The other difference between Steve and Tim is Steve would have never been caught dead giving a gold gift to a sitting president. It comes off as desperate and evil, two things Steve would have hated associating with Apple.
Elon cult members still to this day will tell me that because humans only use vision to drive all a Tesla needs is simple cameras. Meanwhile, I've been driven by Waymo and Tesla FSD and Waymo is by far my pick for safety and comfort. I actually trusted the waymo I was in, while the Tesla I rode in we had 2 _very_ scary incidents at high speeds in a 1 hour drive.
I love this argument because it is so obviously wrong: how could any self aware person seriously argue that hearing, touch, and the inner ear aren't involved in their driving?
As an adult I can actually afford a reliable car, so I will concede that smell is less relevant than it used to be, at least for me personally :)
(1) is true, but actually driving is definitely harder without hearing or with diminished hearing. And Several US states, including CA, prohibit inhibiting hearing while driving, e.g., by wearing a headset, earbuds, or earplugs.
Human inner ear is worse than a $3 IMU in your average smartphone in literally every way. And that IMU also has a magnetometer in it.
Beating human sensors wasn't hard for over a decade now. The problem is that sensors are worthless. Self-driving lives and dies by AI - all the sensors need to be is "good enough".
Human hearing is excellent. Good directional perception and sensitivity.
Eyesight is the weakest sense. Poor color sensitivity, low light sensitivity, blindspot. The terrible natural design flaws are compensated by natural nystagmas and the brain filling in the blanks.
Well, in TFA the far more successful manufacturer of self driving cars is saying you're wrong. I think they're in much better position to know than you :)
I loved season 1. Season 2 I thought was great, but to me they opened much more new story than they resolved. I worry season 3 will be much of the same, especially if they’re saying season 4 is basically a certainty. I think severance could have been 2-3 seasons.
I was ok with it opening a new story at the end of season 2 because it’s a fascinating dilemma and I’m happy they wanted to explore a deeper question about the morality of having two souls in one body and how that affects their humanity.
However, it should end next season. This idea it’s going to be a long term project is going to ruin everything and now I am sad.
I think they've been making a solid pace for the story including answering more questions than I expected, but then I can't help but compare the pacing favorably to both the problematic Dollhouse and the under-appreciated later seasons of HBO's Westworld.
Knowing what we know of Joss Whedon today, I think at least 70% of the problems with Dollhouse were Whedon's own issues. It came out in an interview that morally dubious character Topher was Whedon's close to a self-insert character, and that tracks and also explains a lot about the show's problems.
I maintain that Seasons 3 and 4 of Westworld were quite good, but not enough people watched them because they got lost or otherwise fell off in Season 2. But you sort of have to understand Season 2 to get a lot of what 3 and 4 did, to the show's peril. (Massive spoilers: I refer to Season 2 as the Futurama Robot Church season as I think the Season 2 arc was largely about how Delores was the Robot Devil, like in the Futurama Robot Church stories if they were not played for laughs. A lot of what Delores does in S2 and S3 maybe doesn't make half as much sense without that context. S2 trying to be an S1-like puzzle box made the meaning of that a lot less clear than it should have been. Not to mention how many people didn't want Delores to take that dark of a turn, despite it being deeply telegraphed in Season 1, and per flashbacks had already happened once before, hence the whole weird Wyatt thing.)
> Depending on the situation, that could be construed as an attempt to actively interfere with a police investigation
IANAL but I highly doubt this would hold up in court with even mildly competent attorneys. Anyone can easily accidentally trigger it, I do all the time.
Does anyone know how devices like Cellebrite work? Like high level I assume it taps the numbers and has some algorithm that prioritizes common passcode patterns.
But how does it not get locked out the same way we do when we fail our passcode 5+ times in a row? Is it just super easy to get around that exponential lock-out for iOS?
