Well, no. Bees can see that they've already visited a flower; the visitation itself marks the flower so they don't visit it again too soon—just because we can't see those traces doesn't mean they can't. Besides, flowers don't get 'empty' quite like that.
Understanding none is an interesting thing; it wasn't part of our system of mathematics for a long time (though it's incredibly likely people understood 'none' before it was codified into our written math) and so that makes it interesting to us.
I think it's likely more animals understand zero than we give credit for—as a species, we're notoriously self-aggrandizing and unwilling to believe that we're not terribly special, all things considered—but zero isn't necessary for the behaviour you mentioned.
The story fails to mention that Steve Jobs' announcement was also the first time any of the programming team at Apple had heard it.
Since then, maybe they could have engineered a new solution that could be open, but Jobs basically made that point up on the spot and following through on that at the time really wasn't feasible. After the initial announcement window had passed, it'd be hard to believe that it would be worth their time.
They work by cracking the passcode, basically. Supposedly, they found a way to repeatedly test the passcode without triggering the cooldowns, or something similar. Once the phone is unlocked, obviously, all the data is available to whoever wants it.
Sean is definitely the most authoritative commentator. I'm glad he gave/. his opinion, or I wouldn't really know what to think, but now that Sean says this is probably a bad idea, I know that it is.
Literally 100% of the things you named have been done by competitor companies. There are various complains about Microsoft's operating system, or Android. Or are you claiming those OSes have no bugs and no issues? Samsung released a phone that literally burst into flames. While the iPhone 6 was potentially prone to bending, HTC's M8 bent at a similar force, according to Consumer Reports. And to be fair to both Samsung AND Apple, both those companies went back and fixed those issues with their devices. I no more expect a new iPhone to bend as I do a Samsung to catch on fire.
If you want to talk dirty tricks, Samsung is at the top of the heap—it's a well known part of their MO, even in Korea. LG has taken Samsung to court tonnes of times for copying product design. Samsung will copy a product, then just drag out the inevitable court cases until it's no longer relevant, and any penalties they endure are less than the value that they gained by copying. You think Google or Microsoft pay more taxes than Apple does? They've all got teams of well paid accountants telling them how to avoid taxation.
There are plenty of reasons not to like Apple's products, on a product-by-product basis. Siri's a mess, the keyboard on the new laptops is criminally prone to failure AND expensive to replace, and the Mac Pro and Mac Mini are embarrassing in their lack of updates. But every company has duds in their lineup, and Apple is no worse than anyone else.
Maybe you should think about why you're so mad that Apple's products provide value to so many people. If you don't like them, move on.
Look, the government already licenses you the carâ"that's why it's called a license plate. They know where you live, and I doubt it would be illegal for them (or a private citizen) to follow you around in a car with a normal license plate if they really wanted to.
It's not that you donâ(TM)t have a right to privacy, it's that driving my around is already a thing you do in public with the government's permission. As a matter of public safety while you exercise your driving privileges, they're going to check up on you. They already do. If it's not a price you're willing to pay, take cabs or buses or ride a bike. Owning a car comes with responsibilities and burdens.
I love cats. I have 3, Iâ(TM)ve paid thousands of dollars to keep them healthy and happy, I took time off to take one of my older cats to a veterinary oncologist when she had cancer. Iâ(TM)m 100% a cat person.
But I keep my cats inside my apartment. Theyâ(TM)re efficient murderers and itâ(TM)s wholly irresponsible to let your cats roam, both for their health and the health of the wildlife and environment.
The roaming cats should be trapped. If they belong to someone, huge punitive fines should be levied. The feeding stations should be removed. All the trapped cats should be spayed or neutered.
Why does nobody there seem to have any conscience or regard for the rest of the world?
I don't know that I could say that the driver of this vehicle is responsible. They were effectively put in an impossible position by their employer: do an attention occupying task AND watch the road at the same time. Uber is negligent for even allowing such conditions to exist. As so many have pointed out, there used to be 2 people in the car so one could ALWAYS be watching the road.
I can't think of any other driving/piloting situation where someone who is supposed to be paying attention is also supposed to be actively doing something else simultaneously. The circumstances made this event INEVITABLE, and that's on Uber.
