Indie iOS app developer with a passion for SwiftUI

  • 26 Posts
  • 71 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • I’m not the person you replied to, but I’ll take a stab.

    @cmbabul stated in GP that they hand out raises for exceptional work of no more than 3% per year.

    So, to recap in a piecemeal fashion, we’re talking about:

    • at best 3% in a year, lower is possible
    • for what is deemed exceptional, so by no means guaranteed

    You saw this and ran with it. While doing so, you changed the premise to:

    • guaranteed 3%
    • everyone
    • every year

    On top of that, presumably, because inflation currently exceeds 3% and has well exceeded 3% for almost the last three years, you changed the premise somewhat more into a career’s length timeframe.

    The average inflation rate for the last 50 years is 3.8% per year,

    Even when looking at a break-even inflation rate for the last 30 years, we’re looking at 2.40%, so we’re talking about a .60% pay increase. No wonder that this doesn’t impress @bunchofnumbers.

    Never mind all that, though. I’m more interested in why you decided to change that premise.


  • I feel you’re brushing over the privacy implications regarding how apps are used.

    Sure, you could say: “Oh, but it’s inefficient to compile the entire application, and what if there are features that barely anyone uses.”

    But you can also say: “Compiling the entire application ensures we don’t need to collect usage data and it ensures everyone gets the best experience, even the people that use features that are otherwise hardly used.”

    Now, of course, to go with the second option, you need to care about user privacy and not gain any benefits from usage data beyond the benefits for compiling it.




  • There are a couple of concerns with biometrics.

    The big one is, as you already mentioned, spoofing biometrics.

    The FaceID or TouchID sensor essentially saying “I got that face/fingerprint that you have in your Secure Enclave”. Granted it is a sophisticated attack, but nevertheless one you’d want to prevent if only because it’s good practice to maintain a secure chain in which the individual links can trust each other.

    For similar reasons the lockdown mode exists, which is mainly useful in limited scenarios (e.g. journalists, dissidents, etc).

    On the other hand, if ever there was a potential attacker, it would be a government because they unlimited funds in theory and it isn’t hard to imagine the FBI trying to utilize this in the San Bernardino case if it was available.

    A different risk, which would make the above quite a bit easier to accomplish, would be an altered biometrics scanner that, in addition to working the way it’s supposed to work, stores and sends off your biometrics or simply facilitates a replay attack.


  • Lossless is understood to have a bitrate of at least 1411kbps, or about 1.4Mbps.

    Theoretical sustained bandwidth capability of Bluetooth on the 2.4Ghz spectrum is 1Mbps, but in practice it’s a chunk lower in part due to overhead.

    Even if we assume if you could just cram a higher bitrate through a smaller bandwidth (spoiler, you can’t), everyone would be up in arms about Apple lying about lossless and class action suits would ensue.

    That said, you can’t. This is not like your internet connection where you’ll just be buffering for a minute.

    As for what is and isn’t perceptible, I think you’re mixing up your tonal frequencies with your bitrates here.


  • Honestly the most frustrating part is that there is plenty to criticize Apple on, so there’s no reason to get caught up in fabricated clickbaity nonsense.

    But instead of focusing on genuine concerns, people would rather hop on some misinformation train.

    All the while, if you espouse opinions that are bit more nuanced than “Apple bad”, then you must be a bootlicker like you said.

    It’s as if people are more concerned about missing out on joining the hype and showing off their armchair skills, rather than exercising a modicum of critical thinking.


  • Obfuscating what you have to do ≠ not providing you with a roadmap on what you have to do.

    If they didn’t obfuscate it there would be many tools out there already to let it be done.

    This is a non sequitur.

    It doesn’t automatically follow that a lack of tools means there is obfuscation. The simple fact that there can be many reasons why tools aren’t widely available alone breaks that logic.

    But I’d say the fact that we already know exactly why difficulties arise when replacing parts, definitely proves that there’s no obfuscation.

    Which again circles back to the difference between anti-repair and not pro-repair.

