Yeah - this is really really cool, but if you have code running on the target device, why relay its location via FindMy? If you are already talking to an external server to get pre-computed keys, there are easier ways to share location than FindMy… I guess if the target device doesn’t have GPS, FindMy does get you closer than other geolocation methods.
Yes, not having GPS is one reason. The other one (less good) is that you can continue to track the device even when it has no network connection (as long as it's turned on and near an iPhone).
But there probably aren't many situations where someone has a network-enabled device turned on, disconnected from the network, but in range of at least one iPhone that has a network connection. Perhaps on a plane?
The bit you quoted back to me says, "the RAM is non-upgradable", which is what I said. Your interpretation (that the parent commenter misspoke) is more generous, though, so let's go with that.
> Apple is incapable of having decent tethering even as they control the whole ecosystem
Are they, though? Tethering from my MacBook to my iPhone or iPad is a pretty seamless experience, to the point I don't even think about it. And sometimes I get home from a cafe and forget I'm even tethering until I notice my iPhone battery is lower than expected. And this isn't Apple, but I don't even notice I'm not on my home LAN because of tailscale.
It's definitely significantly easier than dealing with built in WWAN devices & ModemManager on my linux laptop. (Or Windows, when I used it on that same hardware.)
If your sentiment is the most common, including a modem in MacBooks makes only sense for the tiniest of tiniest of user slice, and with Apple barely cattering to pro users, I can't imagine them investing further to solve a problem that isn't as simple as just slapping an extra part in the machine (which they traditionally hate).
On my side it was 90% there, a bit lagging to connect and totally failing from time to time , once in a week perhaps, but workable otherwise. The argument on the podcast was for having a 100% great solution like it does on the iPad, assuming an internal modem on macos would rainbows and ponnies.
How do you mean do we "believe this nonsense"? I don't use twitter regularly, but I have two accounts for reasons. I just signed in, I typed out a (fake) signal URL, and... posting was blocked.
It doesn't appear to be nonsense, it appears to be entirely true that any tweet with "signal.me" in it is blocked.
Occam's razor says they're blocking Signal. Hanlon's razor says they're just idiots. Either way: An important tool for communication is being blocked by twitter, which is both dangerous and not "nonsense".
Given Elon Musk's current propensity for authoritarianism and censorship, I'm leaning towards Occam's explanation. If you have evidence otherwise, I would genuinely like to see it, but honestly Hanlon's explanation that it's incompetence is not much better.
I think they're saying to give the benefit of the doubt (ex. maybe it's a glitch), without realizing many of us have no more leeway to give due to the continuing onslaught of criminal behavior from musk/Trump which we'll all have to pay for in the future and is now giving our enemies reason to celebrate.
1- The conspiracy is that blocking signal links is some top down dictation from Elon as part of geopolitical power play over censoring dissenting opinions about DOGE. This is some next level mental gymnastics. There may be good reasons to temporarily block links to a specific service, eg, maybe an ongoing phishing scam, or security issue. Plenty of rational reasons that have nothing to do with Elon and Trump.
2- X is full of people arguing about DOGE, positive and negative, and Elon is constantly attacked on his own platform by both small and large accounts. These posts are not censored.
3- Elon routinely talks about the importance of free speech, and yet I keep reading claims he’s against it from people advertising bsky and mastodon, which absolutely do not (by any reasonable definition) represent free speech platforms. They are more heavily moderated than even old Twitter was.
4- I have seen no evidence of Elon having a “propensity for authoritarianism and censorship”. Every time he gives a speech he specifically talks about being pro 1st amendment, regularly responds to his detractors, and actively defends the constitution.
I do not know what version of Elon you see, but from my perspective you are talking about a cartoonish media caricature that is the opposite of the reality that I see. We appear to be see the same person, same events, and are drawing opposite conclusions. Hence my point about sense making no longer seems possible, even when we actually appear to agree. (If anybody comes out as pro-censorship, I would be the first to call it out.)
I don't want to start an argument or anything, but I honestly do not understand your take.