You and I are 100% in agreement on legality not being equal to morality, and vice versa. But the question of conjoined twins is not the same as the question of a woman and her right to an abortion as a medical procedure. I think we can lean heavily on the bodily autonomy argument, and leave the rest up to a woman and her doctor. Again, demanding that a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term gives that woman less autonomy than any non-pregnant person, and it gives more rights to a fetus than any born person—even a newly born baby would have less right to demand the organs and living body of another person than a 2nd trimester fetus, in that case. It makes no sense.
Conjoined twins, well, that's two people that entered the world sharing the same body, and so bodily autonomy now goes out the window because there was never a time where there was any actual autonomy for any one individual. It's a sad and interesting philosophical problem.
The whole argument comes down to a discussion about bodily autonomy. A woman has a right to her body—all people do. You can't harvest organs from a corpse to save the lives of 10 people if a person hasn't authorised you to do it before their death, and so forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term is effectively bestowing more rights onto a dead person than a living woman, and endowing the fetus with *more* rights than any living person.
Beyond that, though, there's a misconception that abortion is taken lightly by women at doctors. Virtually nobody gets a 3rd trimester abortion that doesn't medically require it because the fetus has either died, will die, or will kill the mother. Here in Canada we literally have no laws at all governing abortion; it's just a medical decision that's made. We do not have meaningfully different abortion statistics.
Outlawing abortion doesn't make it any less prevalent, it just makes it more dangerous. Teach better sex ed, encourage children to understand sex, consent and contraception, and unintended pregnancy rates will drop, and with them, abortion rates. Unfortunately, it seems that most people (or at the very least, most lawmakers) that are anti-choice are also anti-sex-education, which ends up being a vicious cycle.
Isn't the point of FOSS that it doesn't really belong to anyone? It's a matter for the community, and not just one guy.
Look, I don't really have a problem with the so-called joke, if it can so be called. It's weak at best, but in its own way, it's a pro-choice joke. Fine. But does it *add* anything to the documentation? There's so much bad documentation out there right now in FOSS projects, and this is what they're fighting over? I run into obtusely documented functions in emacs/elisp all day every day, and it's 100% not getting better, but somehow there's time to worry about whether a bad joke deserves to be included so everyone can roll their eyes at it?
I'd just as soon see it removed—if it doesn't help people figure out how to use the software, it's just one more thing I have to sigh at and scroll past as I look for something useful.
Google has workedâ"unsuccessfullyâ"for years to make a decent chat app and had to shelve it, but your phone can make appointements for you and might actually confuse people into thinking it's a real person?
This is a fair, but subjective opinion. There are lots of people that love the feel of the keyboard; that say that going back to the old one is difficult. You dont have to love the new one, but honestly, this isn't the actual issue. The fact that a speck of dust renders it inoperable and replacing it involves replacing the entire top case is the issue.
There will always be a tension in the appreciation of the aesthetics of Apple hardware, including how the keyboards feel, but it's an objective truth that the keyboards fail at a higher rate (perhaps as high as twice as much) and cost an incredible amount to replace.
Under-representation is a problem because there are people that currently feel excluded from OSS, and they feel excluded partly because of the bad behaviour of some people in the OSS community, and also because after years of not being encouraged to be around, some people have decided that it would be nice to throw some encouragement to those under-represented groups. This isn't a matter of displacing people that are already here, or even stopping encouragement of white, straight, cis men, it's merely extending the circle of encouragement.
Indeed, YOU'RE the one drawing false causality here. Encouraging a woman to join an open source project DOES NOT implicitly discourage men from being there or encourage discrimination against men. Discrimination against women is a long-standing, structural issue in our society. Everyone does it, including women. Fighting against discrimination against women—i.e., feminism—is only encouraging discrimination against men if you're the most fragile of men, unable to distinguish between lifting someone up to achieve equality versus seeing the erosion of your own privilege as discrimination.
I'm a tall, athletic, white male with a university degree and all my hair. There is literally no axis upon which I'm discriminated against. I have no problem doing outreach programs where we encourage more women to enroll in computing science, or attract women to work in the games industry. I've done both those things personally during my life, and I hope to do more of it in the future. I'm not putting any men out of work, I assure you. I've had 2 female programmer colleagues in 16 years in the games industry.
Encouragement is not the same as discrimination, even if your encouragement is targeted. If you're afraid for your future (or the future of white men in general), that's on you. Try to figure out why you think me asking a woman to consider a career in this industry is such a threat.
Okay, I'll concede that you probably neither know nor care about the gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or ethnicity of any of the OSS projects that you participate in.
