macwise

"High resolution and contrast from the 48MP sensor

"You get a little bit more dynamic range in the 24-megapixel photos," McCormack explains. "Because when shooting at 24-megapixels, we shoot 12 high and 12 low -- we actually shoot multiple of those -- and we pick and then merge."
When shooting a 48MP image, the iPhone has to rely on an extended dynamic range algorithm instead, providing less exposure data. So, the dynamic range should be wider in 24MP images."

This segment seems to clear up a lot of confusion that I at least had during the Apple Event and when reviewing related promotional materials Apple has released on the new phone cameras.

To wit, I was confused by the references to 24mp, but ended my search for clarity last week under the impression that the resolution of the 1x camera in the iPhone 14 Pro Max (48mp) was being downgraded to a "new and improved fancy-pants" 24mp camera in the iPhone 15 series, with lots of computational data to make it good and stuff. I was a but underwhelmed and disappointed by this move. Thanks for (somehow) managing to make that all more clear than Apple's highly-groomed comms.

chadbag said:

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer company…

I LOVE Square Cash. I live in the sector of the multiverse where the likes of PayPal somehow hook the mindless masses. Sigh.

y2an said:

Beats said:

The fact anyone can reverse engineer this is scary.

Anyone with the right (fairly advanced) skills can reverse engineer anything, given time and resources. 

Right. And the "anyone" you need to pay special attention to in this situation is the one who purports to be your benevolently patriarchal Uncle. And Uncle, in all his infinite wisdom, has continually asserted his influence on those you trust to keep your data, your information, your *life* yours — and in this case, the entity you have decided to trust, well that's Apple. 

Apple is the modern-day version of your locked bureau. And that locked bureau was clearly and unequivocally OFF LIMITS from Uncle.

When this provision was affirmed, it didn't matter if you had nothing to hide. You had the right to that locked bureau.

It didn't matter if you had the severed head of an innocent child in that bureau, either. You had an indisputable right to privacy from a prying Uncle's eyes except in VERY special circumstances.

It would have been preposterous if a bureau manufacturer had built a skeleton key and EULA for the piece of furniture which allowed them to inspect the contents of your bureau — as a neutral third party, of course — anytime they chose. It would have been even more unthinkable had the manufacturer's policy included a provision which allowed them to report the contents of your private papers and effects to Uncle should they deem them illicit. 

Now, how much do we need to worry about Uncle, and his wily ways of creeping on our privacy and autonomy? 

Well, seeing as how Uncle incarcerates more of its own fam, and spies on, invades the homes of, and bombs more innocent humans than any other patriarchal entity in the entire human race, I'd say it's a serious point of concern. And any person here or elsewhere dismissing this backdoor attempt to peek into your bureau as "not that big of a concern" has forgotten or been forever blind to the real risk this poses — and the consequences it brings — to civilized society. 

asdasd said:

Of course some taxes are totally wasted, like the taxes for continuous wars. In general Republicans support all those wars. And government expenditure there often is spent overseas. Some taxes are very useful for a sane and normally functioning society. In fact this very internet we are discussing originated via government funding. 

Republicans AND democrats support the wars we get into. This is a historical fact. And referring to taxes spent on the defense budget as "some taxes" when it is the government's single biggest expenditure is either dishonest or misguided (at best). At any rate, I don't care if 99.9999% of Americans think it's a good idea to blow up babies in the middle east or elsewhere. That doesn't make it civil or ethical. 

Are you saying we wouldn't have the internet without the government? I assume you also believe roads never existed without government as well, yeah?  😂😂😂

lorin schultz said:

All of that may be true, but I'll take my chances with government and rules because I don't want to have to take a sword or gun with me just to get to work without someone trying to steal my shoes or eat my face. I don't disagree that majority rule sucks, but there are so many anti-social people in the world that it's just not practical for everyone to be their own police force, product tester, educator, and infrastructure builder. For all its flaws, and all the mistakes it makes, representative government is still better than anarchy or authoritarianism.

So you are saying you'll accept the real, daily consequences presented by a mafioso who takes 50% of your property every year, robs more innocent people than all home burglaries combined, kidnaps more of your fellow members of society than any other government on earth, spies on you and everyone you know, uses your money to bomb innocent women and children in countries you've never visited and which are no threat to you, threatens private companies you use with violence in order to get them to share your private data with government so they can circumvent the laws that were put in place precisely to avoid such collusion, empowers mega corporations to exercise monopolistic control on markets, refuses to hold its own (police, prosecutors, judges, military, legislators, etc.) responsible for their crimes, squanders the funds which they claim are being collected to help the unfortunate or needy....instead of taking responsibility for yourself because there's a POTENTIAL risk of having a pirate emerge who might do ONE or TWO of these things to you?

I think you need to revisit your understanding of reality. Let's start with Anarchy: anarchy simply means "no ruler". It doesn't mean no rules, nor does it mean no responsible citizens. If you tell me right now that the only reason you don't murder, thieve, or engage in violence is because the law says not to, then perhaps you have a point. But then again, for all the onerous laws we currently have in this country, we still have all those things. In countries where drugs are decriminalized, for instance, drug use goes down (along with the connected violence, illness, overdose, addiction, death, etc). How does one explain that, other than to note that it's quite apparent that the more you dictate what people can and can't, should or shouldn't do, the more you drive them to stop thinking for themselves and their own well-being. Civil society isn't about forcing people to be good. It's about allowing people to live freely, and taking responsibility for yourself to keep yourself free.

Perhaps it's less about the laws, and more about the fact that people aren't naturally inclined toward violence, deception, or oppression. Perhaps, it's only this artificial mechanism we've come to rely on so heavily (government) which augments our natural inclinations so they stray from self-preservation to simple leeching off of others because we don't have to face someone down directly in order to steal their property or limit their freedom. We would certainly see a lot less theft of other people's money if those receiving government "rebates" had to go door-to-door with a gun in hand and demand the money themselves instead of getting a tidy little check in the mail. What is civil about theft, even if the guns are only implied (so long as you aren't dumb enough to question or disobey)?