defaultname

When has Apple made that promise? Where do they make that promise?

No system is perfect, and when you get the realm of people submitting privileged information to third parties, all bets are always off. There is absolutely no way Apple could make guarantees about that. And they don't. Anywhere.

And no, saying that they review apps isn't a promise that it is "completely secure". That is absurd.

Trying for some security and confidence is a world removed from absolute security. The latter is effectively impossible.

This thread is farce. Anything if it gives people an opportunity to ply their rhetoric. It is a reminder that while HN has some good discussions, it has a lot of people who just want to make stupid arguments based on lies.

"But I thought you said TLS was completely secure? How could someripoffsite.com steal my cash?"

This is the sort of study that just feels like animal abuse without the justification. They pursued a study where they knew the results beforehand -- an intentional macronutrient deficiency yields, unsurprisingly, a deficiency. And they knew it would earn press because it serves a particular worldview.

One could contrive a "zero processed food" study that yielded identical results.

Binary compatibility kept x86 dominant, coupled with competing platforms not offering enough of a performance or price benefit to make them worth the trouble.

That formula has completely changed. With the tremendous improvement in compilers, and the agility of development teams, the move has been long underway. People are firing up their Gravitron2 instances at a blistering pace, my Mac runs on Apple Silicon (already, just months in, with zero x86 apps -- I thought Rosetta2 would be the lifevest, but everyone transitioned so quickly I could do fine without it).

It's a very different world.

>It always links to a wallet

I am Leonardo da Vinci. My wallet is ABC. Would you like to buy the Mona Lisa?

I am NYC. My wallet is CBA. Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

The notion that a wallet is authoritative is not grounded in reality. There is no central authority. There is no registry. There is no legal correlation.

And your Octopus NFT isn't an Octopus NFT, it's an NFT with a pointer to a reference that points to an octopus. Great, now I just minted an Octopus NFT with a pointer to a reference that points to the same octopus. Now what?

But you're claiming that we need to backtrace each NFT to some wallet which somehow (even though there is no authority, by design) I guess we'll find a MySpace posting by Mark Cuban saying it was his NFT. It borders on parody.

Could Valve "mint" guns through a blockchain? Sure, they could. There is another game (an F1 game) where they do something similar for tradeables. But that is neither here nor there with the reality that NFTs as currently implemented are effectively equivalent to selling certificates offering people a plot of land on Jupiter.

"The largest modern privacy concern is being dependent on any one private party."

How does that follow at all? It doesn't.

Further, Snowden pointed out government abuse surreptitiously gathering user data. In the wake of that the government has a much, much harder time doing so covertly, so in many cases they engage in the same data broker activities that everyone else does. They don't have tap underseas cables anymore -- they can just buy the data wholesale from a wide variety of sources.

NFTs have no mechanism to define originality, or even atomicity (an NFT might have a single owner, but it points to something external for which countless NFTs might point). It isn't a copyright grant, a contract, legal ownership, or even a binary container (beyond some token tiny amount).

I don't think it's "hate" for people to marvel at the insanity that are NFTs. You have people literally posting and selling NFTs for other people's creations. And even if those people post NFTs, their NFTs have no additional claim to what they represent than the other people, beyond some social "oh that's the guy who made all of those crummy doodles".

There is a notion of digital ownership, copyright assignment, etc. NFT is an extremely poor proxy for any of those.

Owning a rare gun skin in CS:GO is much more "real" than an NFT is.

"How many of them turned out to be true or collaborated?"

The overwhelming majority have turned out to be true.

So, what now?

The faux equivalency "they're all the same" (usually pointing to a tiny, minuscule fraction of stories where something was errant) is exactly how we ended up with the rise of overtly fake news. In the same way we have normalized politicians who lie overtly and repeatedly by casting them all the same: some politician took exaggerated credit or said something that in some contexts might be misleading, ergo he's the same as the one who lies maliciously at every turn. "They're all the same"

Flying above the speed of sound without using afterburners is referred to as supercruise, and it is something the Concorde was capable of doing.