If someone who loves and studies chocolate becomes, say, a bartender, and makes a cocktail specifically for the tastes of people who love chocolate in the same way they do, it is not unreasonable for them to advertise their cocktail as a "cocktail for chocolate lovers".
Will it be an appealing cocktail for all chocolate lovers? Conceivably not. Some may like more cocoa or some like a more buttery finish, some may be teetotalers and not want a cocktail at all -- but does that make it inaccurate advertising, or badly phrased? Not really, in my opinion.
This guy who loves the internet made a colour palette that he feels will be appreciated by those who love the same things about the internet as he does. Seems like reasonable and perfectly well formulated english to me.
Your example is perfectly reasonable. There is a relationship between cocktails and chocolate, and you expressed what that relationship is: he is making cocktails specifically oriented at people who love the flavor of chocolate.
When asked about the relationship between the color palette and the internet, his response failed to show any. He is not making an internet with colors, or colors with an internet, those are nonsensical statements. So in what sense is it for internet lovers? What characteristics of an “internet lover” would draw them to these colors?
When another commenter asked a similar question, his response was, “it’s not that deep”
I wouldn't let that stop you from signing up for bluesky -- in my experience it is definitely the best of the options for a twitter alternative -- but you should know exactly what it is you're getting into before you get into it.
> And at present, there's really only one each of the Relay and (Twitter-like) AppView components used in practice, but there is a real possibility of this changing and real architectural affordance work to allow it. So perhaps things to not seem all that bad.
This statement is one of the things that really boils my piss about almost all online discussions where valuations are mentioned: Fiduciary duty does not mean that you must simply maximise share price, and never has.
Fiduciary duty is specifically a moral imperative to do what is best for shareholders. Very often that is a large share valuation!
Sometimes, though, you work for a non-profit (who told their shareholders "we're not actually trying to make you any money, consider your buy in a donation, and your profit to be not being eaten alive by killer robots after AI gains sentience") your fiduciary duty to your shareholders is to continue to not allow an unhinged billionaire who doesn't appear to give two small fucks about any kind of safety to buy your company.
OAI's fiduciary duty is to their charitable mission. If selling to Elon for $97b jeopardizes the mission, then so would selling to preferred investors for $40b (as they would in turn face immense pressure by shareholders to realize an instant $57b gain by reselling to Musk!)
That's what this whole thing is about. Musk's offer will probably not be accepted, and he knows it. The purpose is to throw a wrench in OAI's plan to sell to insiders at a heavy discount, possibly making it impossible for the nonprofit to become a for-profit.
If this offer forces the preferred investments to cough up an extra $60b for the nonprofit, that's fantastic for the nonprofit mission.
The pin that pokes a hole in this theory is that commercial rents, at least in my part of the world in an expensive city, have risen faster than residential. Presumably this wouldn’t be the case if those third places were in such rapid decline.
Also, I’m pretty tightly involved in the local bar and hospitality scene, and most places are doing just fine — not quite pre-COVID levels at a number of places, but some are busier than ever.
> not quite pre-COVID levels at a number of places, but some are busier than ever.
The real estate bubble, if we are to call it that, goes back to the early 2000s at least. Pre-COVID, implying somewhere around 2019, isn't telling. For what it is worth, the housing price data I have in front of me shows that prices have come back down to nearly pre-COVID levels as well, so that more or less tracks anyway.
How does it compare to the 1990s? The landscape has definitely changed here. A couple of decades ago there were three busy bars mere steps from my place. Now, there isn't a single bar in town. Those closures brought consolidation to bars found in the next town over, which saw them thrive there, but now the decline is staring to become visible there too. The next, next town over is probably busier than ever as a result with even more consolidation slowly starting to take place, I can believe you there, but that doesn't imply general strength of the industry.
The media regularly reports on the dying death of the third place. Your local experience may not be providing an accurate picture.
FTA's "Architecture of nRootTag":
> (1) The Trojan code runs on the computer to be tracked.
reply