It is not super easy to get around that tech. It used to be easier a long time ago. Apple patches the methods every time they can, and have made hardware adjustments in attempt to make it as hard as possible. A lot of these methods involve tricking the counter so it doesnt increment at all, or somehow rolling it back. If the phone isnt set to wipe after 10 attempts, tricking the timer that time has passed would be enough.
Im not sure if anyone other than Cellebrite knows the exact details of what they are doing. (If they can even unlock latest iPhones that are properly secured. I’m seeing a recent article that implies recently unlocked iPhones had biometrics enabled) I wouldn’t be surprised if their techniques involved disassembling the phone, and tampering with every connection of the chips involved, or depowering them in weird ways as they are counting attempts, or even desoldering and transferring the chips to other boards. I suspect that if apple knew and could patch the method, they would.
It’s impressive that it is so hard to get into iPhones imo. People use 6 digit passcodes to lock their entire digital life. That would be considered horrendously insecure for anything that isn’t an iPhone. You can (and should) increase it to a full password. But a lot of people don’t.
For me, getting into management was less about feeling bogged down in the specifics, but more about control (directed mostly above). Anyone who’s had a bad manager or bad decisions they need to adhere to might be familiar with the feeling that caused me to dip my toes into management.
Like I’ve been in situations as an IC where poor leadership from above has literally caused less efficient and more painful day-to-day work. I always hoped I could sway those decisions from my position as an IC, but reality rarely aligned with that hope.
I actually love the details, but I just don’t get too deep into them these days as I don’t want to micro-manage.
I do find I have more say in things my team deals with now that I’m a manager.
Asking as a fellow manager - do you ever wonder some of the people you manage might be thinking of you in the same way? Someone making terrible decisions, making them less efficient? And, have you ever noticed that something you strongly pushed back when you were an IC did not matter, or was actually the right thing in retrospect?
> do you ever wonder some of the people you manage might be thinking of you in the same way?
I'm almost certain some of those I manage do think of me in this way. I try to explain my thought process and decision making to those I manage, and I am always looking for genuine critical feedback. I also own up to it when I've made a bad call. Overall, my anonymous ratings are pretty high, and my teams have seen exceedingly low turnover so I take those as good signs.
I used to be so deeply annoyed with leadership decisions as an IC. When I got into management my attitude completely shifted. Leadership only cares about shipping code. Thinking they care about anything else and you're fooling yourself. So whatever your team cares about your decisions doesn't matter. Are they shipping code? All good. Team dynamics will work itself out as long as you're pushing to main.
Now I'm back to being an IC and I just do the job. Want me to change this variable name so its more readable, in your opinion? No problem. I shall change const foo to const bar.
As someone with a 4k tv and an Apple TV 4K, I thought that all of my streamed content was in 4k.
When I recently switched to self-hosting, I was almost certain since I was so used to 4k that I’d need to self-host all 4k content.
I realized the whole time most of the streaming services I used barely even gave me 4k content, and when they did it was so low bitrate it was basically comparable to 1080p.
So now I specifically download 4k movies for ones that I really care about being 4k (e.g nature documentaries) and for the rest 1080p is more convenient space/time wise.
That is an enormous TV that would dominate the decor of almost any living room. Even if it was a The Frame tv it still would be too dominant a piece.
OP is right, at the typical TV pixel per angle (TV distance + screen size), 2160p is a waste. That's also why I always tell people to switch on performance mode on all console games that support it. Doubling your FPS for an imperceptible resolution decrease is a golden trade-off.
Ironically, monitor pixel per angle is still often too small. For typical desk viewing distances, you want 2160p at 21" and 2880p at 27". Most people that have big monitors have 2160p at 27".
Note that ultra-wide or not doesn't matter if you express the resolution you want in the vertical
Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV; it's the same 30°-40° of horizontal field-of-view for both, with 32° being a notable notch along the range.