There aren't a lot of supercruise aircraft out there. The F22, for instance, can supercruise effectively, but the F35 cannot.

In 2020, total energy consumption was significantly below 2010, which was my original claim. In 2020, total energy consumption was far below 2000 as well. Total energy consumption declined. Continually saying "where are your sources" when they're the canonical sources of a simple Google search doesn't make my statement untrue.

"But again, I would like to see manufacturing outsourcing taken into account."

Groan. This is going down that incredibly boring path where someone must "win" however strained and nonsensical their argument becomes.

Every developed nation has effectively capped energy usage and started to reduce it (despite continuing population growth). Every developing nation is starting with a much better foundation where they have extremely competitive options that aren't the catastrophe that prior ones were.

No, I mean in total. US energy consumption across the board has declined. Even in total energy consumption (every plane, train, automobile, factory, office, microwave, etc) the US is currently about equal with 2000. I mean, it was equal before COVID hit, and is measurably lower now (which will likely continue as fewer people commute)

21 years later, with an improving quality of life, and almost 50 million extra people (almost 20% more), aggregate energy use for the entire nation is static and declining. There remain enormous opportunities for efficiency, a lot of it simply in normal ongoing modernization.

Wind and solar are already cheaper than any other source but natural gas, which itself is a precarious source that most nations aren't in a geopolitical situation to rely upon.

I find it odd that you question my facts given that there is literally nothing that claims otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

I'm not sure if this is a "reality check", and it sounds suspiciously similar to the "population explosion" claims.

US electricity and gasoline consumption has declined since 2010, despite a growing GDP and almost 20 million more people. Efficiency and conservation have achieved enormous gains, and every renewable source that comes online displaces an existing one.

This has occurred across every developed nation. Japan is using 20% less energy today than it did in 2000. Germany, France, Italy, Canada -- all below 2000.

As developing countries bring more of their population into more modern accouterments, of course the total is increasing -- for now -- but thankfully most are starting with a much greater mix of reasonable sources.

Germany has one of the highest alcohol consumption rates. Significantly higher than Australia. Almost double Canada.

"as apple is doing what you think they are not doing"

You are misunderstanding this entire topic, and neither of your citations remotely support your claims.

Fact: Google apps do not show the tracking permission. Now as homework I want you to go and study why that is, and then figure out how that same scenario might just apply to Apple.

Do you even understand what "third-party" means? Clearly you don't.

"How come their apps are not using the same dialog?"

Apple isn't sharing your data with other companies / data brokers. They aren't selling your information, or buying your information. It is a silo. They aren't "exempting" themselves, it isn't relevant to them.

For that matter, maybe you haven't noticed but Google apps don't show this warning either. For whatever criticisms I might have about Google's data siphoning, they silo it and aren't data whores like Facebook and companies like that.

Again, this is Apple's business model, and it's one that many of us appreciate and will pay for, and more for. It is sadly a rare quality now.

"How can AirTags highjack ANY apple device to report their location"

Hijack is an odd way to phrase it.

"and Apple has deliberately framed the question such that almost no-one will say yes" ... "We could spend a lot of time arguing about the rights and wrongs of privacy and Apple’s framing and steering and use of its market dominance"

Nice demonstration of apophasis there.

Regardless, how else should they frame it? The question seems incredibly concise and matter of fact. Indeed, the question simply claims that it will "ask" the app not to track, which seems pretty broad and permissive.

"I've said this previously, if you for a second think Apple is protecting you against evil "Social Media company" or "Evil X Advertiser", you are wrong. Apple is only looking out for Apple. "

How are these two sentences at odds with each other? Apple is absolutely "protecting me against evil social media companies" because I give them a lot of money for their products that offer privacy as a feature. They are looking out for Apple by providing a high value, sadly unique service in the industry, and their users obviously appreciate it.

It is possible for there to be aligned interests between a user and a provider. Pointing out that they're doing it for their own reasons (which in this case is their product positioning) isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

Ah, okay I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the ads on the service itself.

As to the "age bracket", there is no age bracket for TikTok.

