Apple already demonstrated if you close your eyes or look away from it, it won't unlock. Moreover, there is an "emergency lock" where you hit the side button three times and it requires the passcode. These are all solved problems that Apple obviously already considered. Why even bother to comment if you don't have the slightest clue how FaceID works?
I still think it sounds like someone could just hold the phone up in front of you, unexpectedly, perhaps with a shield over the phone so you don't even know your phone is checking your id so you don't close your eyes etc, and unlock itself for your captors.
The people you're referring to who seem to never understand or use Agile correctly, don't demonstrate a problem with Agile, they simply show how little they understand Agile and in many ways development/programming in general.
But these are not stupid people. What is it about Agile that makes it so hard for these, intelligent people, to implement correctly? Perhaps theres a promulgation and promotional problem in Agile that isn't getting its message across effectively?
Yet, whenever Agile is used, that I've seen, it results in people doing loads of work and then discovering they've wasted lots of time because they didn't understand the problem. Of course that has nothing to do with Agile. It is Agile done wrong. Actually a prime example. In agile development you never start developing until the (sub) problem/fearure is completely understood! This is called "the definition of ready". A feature is not ready to be worked on if it is not understood properly. And this is actually true for every software development method, but in waterfall much easier to do wrong than in agile methods.
Go read a book about it and stop bashing stuff you clearly have no idea about.
By my understanding of what you've written literally no one I have worked with who has championed Agile had any idea what Agile is about. Sad.
No, it really isn't. The universe is math. Nature is math. You may not think it is because we've adapted and evolved to intuit a lot of it, but almost every problem is mathematical at its core.
This kind of thinking is why getting requirements out of human beings is hard.
Half the time it is the end customer doing Fire, Aim, Ready. Rinse and repeat for Continuous Bugs (see current tagline, your mileage may vary in 2022)
I dunno. Most of the time, what I've seen, is programmers and project managers just not bothering to get things clear with the customer because that takes too long and they seem to think it's better to get those (expensive) programmers working ASAP.
They don't like having meetings, they don't like getting people around a table to hammer out the issues and make sure the task is clear, because on the one hand they don't really like socialising (and meetings are social activities) and, on the other hand, they feel like time spent away from the keyboard is wasted time.
But that's not really true. I've written code for problems that I intimately understand. Anyone that's written code for coders has. The real problem is that most problems are really hard to fully specify. As soon as you start to code it, you begin to realize how hard. But, the problem isn't expressing it in code - the same problem will exist no matter what representation you try to give it.
The hard part is expressing the problem in a way that can be translated into code. I don't believe that the really important tasks can easily be translated into code. Code is logic. But the world doesn't work logically, people aren't logical. Logic is either incomplete (there are truths that can't be proven) or its inconsistent (there are falsehoods that can be proven to be true).
Problems of the real world, ie problems that can't be reduced to theorem proving, are really not very amenable to coding.
Agile is all about documentation and consideration before work gets started. People generally misunderstand Agile development, because they think it's all about getting work done fast and sloppy when it's about understanding everything about the work and not wasting time on implementation, thanks to the documentation.
I keep hearing this, that Agile is ok its just people don't practice Agile properly. I hear it ALL the time. Yet, whenever Agile is used, that I've seen, it results in people doing loads of work and then discovering they've wasted lots of time because they didn't understand the problem. I can't believe this isn't because of Agile; if people are so consistently misunderstanding and misinterpreting Agile doesn't that say something about Agile itself?
When the problem being solved is mathematical in nature, you're going to need to know some math, or else you're not going to be able to solve it, be it on a piece of paper or in code.
Solving mathematical problems is very very far, mentally, from solving other most kinds of problems.
Before a single line of code hits the IDE, you plan out what you're trying to solve, the problems you have to deal with, and how the logic will have to act. Coding happens after the "hard" work has been done, once you have a good idea of what has to be done and how to do it.
If anyone thinks that a true software engineer just sits down, starts slamming on some keys and then says "Oh well, I wrote code, let's see how the throttle handles it", then they don't understand software development or software engineering.
No, it's not "thinking about code" that's hard. THINKING is hard. And most people are incapable or unwilling to do much of it.
Two days ago I was at a McDonald's that had newly installed touch screen kiosks for ordering. I saw people give up and wanting to leave without ordering anything because selecting their food and confirming their order was too difficult for them. They complained to the cashiers, who then had to help them enter their order. If people are too lazy to learn how to order a burger, how does anyone expect them to learn coding?
No, that's the whole point; coding is nothing like actual thinking.
Coding is more like doing math than it is like thinking.