But I'll make a wild prediction: most of the people participating are cis-male, white and straight, and a majority of that number are all three at once.
See, the problem is less that you don't know, but that I can make such a bold claim without knowing exactly how each project is made up, and almost certainly be right. (I do, of course, accept the possibility that I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.)
Encouraging people that are outside the current OSS community can't hurt anything. These are people that are underrepresented, and I bet there are a lot of people out there that are never encouraged to go into it, or are actively discouraged from being there. I know two women that work at Google that consistently face men talking down to them, despite them both being experts in their field. One of them has a male assistant who is constantly telling people that come over to talk that he's just the hired help, and my friend with the PhD is actually the person that the visitor needs to talk to. Many men don't know what to do with that, and continue to try to talk to the assistant, hoping against all hope that maybe it'll just work out if they pretend a woman isn't in charge.
A couple simple anecdotes, consistently backed up by every woman I know in tech. Trans and queer people have their own struggles with being hired at all.
To object to this program is really the height of eye-rolling fragility. This organization just wants to make the pie bigger, not take anyone's slice of pie away, and this guy can't deal with that. Good riddance. The 'one great person' fallacy needs to die—his contributions will be missed, I'm sure, but someone will take his place. Even Lattner himself wasn't irreplaceable.
Apple didn't copy the notch. There wasn't enough time to copy the notch, given the stuff Apple was ordering. The orders for those screens go out well in advance, which is also why any rumors you heard of Apple making this decision at the last moment because they couldn't get fingerprint sensing under the screen to work are also wrong.
Essential did beat Apple to market with a notch first. It was a compromise they wanted to make, and Andy Rubin is no dummy; I'm sure he came to the same conclusion that the design team at Apple did: you can add screen real estate by extending the screen up and around the blocking element, rather than having an unused bezel at the top. I'm sure neither he nor Apple have any intention of keeping the notch any longer than they need to. As soon as the tech exists to embed cameras and dot projectors under a screen, the notch will disappear. But Apple didn't copy this.
They've finally stopped wildly over- and under-predicting Apple's performance. They used to make estimates that were out-and-out ridiculous, 10-30% higher than Apple's own guidance. Some analysts have been lowballing Apple for a while now, for who-knows-what reason. This time they actually paid some attention, it seems, despite the weird doom-and-gloom stories about the iPhone X this year.
The 'fingerprint through the screen' rumor was probably never true.
Tech like FaceID is planned a long way in advance; if Apple were ever going to use fingerprint sensing through the screen, it would've been as a stopgap TO FaceID, not as a superior technology to FaceID. Apple's position is that FaceID is better, and for them, it's the future. You can quibble over that if you like, but the interviews and intentions seem clear to me: as soon as FaceID was ready to ship, they wanted to use it.
No doubt that Apple's ultimate goal is to get rid of the notch. There's very little defense of it as anything other than a necessary compromise at the moment. When they can ditch it, you know they will. But I think Jobs would've taken this particular thing in stride. He probably would've played up the notch more, calling it magical and amazing and whatever else...until they were able to get rid of it, and then suddenly reversing course and saying that a hidden camera unit is what they were intending all along. Apple's history is full of times where Jobs talked up something only to abandon it—publicly, on stage—as if he'd never thought it was a good idea.
Coal and fossil fuel deposits of many types are from a time when there were no bacteria to break down cellulose. Ancient trees died and fell and were buried without ever rotting. Things are not the same now as when that "coal" was created.
This keyboard is like the Titanic. It was never supposed to be susceptible to dust at all because of its design...but once the dust ignores the intentions of the designer, it utterly destroys the keyboard.:P
That's a super subjective call. There are plenty of people that love the keyboard EXCEPT for the part where it's so badly engineered that a single piece of dust renders it useless, and when Apple replaces it, they have to replace the whole top half of the laptop.
I have a theory that this was tested under clean-room conditions at all times, and even employees that got to take it home were probably treating it with kid gloves. Apple should say sorry, offer trade-ins or replacements and move forward. It sounds like it's costing THEM a fortune in replacements, honestly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. Bees can see that they've already visited a flower; the visitation itself marks the flower so they don't visit it again too soon—just because we can't see those traces doesn't mean they can't. Besides, flowers don't get 'empty' quite like that.
Understanding none is an interesting thing; it wasn't part of our system of mathematics for a long time (though it's incredibly likely people understood 'none' before it was codified into our written math) and so that makes it interesting to us.
