine. The people that work at Foxconn and other such factories leave the rural farms and head to the big city, work in a company like that for a year or two, and send a lot of the money home (since while they're working, they live in a company provided dormitory). After they're sick of it, they leave and get a different job in the city. China isn't growing by leaps and bounds by the populace earning nothing, these people are earning a real wage.
The conditions in those factories aren't as bad as they're often made out to be; the suicide rate isn't any higher than that of the population at large. I suspect that if you go to a North American meat processing plant or coal mine, you'll find the conditions are just as bad or worse.
I'm not gonna spend a lot of time sticking up for China or multinationals, but at least criticize the right things.
This is largely bullshit. They certainly INVOKED the spectre of national defense, but the steel and aluminum tariffs are being applied on all steel and aluminum, not just stuff used for defense. And the tariffs even apply to countries like Canada, who aren't shipping sub-standard metals. If the goal was to curb dumping of low-grade metals onto the market, it's not doing its job. The number of American companies applying for exemptions from this absurd tax is orders of magnitude higher than what the government was prepared to deal with. In many cases, US companies literally can't get the steel they need from ANY American provider. How is THAT good for anyone, let alone national defense?
But trade deficits aren't inherently bad. It's not like the US is paying China a bunch of money out of its tax coffers. The trade deficit merely represents the money flowing between people and companies located in different countries. Seriously, just google 'understanding trade deficit', and nearly every single article is about how trade deficits aren't a good indicator of economic performance in and of themselves, they're just a metric of trade. And I'm not talking about left-leaning publications, I'm talking about everyone. Forbes, investment news, economists—virtually everyone agrees that a trade deficit in the right circumstances can be very good.
I actually agree with this take, by and large. Maybe some things will need to be written in C or some other low level language—I assume there's actually a fair amount of hand-turned assembly out there as well, honestly. But in the end, not everything needs to be done in C and the problem isn't that the people writing these systems are bad or lazy programmers. We're talking about fairly enormous systems with a great deal of complexity, and it's starting to get away from them at a time where it's more and more important that it doesn't. Security as a concept was considerably more abstract 20 or 30 years ago than it is now.
Certainly the attitude that we absolutely can't find a better tool and we'd best not try isn't helping matters.
The attitude that everything is fine right now and the programmers just need to get good is obnoxious; they're already very, very good. So whether we've run to the end of programmers' ability to write correct code in these enormous systems without introducing (hidden) unsafe errors, or we've come to the end of the line for C as a language that's sufficiently safe for many tasks, the solution is honestly the same, to develop new and better tools that limit the mistakes that can be made. I've been a C/C++ programmer my entire professional life and I love C (C++, not so much), but it's so trivial to write software that is secretly broken, even if you have 2 or 3 other people reviewing it. We need some better tools here.
She can still google for someone to fix her computer, there just wonâ(TM)t be ads for it when she searches for stuff. That should be far less confusing for her.
This is a ridiculous and terrible argument. The rest of the world advances both the tools and the education to make better systems that are more fault tolerant. The infrastructure in this world is built using better tools with what we learned from doing it the old way. You're asking for airplanes to be built only using hammers and screwdrivers instead of power tools and robots. C has it's place in this world. It will always be a great teaching language or for people that like to tinker close to assembly, but it makes no sense to continue using languages that require such overwhelming attention to the wrong details just so you can claim some sort of intellectual superiority or purity. There are thousands of really incredible programmers that have been working on trying to make safe, robust software with C for decades, and it's STILL incredibly hard to do. It's not because they're dumb, it's just that C has stopped being the right tool for the job.
It's 2018 and we still end up tracking down null pointers and weird memory overwrites all the goddamn time. It's time to move on.
As someone else mentions, infant mortality plays a huge part in that average. But that aside, your own logic is flawed: just because people were dying younger doesn't mean they weren't sleeping better. Indeed, it could be that they were sleeping worse than us, but you certainly can't draw any conclusions based on a single, inherently misleading number like average life expectancy.
