I don’t think it is about resources. Growing up in 3rd world country I have zero resources. It is the drive of student and higher standards from parents and teachers that matters. Everybody is just getting soft.
Yes all sites showing the CloudFlare error due to the massive outage. Seems their outages are getting more frequent and taking down the internet in new ways each time.
Interesting, this seems to be "less" ideal. The problem lately for me is it being to verbose and conversational for things that need not be. Have added custom instructions which helps but still issues. Setting the chat style to "Efficient" more recently did help a lot but has been prone to many more hallucinations, requiring me to constantly ask if they are sure and never responds in a way that yes my latest statement is correct, ignoring it's previous error and showing no sign that it will avoid a similar error further in the conversation. When it constantly makes similar mistakes which I had a way to train my ChatGPT to avoid that, but while adding "memories" helps with somethings, it does not help with certain issues it continues to make since it's programming overrides whatever memory I make for it. Hoping some improvements in 5.1.
I just asked where am I currently today and on the iOS app it responded with the correct current location for where I’m visiting without needing to trick it into using the devices location data. In settings on iOS this app does not request or have access to location. So yes, a little surprised iOS still provides ip address but assume necessary for some functionality.
Doubt they would have been considered “goodwill”. Investors would complain they are doing their fiscal responsibilities. Customers and companies would complain they didn’t do it soon enough and still didn’t do enough. And if people started having issues with their phones because of side loading they would not blame themselves they would blame Apple for allowing them to do so and potentially hurting the brand. Vision Pro as a test of hardware capabilities seems to be going as one would expect at the current price points. Once they release their first consumer focused glasses as an accessible price point, that will be the real test of the product category.
> Doubt they would have been considered “goodwill”.
Perhaps you haven’t been following Apple for long? There was definitely a period, not that long ago, where they had a lot of goodwill from third-party developers, especially indies, and that has steadily been eroded under Tim Cook.
They also took stances that were (or appeared to be) principled, which again placed them at a high degree of trust and goodwill (deserved or not isn’t the point, they had it) when compared to competitors.
> And if people started having issues with their phones because of side loading
I’m not talking about or suggesting side loading at all. That’s an entirely orthogonal matter.
> Vision Pro as a test of hardware capabilities seems to be going as one would expect at the current price points.
Vision Pro is not a “a test of hardware capabilities”. It’s not an SDK, it’s a product marketed and sold at regular people, it’s described by Apple as a product you can use for enterntainment and work, not an experiment. And it had essentially no adherence from companies and developers, there’s not even an official YouTube app, for a device where one of the major use cases is watching video.
On the other hand if long ago they backed down and lowered fees and allowed more control, aside from the potential security and privacy concerns that could negatively affect the brand, companies would have just then wanted more. As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides. So not saying all Apple’s choices and timing were right or best, but giving up previously wouldn’t have prevented all of this but rather just lowered the bar and making it easier for companies and countries to make it easier to lower it even further.
> As Epic has said they think they should have to pay nothing for all that Apple provides.
As they should be. iOS was already paid for when the user bought their device. Mandating a 30% cut on all in-app purchases is double-billing.
Tim Kulak[0] calls this "forcing Apple to give away its technology for free", which is asshole logic. In no sane world would a court consider application developers to be making a derivative work of the OS they port to, so the OS vendor has no legal entitlement to application developers' revenue. The only world in which this stupid 30% cut was even tolerated was, ironically for Epic, games development.
As for privacy and security concerns, I would like to note that Apple has very specific definitions of those words that only marginally interact with your own understanding. To be clear, if you were to modify an iOS app to, say, remove tracking code from it, Apple would consider that a security breach. Even though this is a common thing that we do in web browsers all the time. Because users have their hands tied on iOS in ways that they don't on macOS, they can't fight back against tracking on their phones like they can on their computers.
[0] Term used by the Soviet government to refer to "any rural landowner that didn't cooperate with their disastrous attempts at land collectivization". I'm using it here mainly because it almost-rhymes.
> aside from the potential security and privacy concerns
I make apps both as an indie and during my day job. The App Store review doesn’t do anything to protect the privacy or security of iPhone users. Most of the review is focused on ensuring Apple doesn’t get sued and that you as a developer don’t try to advertise something Apple doesn’t like. The whole idea that the App Store is safer is a marketing thing.