This is then usually combined with the 60 PPD visual acuity quasi-myth, and so you get 1800px, 1920px, and 2400px horizontal resolutions as the bar, mapping to FHD and ~WQHD resolutions diagonal size independently. From these, one could conclude even UHD is already overkill. Note for example how a FHD monitor of exactly standard density (96 PPI, so ~23") at 32° hfov results in precisely 60 PPD. That is exactly the math working out in its intended way afaik.
At the same time, Mac users will routinely bring up the Pro Display XDR and how they think it is the bare minimum and everything else is rubbish (*), with it coming in at a staggering ~200 PPD, 188 PPD, and ~150 PPD at 30°, 32°, and 40° hfov respectively. Whether the integer result at 32° is just the work of the winds, who knows. It is nonetheless a solid 3x the density that was touted so fine, you would "not be able to see the individual pixels". But if that was a lie back then...
The pixel density (PPI, PPD), viewing distance, and screen real estate discussion is not one with a satisfying end to it I'm afraid. Just a whole lot of numerology, some of which I sadly cannot help but contribute to myself.
(*) not a reliable narration of these sentiments necessarily
> Not aware of viewing distance recommendations differing between monitors and TV
Uh.. what?
You usually sit 60cm from your monitor, but 3-6m from your TV. It completely changes the math, which lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.
The other way around, your monitor won't really get the 'retina' effect of not discerning pixels until you hit ~220 PPI.
> 3-6m from your TV (...) lets you "cheat" with ordinary TV sizes (50"-65") because you will not or barely notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.
Yes, at those sizes and distances, all the usual rules of thumb will report that the difference will be indistinguishable between FHD and UHD. We're in agreement there.
It's just that if "cinematic immersion" is among the goals at all, I really don't think e.g. viewing a 50" TV from 6 meters away can provide it. That's more like "something is making noise while I'm having a pop and scrolling social media on my phone" at best. A lot of TV watching happens like that, but then resolution is rarely a concern during those anyways.
> You usually sit 60cm from your monitor
> the 'retina' effect
So we're selecting for 60 PPD ("retina") at 60 cm of viewing distance, let's see:
21" -> 42.352° hfov, 2544 × 1431, ~139 PPI. At UHD, it's ~210 PPI. WQHD would be enough though, and that'd be ~140 PPI.
All of this is to say, I have no idea where you're pulling that ~220 PPI figure from, especially when it comes to higher sizes.
You can also see the PPI slowly descending from some maximum value (eventually reaching 0) since we're talking about a flat panel, and so the math slowly gives out. If you assume a curved display and make the viewing distance the curvature radius (600R) to compensate, you can calculate that maximum value to be ~145.5 PPI. In that case, this value would remain fixed no matter the diagonal size. Not anywhere close to 220 PPI still however.
That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.
> That said, I definitely sit further than 60 cm too.
I've tried sitting closer than 1 metre / (3ft) from a flat 32" 4K display, and I find it kind of overwhelming. At 60cm viewing distance I end basically up keeping one window down the middle of the display that is in focus, and put utility windows off to the sides - and then I physically translate my head to look at then, because the corners of the screen are distorted if I just pivot.
I used to have a 40" 4K display, back when such things were available on eBay from SK, and I had to wall mount it some ways behind the back of my desk to use it comfortably.
I'm sure a curved panel would help with the corner distortion up close, but it kind of seems like a solution in search of a problem.
> The differency between FullHD and 4K is very noticeable with THX-recommended viewing angles. I watch 98” from 3 meters.
I think you'll find fairly few people (outside of serious TV enthusiasts) have their living room setup like this. It's a massive amount of wall space to dedicate to a TV, and a pretty tight sofa <-> coffee table <-> TV placement.
> I realized the whole time most of the streaming services I used barely even gave me 4k content, and when they did it was so low bitrate it was basically comparable to 1080p.
That is also my experience. You get a mashed, distorted, rescalled resolution (being UHD or FHD) which makes original MPEG promotion videos (320x240 pixels) look sharp.
Streaming is all about lies. They want to use the lowest possible bitrate while promising you the moon.
reply