Another huge problem with that quotation is that modern conservatives are nothing like the conservatives of bygone eras. I guess you could say I'm more conservative in some senses—I like stability and safety. But I feel like stability and safety come from 'liberal' ideas like social safety nets and equal rights and making sure the rich pay their goddamn taxes and don't get too powerful.
I can even find some people who consider themselves 'conservative' that agree with me, but conservative politicians almost never do. Hmm...
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France
It's all well and good to crow about Capitalism until it's failing you utterly, and a big part of it is the way the whole system—the political and legal system in particular—favour the rich. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if bank CEOs were held responsible for their crimes against the system, or if corporations were forced to pay more than a pittance for dumping oil into the soil and waterways, and unreasonable amounts of CO2 into the air. (Indeed, the lack of accounting for environmental externalities is a huge problem with the way we run capitalism right now.)
Capitalism, as it stands, works mostly for the rich and ensures that it will increasingly work ONLY for the rich.
Introducing regressions is, unfortunately, something that happens in software. It's easier than you think, and harder to catch than you'd expect. Sometimes it's the confluence of several things that didn't interact in a way that was expected.
It's very likely that it passed all of Apple's internal tests for performance, but once it went out into the wild and ran into apps that haven't been updated for iOS 12 (which is nearly 100% of them, on a developer device, and literally 100% of non-Apple apps on a public beta device) there were some unexpected issues.
Again, the whole reason why Apple has a public beta is because the number of phone setups in the wild is significantly larger than anything they could reasonably test in-house. This is the process working as intended: a release was made, there were issues when it was installed on developer devices, the updates were pulled down and someone (probably several someones) is trying to get to the bottom of it.
Once projects get this big and complicated, all you can do is your best and then rely on the process to catch your mistakes and let you correct them.
It's a beta. Bugs happen in beta. The whole reason why they have a beta is to find bugs. You should be glad that they were willing to pull a late-stage beta for bugfixing because it means their system works. It found a bug that they presumably couldn't catch with their more limited internal tests. How? I don't know. But it doesn't matter.
I'm running PB5 and most things are good. I'm still filing bugs because software is never perfect, but this is barely news. Let me know when they pull an official release of iOS 12 (or worse, DON'T pull an official release of iOS 12) because a major bug like this is found.
If a developer keeps a subscriber for more than a year, then Apple's cut goes down, and the amount to the developer goes up (to 85%, I believe). This encourages developers to make products worth subscribing to. If your updates are minor, people will go somewhere else. The one thing about app stores is that there's always another app that does what you need.
5 stars is what I expect products to get when I order them. 5 stars means that it does exactly what it says it's going to do, or maybe better. If I order a bathroom scale and it takes my weight correctly and doesn't break right away, it gets 5 stars. The score goes down depending on how much it deviates from it's advertised purpose.
The real reviews to look at are the 1-star reviews, to give you an idea of how often a product catastrophically fails or is DOA. Maybe the 2-star reviews if you want to know what people consider real downsides of the product that might not have been in the listing, or how it might not cover all use cases, particularly if you're tentative about the product really doing the thing you need.
Anything you order should have a majority of 4-5 star reviews, but also virtually NO 1-star reviews. It doesn't matter if the average review score is high, if hundreds of people say it doesn't work when it gets to their door, find something else.
If that's what you believe, all you're doing, practically speaking, is limiting yourself to a 3-star scale. If 4 and 5 are noise and 3 is the best you can be...well, NO product can be so perfect as to get 3 stars! There should be only 1 star reviews, since 2 or 3 would be much too high.
A thinner, lighter iPad is actually easier to hold. I went from an iPad 3 to a 2017 iPad, and it's a lot better. The thing with an iPad over a phone is that it's quite long and wide, making a much greater moment of inertia, so even a light object can cause wrist strain over time.
As long as the battery life stays the same, I've got no problem with this, especially for the iPad Pro. We're looking to buy the 12" one this year, and the lighter it is, the better.