The problem is that software engineers don't understand the problem they're trying to solve, and don't care to,
Then those software engineers are idiots. Standard for my projects and my teams is, when starting a project, before ever writing a line of code, we try to understand exactly what it is we're trying to accomplish. Work with customers to get requirements, prod the customers to figure out the details they didn't think about and figuring out the best compromises when we have conflicting requirements. Only after we've got a pretty good idea what we're trying to do will we actually start coding.
I'm guessing that you aren't using agile then? Because it sounds like you are actually doing 'Ready, aim, fire' instead of 'ready, fire, aim'.
If you think "code is hard", then maybe SlashDot isn't the right site for you.
Its not about 'code being hard', its about 'code obscures the problem and shifts the focus away from solving the underlying problem and onto solving the coding problem.'
Roddenberry's son is a corporate tool without much understanding of what his dad envisioned or discussed with Star Trek. I don't remember the specifics but there are a number of quotes from him that should clear up just how un-Treklike he is. I'm not sure if this was due to his dad not spending enough time with him as a kid, just his own personal view of the world, his mother's influence (go look at all the stuff Majel Barrett-Roddenberry got marketed of his after he died... Earth: Final Conflict, Andromeda, others.)
Regardless to say, Trek started dying of cancer alongside Roddenberry back in the 90s, and the cancer has finally consumed it today.
At least Andromeda had 'Nietzscheans', though I don't think Majel really understood the implications.
"Nietzsche is about as far from SJW as you can get." Well most people interested in their purported virtue in racism haven't read Nietzsche very carefully either.
I TL;DR it by just listening to the tone poem...
After Gene died things changed completely for Trek. The only good thing I can say about modern Trek is, at least it isn't owned by Disney. Yet.
For fucks sake, are all alt-right racist bigots as clueless as you ? Don't you even get what principles the Star Trek universe was built on back in the sixties ?
Star Trek is the ultimate SJW's wet dream. Gene Rodenberry was a SJW. What ? A black woman as a bridge OFFICER ?!?! An alien as the first officer ? Women admirals who outranked men ? Extraterrestrials of all origins as equal partners in a galactic federation of planets ? A world without war, discrimination, poverty and *GASP* money ?
This liberal SJW crap, as you call it, is not what ruined the original Star Trek, it's what made it one of the best, most influencial tv show in human history.
I'm old enough to remember when Star Trek was recieving the same kind of critics you're making by equally stupid cavemen back in the sixties. I was hoping your lot would be extinct by now.
Gene was exploring Nietzschean concepts all the way through Star Trek. Nietzsche is about as far from SJW as you can get.
It's cute that you need a language altogether. When you're ready to be a real programmer, you can learn how to write all your own op-codes in assembler, like a grown-up developer.
It is funny how code written in your "inherently more secure" languages gets exploited at the same or higher rates these days. What actually happens when languages get "safer" is that coder competence drops and bugs just move to a higher level, without being any less destructive.
Citation needed.
If you cannot see that happening over the last few decades, then you seem to be blind to what is going on.
I fully agree. Bugs are just getting more destructive and harder to find the less permissive a language is. Also, if you cannot make type-errors, then any random person can write type-error free code. Type-errors simply cease to become a quality-metric in that case. That does not mean that the code is better in any way though.
In other words, programmers will just innovate and find new ways to make mistakes.
Some of us actually work in the real world, where Windows is the Gold Standard and is usually a requirement for certain business software packages. Not everyone is sitting home playing Tux Racer and writing GCC code.
If you weren't too busy worrying about which 20-yr old deprecated Windows protocol you still have to support because it's "the Gold Standard" will bite your ass off, you'd have plenty of time to go fuck yourself.
There's a fuckton of hardware out there that offers windows fileshare functionality. And requires SMB 1, which is horribly insecure and deprecated and should be disabled. And most of that hardware is running some kind of Linux.
The Shield's Plex Server chokes on transcoding two 1080p streams for non-local clients. I've tested 10x3Mbps streams against the Xeon E5 rig I normally use for Plex and it's held up. I don't think a workload of 3 streams is too much to ask and I'm not going to re-encode all my videos to inferior formats just to keep my media server from using cycles that it should have available.
Oh ok, thats not a scenario I ever hit, I just use it with the local client.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple already demonstrated if you close your eyes or look away from it, it won't unlock. Moreover, there is an "emergency lock" where you hit the side button three times and it requires the passcode. These are all solved problems that Apple obviously already considered. Why even bother to comment if you don't have the slightest clue how FaceID works?
I still think it sounds like someone could just hold the phone up in front of you, unexpectedly, perhaps with a shield over the phone so you don't even know your phone is checking your id so you don't close your eyes etc, and unlock itself for your captors.
