To anyone other than a computer engineer, I would bet Morse code would be preferred at least 10 to 1. Most people who aren’t computer science majors could barely decode binary “10” correctly, whereas writing down the dots and dashes and googling “Morse code chart” is something I’d bet over 50% of non-engineers could do accurately.
How is this any different than decoding binary? If you can read a chart of codes involving either dot or dash surely you can also read a chart of codes with either 0 or 1.
Yeah, it never really got off the ground though because incentives weren’t aligned. Everyone wants you to sign up on their site for data hoarding reasons, not to use an identity from elsewhere.
I’d point out that it’s possible for SAML to be acknowledged as okay or “good for its time,” even, and also be acknowledged as today amounting to a steaming pile of crap that ought to be avoided and phased out wherever possible. Even if all its flaws were just the bad luck of existing before other things were invented.
We can’t change the past anyway, but ‘considering SAML harmful’ today may be the most reasonable position to take.
Federation sounds like decentralization to me. Decentralized is like a dirty word when you’re in the business of either selling SaaS or pushing private citizens to go all in on the GOOG/AAPL/MSFT ecosystems. And everyone with any influence over what gets adopted and used, is in those categories.
These are going to be very popular for intercepting images on their way to a display. Think of the advertising possibilities. Ad attribution can be 'vastly improved' when both the ad and every step in the funnel are all spymarked and all of them are reliably reported on by virtue of their pixels hitting your screen.
First the low-end laptops and phones (and probably later, most of them) will incorporate some low-level driver that is constantly scanning for these and passing them to a helper app to phone home. I assume this is something Apple will, to their credit, refuse to do[1] but I don't think other OEMs will have any qualms based on what they already do with their TVs.
[1] (though they don't do this kind of thing out of altruism, but because their cash cow is app store rents and fat hardware margins, not third-party advertising.)
Apple is just Stockholm Syndrome at scale. I wouldn't trust anything they say about privacy, especially given how closed their ecosystem and hardware is.
TBH, Nvidia kinda deserves this. Between the incredibly buggy forcedeth ethernet chipset, the 2010 era laptop GPUs with insane failure rates that caused a recall across the entire industry, and various other issues, Apple (and others) have legitimate reasons to avoid working with them.
Both of those issues are over 2 decades old. It's the equivalent of boycotting Apple for supporting IBM, you will not achieve anything since the "problem" is already fixed. I don't know how you can call that legitimate in good faith.
Apple had the opportunity to take Apple Silicon to the datacenter and become the #1 professional ARM microarchitecture in the world. It was Apple's stupid grudge that gave Nvidia everything they needed to sell thousands of their lazily-made Grace CPU.
I don't think you can count apple out like that. They will likely implement it themselves though. This would be in addition to their always listening AI watch and intelligence features.
I’m a bit unfamiliar with current laws, but are there any rules that would prohibit companies from doing this in interest of user privacy? I know at this point privacy is long dead but there are certain things that do get called out and shut down.
Apple’s always on watch has a declared 15 second buffer for live audio, and a worse scenario of summarizing your conversations for later but.. they tell you about it proudly. They also tell you how they’ve managed to do it while keeping privacy focused.
It’s your choice if you believe them or not, I like Apple and I wouldn’t use that feature.
The pretending that this is the same thing, that Apple is sneaking something past you when they’re showing you that they’re trying to do it right is a bad faith argument.
It’s absolutely not a bad faith argument. They proudly tell you about iMessage being end-to-end encrypted. The part where it’s practically only encryption at rest, because everyone enables iCloud backups without ADP is hidden somewhere in a footnote.
Wonder if they proudly tell Chinese users (or visitors to China) that suddenly their data is going to a different place than usual, servers outside of Apple's control?
> Apple’s always on watch has a declared 15 second buffer for live audio, and a worse scenario of summarizing your conversations for later
Even if you trust them, maybe as an user you can be ok with that. As a non-user who will talk with people wearing Apple Watches, I disagree being recorded and my conversations with the watch owner summarized.
Will they surrender logs for a legal discovery request?
e.g. Johnny's accused of something white collar, did he ever make any prompts that suggest how early on he was aware of {X} and further indicate how he moved to frame it?
They’re asserting that all the audio is done on device, and the results of encrypted so they can’t access them even from the backups.