My $25 bluetooth headphones last 8 hours on a charge. When I put my phone down, I stick them into a charger. Why are your headphones running down? Why doesn't your phone run out of battery?
If you've got 3 dongles for headphones, why don't you leave a dongle attached to one set of headphones so you're never without it? If you're also using it in a device with a 3.5mm jack, you can clip the dongle to the headphone wire. (Frankly, Apple should've made a little clip on the dongle so you wouldn't have to use a bit of string or a rubber band for this.)
My listening habits haven't changed at all—if anything, I listen to more things on my phone because I can leave it in the kitchen and wander around my apartment with no pants on and still hear my podcasts.
I think Apple needs to start putting wireless headphones in the box, honestly. They're super cheap to make, apparently, given that I can buy a pair that's lasted 2 years for $25.
I have Time Machine backups. Those go pretty much continuously. I've never had an issue restoring from backup with them yet.
I have a small drive that gets plugged into my machine at home every few weeks. Then I take it with me to work. If there's a fire, I have a backup of stuff that's important that's a few weeks old. Better than nothing.
But I also have Backblaze backup, and that's $95 every two years. It has all my files, all the time. It does a small continuous background backup to the service all the time. It's encrypted well enough for my tastes, and it's cheap.
None of this is to absolve Apple, but if you're the kind of person with a Pro device, honestly, you should be doing the Pro thing and making multiple redundant backups all the time. You should never be faced with losing more than a day or two of data.
I said that *I* didn't need it, and I specifically asked if ANYONE DOES need it, without casting aspersions on someone that might and indeed, made a point of asking what someone who DOES need this sort of feature is actually doing because I would find that interesting. It would be very surprising to me that this would be the sort of thing that someone would actually choose to buy or not buy a phone over, so I specifically asked if someone does do this because that's a useful perspective to me.
I agree that Intel modems are crap. Intel is sort of crap across the board right now. That's not the point.
Anyway, congratulations on adding basically nothing to this conversation. You must be very proud to have typed so many words for nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
tl;dr 70% of emissions come from 100 corporations, and we know who they are. Anything you do as an individual is effectively irrelevant, and only collective action through the governments we elect can do anything right now.
To wit:
"If affordable mass transit isn’t available, people will commute with cars. If local organic food is too expensive, they won’t opt out of fossil fuel-intensive super-market chains. If cheap mass produced goods flow endlessly, they will buy and buy and buy. This is the con-job of neoliberalism: to persuade us to address climate change through our pocket-books, rather than through power and politics.
Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt. But it’s only mass movements that have the power to alter the trajectory of the climate crisis. This requires of us first a resolute mental break from the spell cast by neoliberalism: to stop thinking like individuals."
So vote. If you care, voting for a serious government that plans to tackle this problem on our collective behalf is your most meaningful action.
Ha HA! You gave away your favourite Spice Girl data for FREE. You fool! I'm gonna monetize the hell out of this somehow!
But they're not really talking about doing anything special or interesting. They're talking about doing the boring stuff, that everyone should do. At least as it's talked about in the summary and article, they're doing the security equivalent of brushing their teeth—it's not very flashy, but it prevents a lot of problems before they start. It's just a necessary, boring step to protect the network. Take sites off the internet that don't need to be on the internet is a boring-ass solution to a problem, but it certainly makes it harder to infiltrate. Don't let the network be scanned by anyone that just wanders by. Boring solution, but it makes reconnaissance harder.
So I don't think they've really made any errors here. They're not making claims that Canada's infrastructure is impregnable, they're just saying they're trying to run a disciplined operation where unsecured, accessible servers aren't commonplace sitting ducks.
I'm going to point out up front that I'm not defending the design.
That said, I do not think the design is an accident. If you can't use it while it's plugged in, that's serving some aesthetic or practical purpose. I suspect that there are two reasons:
- Ive thought it was ugly
- Nobody will unplug it if you can use it while it's plugged in, so it's not wireless. To force people to encounter it as a wireless device, it must be unplugged. This may be important to remind people that a port need not be used up to support the mouse.
