Apple? The company that has built its entire brand and product lines around "we know what's best for you and if you don't like the way we've done it, you're wrong"?
You’re not wrong but so far they’re one of the only major companies in their cohort that isn’t shoving AI down our throats/integrating it into literally everything and begging us to use it with some embarrassing corporate plea.
Opting out of Siri is incredibly easy and there are no major features i care about that decision locks me out of. I think it has some impacts on CarPlay but it’s never stopped me from being able to put on music for my kids or whatever.
Frankly I forget I’ve opted out all the time because they never bug me to start using it.
Let's not pretend that fact is anything but a happy accident, though. The only reason AI has been practically scrubbed from their website is to try to make us forget the time they preannounced fantastically brilliant AI capabilities and then delivered less than nothing -- not even fixing Siri, which is the obvious #1 product in the world that needs to be rebuilt on LLMs.
Apple, maybe because of ego, is often not the major mover on anything they didn’t come up with first. They tend to take a wait and see approach with a lot of ideas. Hell look at VR (which I’m surprised they even did but clearly they see longterm value)
In the US, IIRC they have a trusted person sort the bills by denomination for them -- like a friend or a bank teller -- and then they fold them into different orientations so they know what they've handed to a checkout clerk. No way for them to prevent being shortchanged, unfortunately.
An opportune time to mention the real-world example of when the authorities really wanted to gain full access to a computer but did not want to resort to legal compulsion or "rubber-hose cryptanalysis" -- they simply waited until the target was logged in, staged an altercation in the immediate vicinity, and then snatched the open laptop away from them.
Sony was granted a patent in 2009 "for an interactive commercial system that allows viewers to skip commercials by yelling the brand name of the advertiser at their television or monitor." : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sony-patent-mcdonalds/
Yes, mostly because no one actually cares much what anyone patents until a material invention eventuates, and partly so that they would be able to sue anyone who did actually invent it - which you will note they themselves of course did not proceed to do.
I don't claim this failed to occur because Sony is more decent than average, but because the idea is self-evidently very stupid. The thing is, when you get to have a "Patents" section in your CV, no one cares very much that they are stupid patents as long as you were working for a serious company when you got them. There is a point past which that's just a perquisite, like how the company subsidizes your au pair.
I've never needed an au pair! And I hold no patents of which I'm aware. But it is not 2009, or even 2013, any more.
That's a big assumption that this patent, a technology quite relevant to a massive media company, was filed only for future patent troll purposes. Plenty of seriously-intentioned ideas never materialize for a multitude of reasons.
The point is that the idea is now out in the wild and cannot be unseen, and however stupid or morally bankrupt it is, someone in the past did (and someone in the future will) think it was a good idea. And if and when it finally gets implemented for real, we all suffer.
The soda can validation 4chan meme isn't just a dumb joke. It's a warning.
(Unrelated, but since your prior comment on Vegas "hacking" is too old to take replies: if you haven't, you should definitely check out Thomas A. Bass's 1985 The Eudaimonic Pie, which I believe may touch upon one of the stories you mentioned, and is also one of that kind in its own right; having occupied some train commutes with it in about 2001 or 2002, I can recommend the book not only for its information but also as a well-written, gripping read, if somewhat shockingly naïve by our 21st-century standard. Enjoy!)
From the most unserious source imaginable, yes. Do you know of a company called "Chaotic Good?" Do you think they were the first to come up with the model?
But even if the 2013 post was as organic as you assume, I would think it worth finding a way to "warn" about the issue that doesn't make you look like a weird fringey incel lacking the social competence to read the kind of normal room which this website has emphatically never been nor even wished to be.
There were also some early shoe-based devices I have read about, which used earpieces (difficult to avoid breaking the thin wires necessary to hide them, and prevent damage from sweat). Some of these stories unfortunately weren't documented super well -- I think I came across them from the original participants chatting on a long-defunct forum or newsgroup -- but it is mentioned in passing here: https://jimsudmeierstories.com/adventures-with-a-concealed-b...
> Then around 1976 came “David,” using the Z80 microprocessor, oriented towards team play (the Big Player making the big bets) with hand keyboards operated through holes in pockets and transmitters to signal the Big Player. Later came “Thor,” a computer to track the shuffling (and possible clumping) of multiple decks. One of his inventions involved networking players together with fine wires about 3 feet long. Then there were “Magic Shoes” in which 12 batteries, computer, and all were hidden in “Frankenstein” shoes. Later still there was “Narnia, the sequencing computer.”
Perhaps because foreign governments with a known antagonistic stance would happily sell or hand over your data in order to cause large-scale economic instability via account attacks, political instability via fostering the prosecution of minority groups (as identified by said data)... get creative. Large-scale data on your enemy's citizenry is a new weapon in the modern arsenal, and we haven't seen anyone really try to use it yet, but I suspect the results when they do will be ugly.
Care to elaborate on "known antagonistic stance"? Is there any evidence that China has ever actually performed any of these types of attacks you're discussing?
"Get creative" might work well for fictional writing exercises, but is it such a sound strategy for assigning guilt? Surely you wouldn't like being prosecuted for crimes that someone "got creative" with in accusing you of, no?
No, because this particular attack is (as far as I know) a new concept, but in general, China being a major state sponsor of all sorts of large cyberattacks is very well-known (in security circles, at least) and has been extensively documented. The current likely scenario is that attacks would be performed against the US in the event that they tried to help defend Taiwan against Chinese invasion.
Yeah, but is it OEM? Even big names like Dell don't support their parts for that long, and you have to resort to getting sketchy third-party parts from China, or rolling the dice on a used OEM part.
They're really not -- Mac scissor switches are pretty delicate, and it's easy to do damage to the tiny plastic nubs on the keycaps or the switches... and if you damage the metal retaining frame in any way, you're toast (Mac laptop keyboards are virtually unreplaceable, being buried in the "bottom" of the unibody chassis).
I've swapped ~579 keys (6 MacBook keyboards, and one magic keyboard) with exactly one broken plastic bit from the very first key tried, before looking up the youtube video on how to do it. Damaging the metal retaining frame is impossible when removing or installing them appropriately, so the technique you used was very very wrong. They're easily and trivially popped off and on, if done right. Great care is not needed, with the whole processes taking me around ~10 minutes.
If you had a company whose core business proposition was Quite Obviously Shady, would you expect them to be scrupulously legit in other areas?
Quick question for you - rhino poaching is a huge problem in Africa, with poachers getting a surprisingly small amount of money per rhino they shoot, because the buyers only want the horns. Do you think paying the poachers more to not shoot the rhinos would solve that problem?
reply