How much did the FBI pay for this feature?
Yeah, I was wondering; can you distort your face enough so that if someone holds your iphone up in front of you, it won't just unlock for them?
Obviously a Libertarian, motorcycle gang member, or ham radio operator.
Going to the USA for anything is dumb but for this, with his background? Very very stupid.
Even totally innocent people (are there any?) should think twice about entering the USA.
The people you're referring to who seem to never understand or use Agile correctly, don't demonstrate a problem with Agile, they simply show how little they understand Agile and in many ways development/programming in general.
But these are not stupid people. What is it about Agile that makes it so hard for these, intelligent people, to implement correctly? Perhaps theres a promulgation and promotional problem in Agile that isn't getting its message across effectively?
Yet, whenever Agile is used, that I've seen, it results in people doing loads of work and then discovering they've wasted lots of time because they didn't understand the problem.
Of course that has nothing to do with Agile. It is Agile done wrong. Actually a prime example.
In agile development you never start developing until the (sub) problem/fearure is completely understood! This is called "the definition of ready". A feature is not ready to be worked on if it is not understood properly. And this is actually true for every software development method, but in waterfall much easier to do wrong than in agile methods.
Go read a book about it and stop bashing stuff you clearly have no idea about.
By my understanding of what you've written literally no one I have worked with who has championed Agile had any idea what Agile is about. Sad.
No, it really isn't. The universe is math. Nature is math. You may not think it is because we've adapted and evolved to intuit a lot of it, but almost every problem is mathematical at its core.
This kind of thinking is why getting requirements out of human beings is hard.
Half the time it is the end customer doing Fire, Aim, Ready. Rinse and repeat for Continuous Bugs (see current tagline, your mileage may vary in 2022)
I dunno. Most of the time, what I've seen, is programmers and project managers just not bothering to get things clear with the customer because that takes too long and they seem to think it's better to get those (expensive) programmers working ASAP.
They don't like having meetings, they don't like getting people around a table to hammer out the issues and make sure the task is clear, because on the one hand they don't really like socialising (and meetings are social activities) and, on the other hand, they feel like time spent away from the keyboard is wasted time.
But that's not really true. I've written code for problems that I intimately understand. Anyone that's written code for coders has. The real problem is that most problems are really hard to fully specify. As soon as you start to code it, you begin to realize how hard. But, the problem isn't expressing it in code - the same problem will exist no matter what representation you try to give it.
The hard part is expressing the problem in a way that can be translated into code. I don't believe that the really important tasks can easily be translated into code. Code is logic. But the world doesn't work logically, people aren't logical. Logic is either incomplete (there are truths that can't be proven) or its inconsistent (there are falsehoods that can be proven to be true).
Problems of the real world, ie problems that can't be reduced to theorem proving, are really not very amenable to coding.
Agile is all about documentation and consideration before work gets started. People generally misunderstand Agile development, because they think it's all about getting work done fast and sloppy when it's about understanding everything about the work and not wasting time on implementation, thanks to the documentation.
I keep hearing this, that Agile is ok its just people don't practice Agile properly. I hear it ALL the time. Yet, whenever Agile is used, that I've seen, it results in people doing loads of work and then discovering they've wasted lots of time because they didn't understand the problem. I can't believe this isn't because of Agile; if people are so consistently misunderstanding and misinterpreting Agile doesn't that say something about Agile itself?
And how do you do math? By doing push ups?
When the problem being solved is mathematical in nature, you're going to need to know some math, or else you're not going to be able to solve it, be it on a piece of paper or in code.
Solving mathematical problems is very very far, mentally, from solving other most kinds of problems.
Before a single line of code hits the IDE, you plan out what you're trying to solve, the problems you have to deal with, and how the logic will have to act. Coding happens after the "hard" work has been done, once you have a good idea of what has to be done and how to do it.
If anyone thinks that a true software engineer just sits down, starts slamming on some keys and then says "Oh well, I wrote code, let's see how the throttle handles it", then they don't understand software development or software engineering.
You aren't using Agile, are you.
No, it's not "thinking about code" that's hard. THINKING is hard. And most people are incapable or unwilling to do much of it.
Two days ago I was at a McDonald's that had newly installed touch screen kiosks for ordering. I saw people give up and wanting to leave without ordering anything because selecting their food and confirming their order was too difficult for them. They complained to the cashiers, who then had to help them enter their order. If people are too lazy to learn how to order a burger, how does anyone expect them to learn coding?
No, that's the whole point; coding is nothing like actual thinking.
Coding is more like doing math than it is like thinking.