I think it's likely more animals understand zero than we give credit for—as a species, we're notoriously self-aggrandizing and unwilling to believe that we're not terribly special, all things considered—but zero isn't necessary for the behaviour you mentioned.
The story fails to mention that Steve Jobs' announcement was also the first time any of the programming team at Apple had heard it.
Since then, maybe they could have engineered a new solution that could be open, but Jobs basically made that point up on the spot and following through on that at the time really wasn't feasible. After the initial announcement window had passed, it'd be hard to believe that it would be worth their time.
They work by cracking the passcode, basically. Supposedly, they found a way to repeatedly test the passcode without triggering the cooldowns, or something similar. Once the phone is unlocked, obviously, all the data is available to whoever wants it.
No. Maybe slashdot should stop being literally the only site on the internet that can't handle it.
Sean is definitely the most authoritative commentator. I'm glad he gave /. his opinion, or I wouldn't really know what to think, but now that Sean says this is probably a bad idea, I know that it is.
Literally 100% of the things you named have been done by competitor companies. There are various complains about Microsoft's operating system, or Android. Or are you claiming those OSes have no bugs and no issues? Samsung released a phone that literally burst into flames. While the iPhone 6 was potentially prone to bending, HTC's M8 bent at a similar force, according to Consumer Reports. And to be fair to both Samsung AND Apple, both those companies went back and fixed those issues with their devices. I no more expect a new iPhone to bend as I do a Samsung to catch on fire.
If you want to talk dirty tricks, Samsung is at the top of the heap—it's a well known part of their MO, even in Korea. LG has taken Samsung to court tonnes of times for copying product design. Samsung will copy a product, then just drag out the inevitable court cases until it's no longer relevant, and any penalties they endure are less than the value that they gained by copying. You think Google or Microsoft pay more taxes than Apple does? They've all got teams of well paid accountants telling them how to avoid taxation.
There are plenty of reasons not to like Apple's products, on a product-by-product basis. Siri's a mess, the keyboard on the new laptops is criminally prone to failure AND expensive to replace, and the Mac Pro and Mac Mini are embarrassing in their lack of updates. But every company has duds in their lineup, and Apple is no worse than anyone else.
Maybe you should think about why you're so mad that Apple's products provide value to so many people. If you don't like them, move on.
Look, the government already licenses you the carâ"that's why it's called a license plate. They know where you live, and I doubt it would be illegal for them (or a private citizen) to follow you around in a car with a normal license plate if they really wanted to.
It's not that you donâ(TM)t have a right to privacy, it's that driving my around is already a thing you do in public with the government's permission. As a matter of public safety while you exercise your driving privileges, they're going to check up on you. They already do. If it's not a price you're willing to pay, take cabs or buses or ride a bike. Owning a car comes with responsibilities and burdens.
I love cats. I have 3, Iâ(TM)ve paid thousands of dollars to keep them healthy and happy, I took time off to take one of my older cats to a veterinary oncologist when she had cancer. Iâ(TM)m 100% a cat person.
But I keep my cats inside my apartment. Theyâ(TM)re efficient murderers and itâ(TM)s wholly irresponsible to let your cats roam, both for their health and the health of the wildlife and environment.
The roaming cats should be trapped. If they belong to someone, huge punitive fines should be levied. The feeding stations should be removed. All the trapped cats should be spayed or neutered.
Why does nobody there seem to have any conscience or regard for the rest of the world?
I don't know that I could say that the driver of this vehicle is responsible. They were effectively put in an impossible position by their employer: do an attention occupying task AND watch the road at the same time. Uber is negligent for even allowing such conditions to exist. As so many have pointed out, there used to be 2 people in the car so one could ALWAYS be watching the road.
I can't think of any other driving/piloting situation where someone who is supposed to be paying attention is also supposed to be actively doing something else simultaneously. The circumstances made this event INEVITABLE, and that's on Uber.
You and I are 100% in agreement on legality not being equal to morality, and vice versa. But the question of conjoined twins is not the same as the question of a woman and her right to an abortion as a medical procedure. I think we can lean heavily on the bodily autonomy argument, and leave the rest up to a woman and her doctor. Again, demanding that a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term gives that woman less autonomy than any non-pregnant person, and it gives more rights to a fetus than any born person—even a newly born baby would have less right to demand the organs and living body of another person than a 2nd trimester fetus, in that case. It makes no sense.