Apple rarely does this sort of thing by accident. You may not agree with the decision (I don't), but it's hard to believe that they designed it and only realized after that it was impossible to put the charging port somewhere better.
If you're critical of Apple, this is a much more damning takeâ"someone actively made the decision to sign off on this weird design, and it's unclear what additional design goals are achieved by this configuration. As a piece of design work, it's purposeful but incoherent. A pity, since most people I talk to that have it like it when it's not flipped over and charging.
https://aeon.co/essays/where-d...
There's some interesting philosophy behind swearing and where the words get their power, and moreover, how one can use normally inoffensive words to be thoroughly offensive.
Whether you happen to like it or not, society places certain emphasis on words, and you can't claim that this doesn't matter. Indeed, I'm sure that you wouldn't swear profusely in front of your boss, or tell a police officer to go fuck themselves when they're giving you a ticket, or let loose on a judge in a courtroom. There is context to this propriety, of course, but there's something to be said for extending the courtesy you give to someone that has some power or influence over you to someone that is merely your colleague, or someone new that is relatively powerless.
Anyway, the article is interesting. :)
I swim and cycle competitively and I also have high cholesterol, but the doctors here (Canada) specifically avoided statins because they can cause muscle cramping, which tends to reduce exercise volume. I'm not saying that there are no unscrupulous doctors here that are swayed by pitches from big pharmaceutical companies, but it does seem less likely when the system is actually concerned with your health and not you as an ongoing profit stream.
(The doctors also said the high cholesterol is likely genetic and not to worry about it, despite the history of heart disease in my family. Being an active athlete with a decent diet is already the most they could ask me to do.)
Why do you keep calling it 'slave labour'? It's not. The workers there are definitely paid less than in North America, but by Chinese standards the money is fine. The people that work at Foxconn and other such factories leave the rural farms and head to the big city, work in a company like that for a year or two, and send a lot of the money home (since while they're working, they live in a company provided dormitory). After they're sick of it, they leave and get a different job in the city. China isn't growing by leaps and bounds by the populace earning nothing, these people are earning a real wage.
The conditions in those factories aren't as bad as they're often made out to be; the suicide rate isn't any higher than that of the population at large. I suspect that if you go to a North American meat processing plant or coal mine, you'll find the conditions are just as bad or worse.
I'm not gonna spend a lot of time sticking up for China or multinationals, but at least criticize the right things.
This is largely bullshit. They certainly INVOKED the spectre of national defense, but the steel and aluminum tariffs are being applied on all steel and aluminum, not just stuff used for defense. And the tariffs even apply to countries like Canada, who aren't shipping sub-standard metals. If the goal was to curb dumping of low-grade metals onto the market, it's not doing its job. The number of American companies applying for exemptions from this absurd tax is orders of magnitude higher than what the government was prepared to deal with. In many cases, US companies literally can't get the steel they need from ANY American provider. How is THAT good for anyone, let alone national defense?
But trade deficits aren't inherently bad. It's not like the US is paying China a bunch of money out of its tax coffers. The trade deficit merely represents the money flowing between people and companies located in different countries. Seriously, just google 'understanding trade deficit', and nearly every single article is about how trade deficits aren't a good indicator of economic performance in and of themselves, they're just a metric of trade. And I'm not talking about left-leaning publications, I'm talking about everyone. Forbes, investment news, economists—virtually everyone agrees that a trade deficit in the right circumstances can be very good.
https://www.nationalreview.com...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/d...
Really, the only person that doesn't get that is Trump.
I actually agree with this take, by and large. Maybe some things will need to be written in C or some other low level language—I assume there's actually a fair amount of hand-turned assembly out there as well, honestly. But in the end, not everything needs to be done in C and the problem isn't that the people writing these systems are bad or lazy programmers. We're talking about fairly enormous systems with a great deal of complexity, and it's starting to get away from them at a time where it's more and more important that it doesn't. Security as a concept was considerably more abstract 20 or 30 years ago than it is now.