While not perfect, they claim to do security checks and verify some privacy choices. So they do something at least.
As a consumer I can see value in Apple forcing itself in an arbiter role for app payments so they can step in when I have a conflict with an app developer.
All this is rehashed common sense - what you as a seller of software probably will do anyway to appear legitimate. No part of the review process stops someone from circumventing any of those rules - all you need is for the app to behave during review.
Every technical safeguard is part of the operating system anyway, so that’s what’s really protecting you and it will still protect you when you install an app from another source. Just like computers have worked since forever.
Been curious what the Oct 10 announcement would be. It seemed most likely an acquisition since they wanted enough time of not selling existing products to avoid dealing with a month of refunds. Appears Canva bought with it now being a single app that is "free" but paid for premium features. While many may rejoice at a solid free options it's certainly an unfortunate day for those who rely on it. As Canva makes money on people using the paid version so attention will be at making that version more enticing over time and free less. If people all just used the free and not the premium for AI, then they would either start charging for the "free" version or take away features from the free version to make the "choice" easier to upgrade. All in all good for Canva, and good for more casual users who can jump ship any time to free options but would be quite worrisome for those who have looked towards Affinity as the alternative to Adobe.
When exporting images from Lightroom Classic in JPEX XL you can choose the percent of compress or choose lossless which disable that of course. But also default to 8bit, but an option for 16bit which of course results in a much larger file. And color profile setting. So curious what they mean by it ignores bit depth?
Did some sample exports comparing JXL 8bit lossless vs JPG and JXL was quite a bit bigger. Same for doing lossy 100 comparison or 99 comparison of both. When setting JXL to 80%, 70% see noticeably savings but had thought the idea was JXL full quality essentially for much smaller sizes.
To be fair the 70% does look very similar to 100% but then again the JPEG 70% vs 100% also look very similar on an Apple XDR Monitor. the 70% or 80% etc on both jpeg and jpeg xl i do see visual differences in areas like on shoes where there is mesh.
JXL comes with lots of compatibility challenges since while things were picking up with Apple's adoption it seems to have halted since and apps like Evoto, and Topaz not adding support among many others. And Apple's still not full support and no progress on that. So unless Chrome does a 180 again, think AVIF and JXL will both end up stagnating and most sticking with JPG. For Tiff though noticed significant savings lossless jxl compared to tiff so that would be a good use case except tiffs more likely ones to be edited by third party apps that most likely won't support the format.
For lossless, bitdepth of course does matter. Lossless image compression is storing a 2D array of integer numbers exactly, and with higher bitdepth, the range of those numbers grows (and the amount of hard-to-compress least significant bits grows).
The OP article is talking about lossy compression.
When comparing lossy compression, note that lossy compression settings are not a "percent" of anything, it's just an arbitrary scale that depends on the encoder implementation. So lossy "80%" is certainly not the same thing between JPEG and JXL, or between Photoshop and ImageMagick, etc. It's not a percentage of anything — it's just an arbitrary scale that gets mapped to encoder parameters (e.g. quantization tables) in some arbitrary way.
The best way to compare lossy compression performance is to encode an image at the quality that is acceptable for your use case (according to your eyes), and then you just look for various codecs/encoders what the lowest filesize is you can get while still getting an acceptable quality.
On that page though it looks like most all the features are not available with E2EE, event timeline, person detection, search you name it. So imagine few if any use it, since alternative options that can locally do all that and still have E2EE.
"which is influenced more by recharge cycles and straight up passage of time" would seem similar to "mileage" since both increase in general the passage of time and driving. But yes, driving two cars equal amount of time presumably the ICE will wear down far more than the equivalent EV so the title is quite misleading to those looking at a glance.
Isn't one "recharge cycle" a full discharge / recharge? So charging from 68% to 75% at work would just be 7% of a cycle, and about the same amount of wear as if you'd skipped that top up and just fully charged at home.
With a battery how fast you charge it, how "full" you charge it to, how deeply you discharge it, the temperature at which you keep it, etc., all affect the degradation rate of the battery. So, because charging a battery from 68-75% is better on the battery than charging from 93-100%, storing the battery full is worse, etc., it isn't necessarily true that "7% charging is the same as 7% charging".
reply