Conjoined twins, well, that's two people that entered the world sharing the same body, and so bodily autonomy now goes out the window because there was never a time where there was any actual autonomy for any one individual. It's a sad and interesting philosophical problem.
The whole argument comes down to a discussion about bodily autonomy. A woman has a right to her body—all people do. You can't harvest organs from a corpse to save the lives of 10 people if a person hasn't authorised you to do it before their death, and so forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term is effectively bestowing more rights onto a dead person than a living woman, and endowing the fetus with *more* rights than any living person.
Beyond that, though, there's a misconception that abortion is taken lightly by women at doctors. Virtually nobody gets a 3rd trimester abortion that doesn't medically require it because the fetus has either died, will die, or will kill the mother. Here in Canada we literally have no laws at all governing abortion; it's just a medical decision that's made. We do not have meaningfully different abortion statistics.
Outlawing abortion doesn't make it any less prevalent, it just makes it more dangerous. Teach better sex ed, encourage children to understand sex, consent and contraception, and unintended pregnancy rates will drop, and with them, abortion rates. Unfortunately, it seems that most people (or at the very least, most lawmakers) that are anti-choice are also anti-sex-education, which ends up being a vicious cycle.
Isn't the point of FOSS that it doesn't really belong to anyone? It's a matter for the community, and not just one guy.
Look, I don't really have a problem with the so-called joke, if it can so be called. It's weak at best, but in its own way, it's a pro-choice joke. Fine. But does it *add* anything to the documentation? There's so much bad documentation out there right now in FOSS projects, and this is what they're fighting over? I run into obtusely documented functions in emacs/elisp all day every day, and it's 100% not getting better, but somehow there's time to worry about whether a bad joke deserves to be included so everyone can roll their eyes at it?
I'd just as soon see it removed—if it doesn't help people figure out how to use the software, it's just one more thing I have to sigh at and scroll past as I look for something useful.
I would, if white males were an underrepresented group.
But they're not. They rarely are. I would fully support groups that paved the way for more male schoolteachers or nurses—female dominated work.
Who's over-represented in code? White men. So who needs encouragement? EVERYONE ELSE.
Google has workedâ"unsuccessfullyâ"for years to make a decent chat app and had to shelve it, but your phone can make appointements for you and might actually confuse people into thinking it's a real person?
This is a fair, but subjective opinion. There are lots of people that love the feel of the keyboard; that say that going back to the old one is difficult. You dont have to love the new one, but honestly, this isn't the actual issue. The fact that a speck of dust renders it inoperable and replacing it involves replacing the entire top case is the issue.
There will always be a tension in the appreciation of the aesthetics of Apple hardware, including how the keyboards feel, but it's an objective truth that the keyboards fail at a higher rate (perhaps as high as twice as much) and cost an incredible amount to replace.
You're looking at this wrong.
Under-representation is a problem because there are people that currently feel excluded from OSS, and they feel excluded partly because of the bad behaviour of some people in the OSS community, and also because after years of not being encouraged to be around, some people have decided that it would be nice to throw some encouragement to those under-represented groups. This isn't a matter of displacing people that are already here, or even stopping encouragement of white, straight, cis men, it's merely extending the circle of encouragement.
Indeed, YOU'RE the one drawing false causality here. Encouraging a woman to join an open source project DOES NOT implicitly discourage men from being there or encourage discrimination against men. Discrimination against women is a long-standing, structural issue in our society. Everyone does it, including women. Fighting against discrimination against women—i.e., feminism—is only encouraging discrimination against men if you're the most fragile of men, unable to distinguish between lifting someone up to achieve equality versus seeing the erosion of your own privilege as discrimination.
I'm a tall, athletic, white male with a university degree and all my hair. There is literally no axis upon which I'm discriminated against. I have no problem doing outreach programs where we encourage more women to enroll in computing science, or attract women to work in the games industry. I've done both those things personally during my life, and I hope to do more of it in the future. I'm not putting any men out of work, I assure you. I've had 2 female programmer colleagues in 16 years in the games industry.
Encouragement is not the same as discrimination, even if your encouragement is targeted. If you're afraid for your future (or the future of white men in general), that's on you. Try to figure out why you think me asking a woman to consider a career in this industry is such a threat.
Okay, I'll concede that you probably neither know nor care about the gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or ethnicity of any of the OSS projects that you participate in.
