- Last Active
MacPro said:Have AI done away with the ability to block certain posters? I just looked to add a few in this thread and can't find it.
I thought it was hugely disappointing. Incoherent storytelling and characters, and some absolutely cringeworthy moments.
The acting and the second half action were pretty good, but everything else was on overload. Too many characters, too many locations, too many cameos, too many pointless sequences, too many CGI characters, just plain too much. It felt like they had two different story concepts, put the scripts for both of them in a blender and went with what came out.
And I think the attempt at the gritty "the rebels can be bad guys too" and the lengths they went to in order to make that clear was ill-suited to Star Wars, a children's film series (despite the elevated rating).
nht said:crowley said:nht said:hungover said:Soli said:hungover said:They repeated the (non-cached) test a number of times, visiting the same local websites and got massively different results. And still they are at fault?
And this isn't the first time CR has used poor methodology to test technology. There is no skullduggery on their part, they simply don't have the expertise needed to do a comprehensive test that can trusted, regardless of whether it's above or below a company's own battery life results.
In order to ensure continuity I would imagine that Apple store those sites in a cache on their own local servers. And that those same caches are used year in, year out, to ensure that each new Mac is tested under the same stresses as the previous ones.
If my assumption is correct (which I accept might not be the case) then the only difference is that Apple cache those sites on the Mac, CR don't. Neither test strikes me as being particularly complex or scientific though (and neither is particularly "real world" unless the "typical" user only ever visits the same 25 static websites).
Once our official testing was done, we experimented by conducting the same battery tests using a Chrome browser, rather than Safari. For this exercise, we ran two trials on each of the laptops, and found battery life to be consistently high on all six runs. That’s not enough data for us to draw a conclusion, and in any case a test using Chrome wouldn’t affect our ratings, since we only use the default browser to calculate our scores for all laptops. But it’s something that a MacBook Pro owner might choose to try.Consumer Reports has shared diagnostic files pulled from all three computers with Apple in the hope that this will help the company diagnose and fix any problem. We will report back with any updates.
And I hardly think calling a result "varied" and "inconsistent" when it has been exactly that is "senastionalist" or even an assertion that it "sucked". Indeed, I rather think you're being sensationalist with your stymying of Consumer Reports.
Their standard tests were hampered by a software bug that didn't exist on previous products, Apple are fixing it, CR will retest. No need to accuse anyone of being unreasonably lazy or negligent.