What TikTok ads are you referring to? Users often get completely different targeting, but the ads I've seen have been mainstream fast food and then dumb consumer crap like moon lights. Also Old Navy and some car company.

TikTok is really the anti-"influencer" platform. It is a very wide, long tail and doesn't seem to concentrate like many other platforms. People seem to be completely ordinary, versus the delusion that Instagram as an example is pitching, of aspirational perfect living.

Algorithmically TikTok seems to assign very little weight to the creator compared to other venues. Single hits that aren't achieved again are common. Versus say Twitter where if someone has a hit, the platform presumes that every tweet from that person is a brilliant insight.

Given that I think cannabis, MDMA, pyslocybin and other drugs are far superior to alcohol, I don't think most people would categorize my beliefs as puritanical. If anything it's puritanical "old ways" beliefs that keeps alcohol as the primary drug despite an enormous array of extreme negatives.

"given the number of people I know who've had a first cigarette and not touched a second"

Okay, now exclude people who did that as children, an experience after which they had zero access to cigarettes. That same survey if demanding an adult experience would be much, much closer.

Everyone has a "Jimmy lit up a smoke and I took a drag and coughed my guts out when I was 9" story.

Overwhelmingly people either had a problem smoking (one that they had to quit through extreme effort), or they never smoked cigarettes at all as adults.

The one "exception" I can recall is a "social" smoker who would tell everyone that she controlled it by only smoking when she drank/at social events, a consequence of which was that she sought drinking opportunities at every venue. She was a problem smoker that turned it into also being a problem drinker.

Your stats in absolutely no way counters my claim about addiction.

Almost everyone who smokes to any degree becomes addicted and a regular user. Tens (100 million+) of millions of Americans drink occasionally with no addiction.

Alcohol is a dangerous drug in every dimension, and I specifically said that. But their addiction profiles are dramatically different.

Smoking is magnitudes more addictive than alcohol. Regardless, a lot of people do ask why anyone would drink alcohol, given that it offers up an enormous array of detrimental health effects, the possibility of addiction and social troubles (DUI, violence, etc), and as a mental "holiday" altered state is an incredibly poor mechanism.

Alcohol hangs around because it was accessible in earlier eras. There will come a time, I suspect in the very near future, when it will look ridiculous. Where having a `drink' will be an anachronism.

"I thought I'd be helping people who are underrepresented in tech"

What made you believe this? The service doesn't seem to pitch that angle whatsoever. Indeed, being $300 USD per month (for what it is) puts it on a pretty pricey level and largely guarantees the opposite.

It's a bizarre business model, but the aspect that is most baffling about this article is that he knew it before he signed up.

There was no bait and switch. They never said he'd be paid. He knew users of the service paid for it. They never said they'd donate his "take" to charities. These were things he knew before he signed up.

But he signed up thinking it would bring credibility/"exposure". Apparently it didn't bring enough of that, so instead he's using the feigned outrage to try to achieve the same. The charity bit is particularly weak.

Eh. There's a reason there is a lot of eye rolling. Many of the other "mentors" probably have a stake and duped guys like this into "volunteering" their time to sniff at their aura.

While alcohol addiction usually does begin with depression or lack of self control, the physiological effect of ongoing abuse is seen worldwide. This isn't at all true for whatever NOT MY FAULT BLAME [INSERT TARGET HERE] easy solution Americans are pitching today.

Are the Japanese addicted to McDonalds? Are the French? Are Mexicans? Are the British? Are Chileans?

The tale in another comment that someone had McDonalds and then they went back every day for two weeks straight literally reads like parody. If someone were mocking that sort of lazy, not-my-faultism they'd author a comment precisely like that, thinking they were exaggerating and making it sound absurd.

Is it American Exceptionalism that makes for this remarkable, magical dietary addiction? Or is it a market that is particularly susceptible for easy victims and easy "not my fault" answers. Blame it on Big McDonalds. Make a documentary (usually cartoonishly full of misstatements and lies) and it gets Eaten Up, pardon the pun, because it's an easy, incredibly lazy thing to blame.