Certainly the attitude that we absolutely can't find a better tool and we'd best not try isn't helping matters.
The attitude that everything is fine right now and the programmers just need to get good is obnoxious; they're already very, very good. So whether we've run to the end of programmers' ability to write correct code in these enormous systems without introducing (hidden) unsafe errors, or we've come to the end of the line for C as a language that's sufficiently safe for many tasks, the solution is honestly the same, to develop new and better tools that limit the mistakes that can be made. I've been a C/C++ programmer my entire professional life and I love C (C++, not so much), but it's so trivial to write software that is secretly broken, even if you have 2 or 3 other people reviewing it. We need some better tools here.
She can still google for someone to fix her computer, there just wonâ(TM)t be ads for it when she searches for stuff. That should be far less confusing for her.
This is a ridiculous and terrible argument. The rest of the world advances both the tools and the education to make better systems that are more fault tolerant. The infrastructure in this world is built using better tools with what we learned from doing it the old way. You're asking for airplanes to be built only using hammers and screwdrivers instead of power tools and robots. C has it's place in this world. It will always be a great teaching language or for people that like to tinker close to assembly, but it makes no sense to continue using languages that require such overwhelming attention to the wrong details just so you can claim some sort of intellectual superiority or purity. There are thousands of really incredible programmers that have been working on trying to make safe, robust software with C for decades, and it's STILL incredibly hard to do. It's not because they're dumb, it's just that C has stopped being the right tool for the job.
It's 2018 and we still end up tracking down null pointers and weird memory overwrites all the goddamn time. It's time to move on.
As someone else mentions, infant mortality plays a huge part in that average. But that aside, your own logic is flawed: just because people were dying younger doesn't mean they weren't sleeping better. Indeed, it could be that they were sleeping worse than us, but you certainly can't draw any conclusions based on a single, inherently misleading number like average life expectancy.
Another huge problem with that quotation is that modern conservatives are nothing like the conservatives of bygone eras. I guess you could say I'm more conservative in some senses—I like stability and safety. But I feel like stability and safety come from 'liberal' ideas like social safety nets and equal rights and making sure the rich pay their goddamn taxes and don't get too powerful.
I can even find some people who consider themselves 'conservative' that agree with me, but conservative politicians almost never do. Hmm...
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France
It's all well and good to crow about Capitalism until it's failing you utterly, and a big part of it is the way the whole system—the political and legal system in particular—favour the rich. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if bank CEOs were held responsible for their crimes against the system, or if corporations were forced to pay more than a pittance for dumping oil into the soil and waterways, and unreasonable amounts of CO2 into the air. (Indeed, the lack of accounting for environmental externalities is a huge problem with the way we run capitalism right now.)
Capitalism, as it stands, works mostly for the rich and ensures that it will increasingly work ONLY for the rich.
Introducing regressions is, unfortunately, something that happens in software. It's easier than you think, and harder to catch than you'd expect. Sometimes it's the confluence of several things that didn't interact in a way that was expected.
It's very likely that it passed all of Apple's internal tests for performance, but once it went out into the wild and ran into apps that haven't been updated for iOS 12 (which is nearly 100% of them, on a developer device, and literally 100% of non-Apple apps on a public beta device) there were some unexpected issues.
Again, the whole reason why Apple has a public beta is because the number of phone setups in the wild is significantly larger than anything they could reasonably test in-house. This is the process working as intended: a release was made, there were issues when it was installed on developer devices, the updates were pulled down and someone (probably several someones) is trying to get to the bottom of it.
Once projects get this big and complicated, all you can do is your best and then rely on the process to catch your mistakes and let you correct them.
It's a beta. Bugs happen in beta. The whole reason why they have a beta is to find bugs. You should be glad that they were willing to pull a late-stage beta for bugfixing because it means their system works. It found a bug that they presumably couldn't catch with their more limited internal tests. How? I don't know. But it doesn't matter.
