Apple used to have a really good security record, it's mind boggling they blew it all up just to force Liquid Glass on users.
For those not in the loop, Apple used to provide security patches for supported older iOS versions. They changed a lot of behavior around the release of Liquid Glass (iOS 26, MacOS Tahoe). Starting with iOS 18.7.3, they only release patch versions for the iPhone XS and XR. They've repeated this, through to 18.7.6 now.
Apple should stop doing security by obscurity in the first place. People have no way finding out whether their phones have been compromised. Lockdown mode is just a cope mechanism for phones likely already compromised and there is no guarantee lockdown mode cannot be bypassed.
Apple hardware is inherently insecure and it is bizarre that Apple keeps burying their head in the sand.
Yes, but you can use anti-virus software on other platforms which can detect many threats.
Also just because others are not great, doesn't excuse Apple from being very much negligent.
I know many people who bought Apple products specifically because of the myth that they are secure. They were in fact mis sold. There is common thinking that no anti virus software = no viruses = secure among non technical crowd.
Even then. I'll take a leaky iOS 18 over pretty much any leaky Android or internet-connected TV or whatever.
iPhones are still the least bad option, for regular people who aren't planning to solder anything, select their boot loader on launch, or recompile a kernel.
You are claiming that based on information you don't have (the future). At least you could call it a prediction rather than state it as an obvious disfact.
Every photographer with expensive equipment that I know has insurance for their equipment. Sometimes it is included with homeowner, sometimes a separate rider, and sometimes part of their commercial insurance. So it would be covered.
However, that wouldn't help OP if they needed the lens for their trip, suddenly need to find another one, and needed to float the cash until insurance pays out.
> Up to a point, there's an easily distinguishable sound and detail difference between cheaper and more expensive gear, given that you don't cheat (i.e. put cheaper gear in expensive enclosure), but that difference indistinguishable well before these "true audiophile" level stuff.
I don't understand how that is cheating. Isn't it a better controlled experiment if the equipment looks the same?
No, I mean "cheating at the market". Some companies sell literal snake oil for 10x the price, then they make the market unreliable for everyone, and nobody believes a company which really uses more expensive components can get better sound.
If you want a good controlled experiment, create a literal black box, without any distinguishing features, or lose the box completely and give them an output (speakers or headphones) only.
Another bad thing is, sound is so subjective and experience changes between brands a lot. For example: headphone "burn in" is considered an hallucination, it mostly is. However I have bought a set of RHA MA750i earphones which changed from "This is not what it says on the box" to "am I sure that these are the RHAs I hated" in a month, because it's sound character changed so immensely. No other headphone I had in my life did that.
So, everything is so muddy, subjective and unreproducible. When a room's organization or floor carpet density can change its frequency response, you can't control anything. Moreover, every human's ear profile is different, so you can't be sure that their ear is hearing that the same (e.g. one of my ears have a notch in its hearing curve around mid frequencies. we don't know why it happened).
While the £25.000 price tag on that preamp is literal snake-oil level and the builder has the audacity to erase the model numbers of the ICs (and OpAmps) he uses, some of the methods he uses are legit and Mark explains them exceptionally well.
Is that even possible? Someone has to pay for it. If I'm rich and I get $40,000 a year from UBI, but my direct or indirect taxes go up by $60,000 in order to fund the program, am I really receiving UBI? At some point UBI has to involve transfers between income or wealth levels. The particulars of how the program is funded determines how progressive or regressive the policy is in net.
The whole point is that paying everyone a fixed $X amount regardless of anything else is extremely easy to manage, so you can drop all the bureaucracy that builds up around welfare. But, yes, in practice it also acts as a progressive income tax of sorts even with an otherwise flat tax rate (which allows for further simplification) because delta between UBI check and taxes is going to gradually decrease as income rises and eventually becomes negative.
That said even with just personal income tax it's viable. I once crunched the numbers on what it'd take to have everyone in US receive the current federal min wage as UBI payment, assuming a flat surface tax (i.e. relying solely on that UBI check to make it progressive), and it was somewhere in the ballpark of 50%.
Of course, you can get there much easier if you go for the sacred cows such as capital gains. Raising that to the same level as regular income alone would bring a lot of tax revenue.
We could also start taxing AI, since it is (or at least positioned by those deploying it) the immediate cause why so many people are going to find themselves out of jobs.
I love NNW, especially the new iteration since Brent got it back. Mac-assed software at its best.
The other day I was searching for how to turn a youtube channel into an RSS feed and tried all sorts of convoluted instructions for finding channel IDs, etc. At some point I thought this is the kind of user-centric thing that NNW has probably already thought of, and sure enough, if you just paste in a youtube channel URL as the feed, NNW sorts it out and creates a feed for you.
It does - I think the praise being sung was just that you don't need to know how to construct them. YouTube doesn't have a little orange rectangle "RSS" link to click, or anything.
At one point (when I first tried this) I'm pretty sure youtube didn't have a link to an rss feed in the source. I had grown used to going to source and searching for "rss" and "xml." However, I just checked and they definitely do have a link now!
Yeah, quite possible. You can construct the feed by some rules, mine are here: https://github.com/pipes-digital/pipes/blob/4243c9234ddab6a3... - but then you have to monitor whether it still works periodically. Being able to replace that by proper meta tags would be nice.
Using openrss.org as an intermediary might work as well, but not ideal to rely on a third party for that.
I remember writing to the govt (DoD maybe? I don't remember exactly) asking for a copy of the rainbow books and getting a surprise a few months later when a heavy box showed up at my parents' door! I no longer have them, but have fond memories of poring over orange, green, teal, and a few others.
reply