Unlike… EVERY… other tech company, it is in Apple’s interest to be privacy-focused.
Even if you just have to believe them, which you do pretty much, they’re the biggest name pushing for privacy in the world right now. They make more on selling devices than they make on ads and behaviors. It’s in their interest to not lie.
Read the actual privacy brief. Even though the audio transcription is done on device. For Siri recap, a condensed transcription (which mostly removes superfluous words, etc.) goes to their PCC servers. So even though their servers do not get raw audio, their servers do get transcriptions, which is nearly the same privacy-wise.
Of course, at that point it depends on how much you trust their PCC.
I'm not pretending anything, nor did I imply they were sneaking anything in. It's a bad faith argument to pretend I was doing that, which is ironic but not unexpected from an apple fan...
Apples largest area of growth is literally services and advertising. They even make a huge deal of it in their investor calls. Have for at least the past 3 years.
As synthetic image fidelity gets closer and closer to indistinguishable from genuine pictures, what, exactly can one do to tell the difference absent something like SynthID?
Who, exactly, is the "bt@brand.io" whose only attributable contribution is FUD regarding SynthID (and what are their motives)?
Always replace “fandom” with “breezewiki” in the url. It’ll take you to a de-crapified version, and also check for the existence of a real wiki separate from fandom and link to that:
Pretty sure 90% of the posters of the type at the top of the article are made for $0. I bet for $10 you could get real artists from non-Western countries to make a simple poster, but these days people would probably claim those $10 jobs and then have AI generate them anyway.
I posted a longer comment above which kinda answers this but without repeating myself too much, Republicans mainly serve to keep Democrats from being able to consolidate power, and Democrats have now shown us what 15 years of a (D) trifecta gets you.
Taxes are higher than ever, cost of living has spiked even more here than other places, tens of billions wasted on CAHSR with nothing to show for it, and no good news on homelessness, poverty, or housing costs either.
Crime has been gradually going down per capita (at least what people have bothered to report), but that's a nationwide trend. If Dems are as good at governing as they claim to be, they ought to have more to show for their efforts than "we had the same results as Texas did."
And the latest Democratic superstars like Mamdani enter the picture, with "government run grocery stores" as his big innovation?
So, my question is why wouldn't one want to deprive these people of more power?
Edit: I'd like to add a reasonable example of what a successful (D) trifecta should have got us, lest you think I'm just some conservative who doesn't want them to accomplish any progressive goals:
As the largest state in the union, California has tremendous power. It could have come up with a 'MediCare for all'-like plan, which would cover all Californians who don't have MediCare. Basically a single public agency that insures all of us, and is run efficiently and transparently and which returns all premiums paid that aren't spent on care as a dividend check back to the taxpayers proportionally to what you paid in. If they accomplished nothing but that in 15 years I'd consider them worth supporting for that alone.
If they couldn't pull that off, successfully building HSR from SF to LA in a decade, by whatever means were necessary, would have been a pretty good accomplishment!
Or finally, if they could have caused enough housing to be built to just keep home prices stable, not even decreasing just stable.
I won't bother with the rest, but in the past 15 years Dems have only had 2 years of a "trifecta" while republicans have had 4.
Dems have had more presidential terms, the senate has been split, and Republicans have held the House for 11 of the past 15 years. The Supreme Court has been a Republican majority the whole 15 years (with an exception of a tie after Scalia died).
Republicans have the incredible ability to have overwhelming control and agency yet still act like the victims.
EDIT: In response to your edit... you claim Republicans exist solely to keep Democrats in check, and then you list a bunch of things Democrats weren't able to accomplish because they were blocked by Republicans. Your logic is that Dems are bad because they couldn't make certain things happen, but those things were all blocked by Republicans.
He’s literally doing the meme of republicans stopping democrats from legislating and then pointing to the lack of legislation as why they should be blocked.
Also lol at the trifecta for 15 years comment from him.
I’m talking about in California! If you want to know what Democrats are capable of accomplishing, look to the state where they have had carte blanche to do whatever they want. California is their testing platform.
One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical.
Both of our political parties have done highly unethical things.
Without getting into a bunch of hot-button political fights, I'll just say: Different people prioritize different issues and the parties (and their politicians) each have a lot to be ashamed of.
reply