But I'll make a wild prediction: most of the people participating are cis-male, white and straight, and a majority of that number are all three at once.
See, the problem is less that you don't know, but that I can make such a bold claim without knowing exactly how each project is made up, and almost certainly be right. (I do, of course, accept the possibility that I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.)
Encouraging people that are outside the current OSS community can't hurt anything. These are people that are underrepresented, and I bet there are a lot of people out there that are never encouraged to go into it, or are actively discouraged from being there. I know two women that work at Google that consistently face men talking down to them, despite them both being experts in their field. One of them has a male assistant who is constantly telling people that come over to talk that he's just the hired help, and my friend with the PhD is actually the person that the visitor needs to talk to. Many men don't know what to do with that, and continue to try to talk to the assistant, hoping against all hope that maybe it'll just work out if they pretend a woman isn't in charge.
A couple simple anecdotes, consistently backed up by every woman I know in tech. Trans and queer people have their own struggles with being hired at all.
To object to this program is really the height of eye-rolling fragility. This organization just wants to make the pie bigger, not take anyone's slice of pie away, and this guy can't deal with that. Good riddance. The 'one great person' fallacy needs to die—his contributions will be missed, I'm sure, but someone will take his place. Even Lattner himself wasn't irreplaceable.
Apple didn't copy the notch. There wasn't enough time to copy the notch, given the stuff Apple was ordering. The orders for those screens go out well in advance, which is also why any rumors you heard of Apple making this decision at the last moment because they couldn't get fingerprint sensing under the screen to work are also wrong.
Essential did beat Apple to market with a notch first. It was a compromise they wanted to make, and Andy Rubin is no dummy; I'm sure he came to the same conclusion that the design team at Apple did: you can add screen real estate by extending the screen up and around the blocking element, rather than having an unused bezel at the top. I'm sure neither he nor Apple have any intention of keeping the notch any longer than they need to. As soon as the tech exists to embed cameras and dot projectors under a screen, the notch will disappear. But Apple didn't copy this.
They've finally stopped wildly over- and under-predicting Apple's performance. They used to make estimates that were out-and-out ridiculous, 10-30% higher than Apple's own guidance. Some analysts have been lowballing Apple for a while now, for who-knows-what reason. This time they actually paid some attention, it seems, despite the weird doom-and-gloom stories about the iPhone X this year.
The 'fingerprint through the screen' rumor was probably never true.
Tech like FaceID is planned a long way in advance; if Apple were ever going to use fingerprint sensing through the screen, it would've been as a stopgap TO FaceID, not as a superior technology to FaceID. Apple's position is that FaceID is better, and for them, it's the future. You can quibble over that if you like, but the interviews and intentions seem clear to me: as soon as FaceID was ready to ship, they wanted to use it.
No doubt that Apple's ultimate goal is to get rid of the notch. There's very little defense of it as anything other than a necessary compromise at the moment. When they can ditch it, you know they will. But I think Jobs would've taken this particular thing in stride. He probably would've played up the notch more, calling it magical and amazing and whatever else...until they were able to get rid of it, and then suddenly reversing course and saying that a hidden camera unit is what they were intending all along. Apple's history is full of times where Jobs talked up something only to abandon it—publicly, on stage—as if he'd never thought it was a good idea.
Coal and fossil fuel deposits of many types are from a time when there were no bacteria to break down cellulose. Ancient trees died and fell and were buried without ever rotting. Things are not the same now as when that "coal" was created.
Sigh, no. The brown M&M clause was to make sure that the contract was read AT ALL.
If they didn't read it closely enough to figure out the M&M thing, they probably skimmed the important bits.
This keyboard is like the Titanic. It was never supposed to be susceptible to dust at all because of its design...but once the dust ignores the intentions of the designer, it utterly destroys the keyboard. :P
That's a super subjective call. There are plenty of people that love the keyboard EXCEPT for the part where it's so badly engineered that a single piece of dust renders it useless, and when Apple replaces it, they have to replace the whole top half of the laptop.
I have a theory that this was tested under clean-room conditions at all times, and even employees that got to take it home were probably treating it with kid gloves. Apple should say sorry, offer trade-ins or replacements and move forward. It sounds like it's costing THEM a fortune in replacements, honestly.
Why? Just don't use the autopilot if you're worried about it not being safe. Nobody's forcing you to turn it on.