Obesity is a problem around the globe, and in every country it's different causes. Calories became a lot cheaper, and people like eating. If you think one magical ingredient is the cause, get a grip. It isn't so simple. And eventually it 100% comes down to self control.

If someone spends 9 hours scrolling through TikToks, that isn't TikTok's fault. It really isn't. It is remarkable reading people imagine up the nefarious ingredient that puts the responsibility on someone other than themselves.

I've eaten at McDonalds. Yet I only eat there infrequently, usually when traveling and want something quick. I'm not obese.

Did they forget to put the "addictive" additive in mine?

Misusing the word addictive to mean "things that aren't beneficial, and can be detrimental in excess" is not helpful to anyone.

People who are depressed self-sabotage in a wide variety of ways. They sleep all day. Maybe overeat. Maybe sit flicking through TikTok all day. Some even clean endlessly. That doesn't mean any of those things are "addictive".

This whole discussion borders on parody. People with zero responsibility or self-control screaming that they have no self direction and need their world corralled and constrained for them. Beyond bizarre. And apparently these amazingly addictive ingredients only work on Americans, who seem to lack any self-reflection or inquisitiveness as to why that is.

I read a Robertson Davies trilogy for hours last night. Probably stayed up a little late. Blame it on Big Books and the Book Cartel for Addicting me like this.

Big win? I didn't say that. Your original citation was an analysis of studies that actually said "more research is necessary", yet you claimed it as proof that it doesn't work. It doesn't work like that.

Novamin is caught in a classic consumer product study quagmire. It's a proprietary, IP-wrapped solution. This leaves extraordinarily few people with an interest in proving its efficacy. Who is going to pay to study it? And the answer is that only people with a strong financial interest in its effectiveness are willing to study it, and those studies have little credibility due to bias.

The vast majority of consumer products you use have no peer reviewed research behind them for the same reason.

But we know its method of function, and the theory behind its operation. People using the product often find reduced sensitivity (I went from really bad sensitivity to no sensitivity) and a whitening effect. Eh, good enough for me.

And it's interesting that this submission is about a product that has a virtually identical method of operation - calcium and phosphorous ions.

Sellers compete for the "buy box", inflating prices through Amazon requirements. That seems fair enough, but why then are the "other sellers" never cheaper, at least in my experience? While the buy box might have the costs of shipping and FBA baked in, the other options don't yet they're universally a worse deal all in. More often than not they're the "gimmicky" types of deals where the base price is "less", but the shipping is absurd.

Conditions like "don't sell cheaper elsewhere" are gross across the board, but the fundamental point doesn't seem valid.

"Sensodyne has Novamin"

There is nothing like Novamin among other toothpaste brands. Novamin has long existed as a bone regeneration treatment, with a very proven mode of action. The inventor spun it off and GSK bought the company and made it exclusive to Sensodyne. This isn't a company that made some fun name on a method of fluoride.

It doesn't exist formally in the US (or at least it didn't) because FDA rules would make it fall under a medical treatment and a toothpaste isn't possibly worth the process and bureaucratic overhead.

>Anyway, it doesn't seem like Novamin makes a real difference

That is a study of studies, and its conclusion isn't that there is no "real difference", but that there is a need for more clinical trials, which is an enormous difference.

Because there is little demonstrated proof of Novamin specifically in regards to teeth. It is largely theoretical.

But for what it's worth, I've used it for a bit over a year and now have zero sensitivity and my teeth are demonstratably much whiter. My own anecdotal experience is very positive, though maybe I'll have throat cancer or a third eye or something eventually.

Fluoride strengthens enamel. Novamin remineralizes enamel. It "rebuilds" it. How Sensodyne markets it is largely irrelevant.

Indeed, this product targets sensitivity which is exactly what Novamin does (by remineralizing those tiny holes permanently, versus traditional sensitivity products that simply "clog" them temporarily).

Note that Novamin-containing Sensodyne is an overseas thing that you have to import. For whatever reason they didn't seek FDA approval in the US so the product there is sans it.