    Just because Apple doesn’t go out of their way to provide a roadmap and hold your hand and as a result you are having difficulties when you’re trying to do it yourself, doesn’t mean they are actively thwarting you.

    Apple doesn’t even think about you and me, their concern is to facilitate their own repair processes.

    They literally serial lock almost half of their parts.

    They don’t.

    Aside from biometrics none of the parts are serial locked.

    What you’re thinking about is parts based factory calibrated data loaded into the parts from a central database.

    Just because the system ignores the calibration data once the part doesn’t match the one the calibration was intended for, doesn’t mean it’s “locked”, it just means that you’re trying to use calibration data for the wrong part.



  • I’m not sure if you’re serious or trying to be sarcastic.

    Bluetooth and WiFi are two different things.

    For starters standard Bluetooth operates on 1MHz wide channels, BLE on 2MHz wide channels, whereas WiFi (nowadays) operates on 20 or 40 MHz wide channels.

    Modern Bluetooth (on 2.4Ghz) can theoretically do bursts of 2Mbps, but in practice even 1Mbps is hard to hit in a sustained fashion.

    2.4Ghz is just a frequency band and is not the same as bandwidth.

    You might as well argue that a pickup truck and a formula 1 race car should be able to reach the same top speed in the same time because their wheel distance is the same.

    I think […]

    Think again



  • lazyvar@programming.devtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re right that a lot of Terms of Service documents and similar agreement documents have language that reserves the right to modify those terms.

    At the same time just because something is in the terms doesn’t mean it can stand the test of adjudication and terms as well as changes are often challenged in court with success.

    Unity is in a particular tricky situation because the clause that governed modifications in their last ToS explicitly gives the user the option to pass on modifications that adversely affects them and stick with the old terms:

    Unity may update these Unity Software Additional Terms at any time for any reason and without notice (the “Updated Terms”) and those Updated Terms will apply to the most recent current-year version of the Unity Software, provided that, if the Updated Terms adversely impact your rights, you may elect to continue to use any current-year versions of the Unity Software (e.g., 2018.x and 2018.y and any Long Term Supported (LTS) versions for that current-year release) according to the terms that applied just prior to the Updated Terms (the “Prior Terms”). The Updated Terms will then not apply to your use of those current-year versions unless and until you update to a subsequent year version of the Unity Software (e.g. from 2019.4 to 2020.1). If material modifications are made to these Terms, Unity will endeavor to notify you of the modification. If a modification is required to comply with applicable law, the modification will apply notwithstanding this section. Except as explicitly set forth in this paragraph, your use of any new version or release of the Unity Software will be subject to the Updated Terms applicable to that release or version. You understand that it is your responsibility to maintain complete records establishing your entitlement to Prior Terms.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20201111183311/https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/TermsOfService/blob/master/Unity Software Additional Terms.md


  • I was wondering myself as well so I got you.

    Basically what happened was that these were technically two separate cases with two separate jury pools to decide the amount for damages.

    One jury pool came to the decision that there were damages and awarded $50k to each individual in couple 1 (totaling $100k) while the other jury pool independently decided that no damages should be awarded based on the same evidence.

    Keep in mind that this region is generally pretty hostile towards LGBTQ+ people. The judge had the option to overrule a jury if they find that the decision doesn’t match the evidence in the case.

    The lawyer of this lady is actually hoping for that in the case that lead to a $100k damages award as per the quote below.

    “Two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments, and only one jury returned a verdict that was based on the facts and the evidence presented at trial,” Daniel Schmid, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel and one of Davis’ attorneys, told CNN via email. “In the Yates case, the jury returned a verdict of $0.00 because that is what the evidence required.”

    “Without any evidentiary support, the Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff. The evidence presented at trial simply does not support that verdict, and Ms. Davis will be filing a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict next week,” Schmid said. “Ms. Davis trusts that the courts reviewing the evidence presented will see that the Ermold verdict lacks any evidentiary support and will agree with the Yates jury that the plaintiffs are entitled to no damages whatsoever.”

    Source



  • Oh wow, they really closed it down huh?

    Not too long ago you were able to change it.