The problem is that software engineers don't understand the problem they're trying to solve, and don't care to,
Then those software engineers are idiots. Standard for my projects and my teams is, when starting a project, before ever writing a line of code, we try to understand exactly what it is we're trying to accomplish. Work with customers to get requirements, prod the customers to figure out the details they didn't think about and figuring out the best compromises when we have conflicting requirements. Only after we've got a pretty good idea what we're trying to do will we actually start coding.
I'm guessing that you aren't using agile then? Because it sounds like you are actually doing 'Ready, aim, fire' instead of 'ready, fire, aim'.
If you think "code is hard", then maybe SlashDot isn't the right site for you.
Its not about 'code being hard', its about 'code obscures the problem and shifts the focus away from solving the underlying problem and onto solving the coding problem.'
It's lousy requirements, fickle customers, bad environments and tools. The code is the easy part.
Far too often the process from requirements to software engineering takes the form "Ready, fire, aim".
They develop and THEN they try to figure out what was needed.
I watched the first two episodes and now I'm afraid of anything with "Discovery" in its name.
I mean, what the hell did they do to the Klingons? They look like constipated fish!
Klingons always had constipation problems. Why do you think Whorf drank so much prune juice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
this is a re-discovery!
Roddenberry's son is a corporate tool without much understanding of what his dad envisioned or discussed with Star Trek. I don't remember the specifics but there are a number of quotes from him that should clear up just how un-Treklike he is. I'm not sure if this was due to his dad not spending enough time with him as a kid, just his own personal view of the world, his mother's influence (go look at all the stuff Majel Barrett-Roddenberry got marketed of his after he died... Earth: Final Conflict, Andromeda, others.)
Regardless to say, Trek started dying of cancer alongside Roddenberry back in the 90s, and the cancer has finally consumed it today.
At least Andromeda had 'Nietzscheans', though I don't think Majel really understood the implications.
"Nietzsche is about as far from SJW as you can get." Well most people interested in their purported virtue in racism haven't read Nietzsche very carefully either.
I TL;DR it by just listening to the tone poem...
After Gene died things changed completely for Trek. The only good thing I can say about modern Trek is, at least it isn't owned by Disney. Yet.
For fucks sake, are all alt-right racist bigots as clueless as you ? Don't you even get what principles the Star Trek universe was built on back in the sixties ?
Star Trek is the ultimate SJW's wet dream. Gene Rodenberry was a SJW. What ? A black woman as a bridge OFFICER ?!?! An alien as the first officer ? Women admirals who outranked men ? Extraterrestrials of all origins as equal partners in a galactic federation of planets ? A world without war, discrimination, poverty and *GASP* money ?
This liberal SJW crap, as you call it, is not what ruined the original Star Trek, it's what made it one of the best, most influencial tv show in human history.
I'm old enough to remember when Star Trek was recieving the same kind of critics you're making by equally stupid cavemen back in the sixties. I was hoping your lot would be extinct by now.
Gene was exploring Nietzschean concepts all the way through Star Trek. Nietzsche is about as far from SJW as you can get.
It's cute that you need a language altogether. When you're ready to be a real programmer, you can learn how to write all your own op-codes in assembler, like a grown-up developer.
Real programmers develop their own chipset.
It is funny how code written in your "inherently more secure" languages gets exploited at the same or higher rates these days. What actually happens when languages get "safer" is that coder competence drops and bugs just move to a higher level, without being any less destructive.
Citation needed.
If you cannot see that happening over the last few decades, then you seem to be blind to what is going on.
Yeah, citation still needed.
I fully agree. Bugs are just getting more destructive and harder to find the less permissive a language is. Also, if you cannot make type-errors, then any random person can write type-error free code. Type-errors simply cease to become a quality-metric in that case. That does not mean that the code is better in any way though.
In other words, programmers will just innovate and find new ways to make mistakes.
Some of us actually work in the real world, where Windows is the Gold Standard and is usually a requirement for certain business software packages. Not everyone is sitting home playing Tux Racer and writing GCC code.
If you weren't too busy worrying about which 20-yr old deprecated Windows protocol you still have to support because it's "the Gold Standard" will bite your ass off, you'd have plenty of time to go fuck yourself.
There's a fuckton of hardware out there that offers windows fileshare functionality. And requires SMB 1, which is horribly insecure and deprecated and should be disabled. And most of that hardware is running some kind of Linux.
The Shield's Plex Server chokes on transcoding two 1080p streams for non-local clients. I've tested 10x3Mbps streams against the Xeon E5 rig I normally use for Plex and it's held up. I don't think a workload of 3 streams is too much to ask and I'm not going to re-encode all my videos to inferior formats just to keep my media server from using cycles that it should have available.
Oh ok, thats not a scenario I ever hit, I just use it with the local client.