I'm running PB5 and most things are good. I'm still filing bugs because software is never perfect, but this is barely news. Let me know when they pull an official release of iOS 12 (or worse, DON'T pull an official release of iOS 12) because a major bug like this is found.
If a developer keeps a subscriber for more than a year, then Apple's cut goes down, and the amount to the developer goes up (to 85%, I believe). This encourages developers to make products worth subscribing to. If your updates are minor, people will go somewhere else. The one thing about app stores is that there's always another app that does what you need.
5 stars is what I expect products to get when I order them. 5 stars means that it does exactly what it says it's going to do, or maybe better. If I order a bathroom scale and it takes my weight correctly and doesn't break right away, it gets 5 stars. The score goes down depending on how much it deviates from it's advertised purpose.
The real reviews to look at are the 1-star reviews, to give you an idea of how often a product catastrophically fails or is DOA. Maybe the 2-star reviews if you want to know what people consider real downsides of the product that might not have been in the listing, or how it might not cover all use cases, particularly if you're tentative about the product really doing the thing you need.
Anything you order should have a majority of 4-5 star reviews, but also virtually NO 1-star reviews. It doesn't matter if the average review score is high, if hundreds of people say it doesn't work when it gets to their door, find something else.
If that's what you believe, all you're doing, practically speaking, is limiting yourself to a 3-star scale. If 4 and 5 are noise and 3 is the best you can be...well, NO product can be so perfect as to get 3 stars! There should be only 1 star reviews, since 2 or 3 would be much too high.
A thinner, lighter iPad is actually easier to hold. I went from an iPad 3 to a 2017 iPad, and it's a lot better. The thing with an iPad over a phone is that it's quite long and wide, making a much greater moment of inertia, so even a light object can cause wrist strain over time.
As long as the battery life stays the same, I've got no problem with this, especially for the iPad Pro. We're looking to buy the 12" one this year, and the lighter it is, the better.
My $25 bluetooth headphones last 8 hours on a charge. When I put my phone down, I stick them into a charger. Why are your headphones running down? Why doesn't your phone run out of battery?
If you've got 3 dongles for headphones, why don't you leave a dongle attached to one set of headphones so you're never without it? If you're also using it in a device with a 3.5mm jack, you can clip the dongle to the headphone wire. (Frankly, Apple should've made a little clip on the dongle so you wouldn't have to use a bit of string or a rubber band for this.)
My listening habits haven't changed at all—if anything, I listen to more things on my phone because I can leave it in the kitchen and wander around my apartment with no pants on and still hear my podcasts.
I think Apple needs to start putting wireless headphones in the box, honestly. They're super cheap to make, apparently, given that I can buy a pair that's lasted 2 years for $25.
I have Time Machine backups. Those go pretty much continuously. I've never had an issue restoring from backup with them yet.
I have a small drive that gets plugged into my machine at home every few weeks. Then I take it with me to work. If there's a fire, I have a backup of stuff that's important that's a few weeks old. Better than nothing.
But I also have Backblaze backup, and that's $95 every two years. It has all my files, all the time. It does a small continuous background backup to the service all the time. It's encrypted well enough for my tastes, and it's cheap.
None of this is to absolve Apple, but if you're the kind of person with a Pro device, honestly, you should be doing the Pro thing and making multiple redundant backups all the time. You should never be faced with losing more than a day or two of data.
That's actually a really good point, and I wish THAT were in the articles covering this, rather than the focus on just the speed.
Wow, rabid Apple-hater much?
I said that *I* didn't need it, and I specifically asked if ANYONE DOES need it, without casting aspersions on someone that might and indeed, made a point of asking what someone who DOES need this sort of feature is actually doing because I would find that interesting. It would be very surprising to me that this would be the sort of thing that someone would actually choose to buy or not buy a phone over, so I specifically asked if someone does do this because that's a useful perspective to me.
I agree that Intel modems are crap. Intel is sort of crap across the board right now. That's not the point.
Anyway, congratulations on adding basically nothing to this conversation. You must be very proud to have typed so many words for nothing.