    This dumbing things down to prevent customers from fucking themselves over and using up CS resources is getting ridiculous.

    Say you need to change some settings but your modem/router isn’t online then you’re SOOL.

    Cox, who uses the same gateway, is even worse. They won’t even allow you to enable legacy mode (802.11b) for IoT devices that cheaped out on WiFi cards, not even on a separate network and their customer service can’t enable it either.

    I dread moving into a Cox region where there’s no fiber competitor available.




  • I get asking for mercy for family or a close friend, even when they’ve committed crimes, heinous or otherwise. I’ll chalk that up to human emotions.

    But ffs, read the room a bit.

    His dedication to leading a drug-free life and the genuine care he extends to others make him an outstanding role model and friend.

    One of the most remarkable aspects of Danny’s character is his unwavering commitment to discouraging the use of drugs.

    His dedication to avoiding all substances has inspired not only me but also countless others in our circle. Danny’s steadfastness in promoting a drug-free lifestyle has been a guiding light in my journey through the entertainment world and has helped me prioritize my well-being and focus on make responsible choices.

    Saying stuff like that when he’s convicted of drugging victims before taping them is just nuts. Even by some sense of stupidity you think you’re just trying to highlight that he’s not a habitual drug user, you’re essentially just highlighting how calculated his actions were by drugging his victims.



  • Cue the nuclear shills that will handwave away any legitimate concern with wishful thinking and frame the discussion as solely pro/anti fossil, conveniently pretending that renewables don’t exist.

    ETA:

    Let’s look at some great examples of handwaving and other nonsense to further the nuclear agenda.

    Here @[email protected] brings up a legitimate concern about companies not adhering to regulation and regulators being corrupt/bought *cough… Three Mile Island cough*, and how to deal with that:

    So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

    So of course the answer to that by @[email protected] is a slippery slope argument and equating a hypothetical disaster with thousands if not millions of victims and areas being uninhabitable for years to come, with the death of a family member due to faulty wiring in your home:

    Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, “It’s not as bad as a nuclear disaster” isn’t exactly going to console them much.

    At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It’s not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.

    Then there’s the matter of misleading statistics and graphs.
    Never mind the fact that the amount of victims of nuclear disasters is underreported, under-attributed and research is hampered if not outright blocked to further a nuclear agenda, also never mind that the risks are consistently underreported, lets leave those contentious points behind and look at what’s at hand.

    Here @[email protected] shows a graph from Our World in Data that is often thrown around and claims to show “Death rates by unit of electricity production”:

    Seems shocking enough and I’m sure in rough lines, the proportions respective to one another make sense to some degree or another.
    The problem however is that the source data is thrown together in such a way that it completely undermines the message the graph is trying to portray.

    According to Our World in Data this is the source of the data used in the graph:

    Death rates from energy production is measured as the number of deaths by energy source per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity production.

    Data on death rates from fossil fuels is sourced from Markandya, A., & Wilkinson, P. (2007).

    Data on death rates from solar and wind is sourced from Sovacool et al. (2016) based on a database of accidents from these sources.

    We estimate deaths rates for nuclear energy based on the latest death toll figures from Chernobyl and Fukushima as described in our article here: https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

    We estimate death rates from hydropower based on an updated list of historical hydropower accidents, dating back to 1965, sourced primarily from the underlying database included in Sovacool et al. (2016). For more information, see our article: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

    Fossil fuel numbers are based on this paper which starts out by described a pro-nuclear stance, but more importantly, does a lot of educated guesstimating on the air-pollution related death numbers that is straight up copied into the graph.

    Sovacool is used for solar and wind, but doesn’t have those estimates and is mainly limited to direct victims.

    Nuclear based deaths is based on Our World in Data’s own nuclear propaganda piece that mainly focuses on direct deaths and severely underplays non-direct deaths.

    And hydropower bases deaths is based on accidents.

    So they mix and match all kinds of different forms of data to make this graph, which is a no-no. Either you stick to only accidents, only direct deaths or do all possible deaths that is possibly caused by an energy source, like they do for fossil fuels.

    Not doing so makes the graph seem like some kind of joke.