rcomeau

Amazing to see all the fabricated assumptions defending Apple's decision to prevent third party repairs. Not qualified you say. How do you know if they are qualified? You assume this to defend Apple's position. Apple should not be held responsible if an "unqualified" person uses non Apple parts. Of course Apple is nor responsible. Who in their right mind would blame Apple? The warranty would be voided. Of course the warranty would be voided. If it were under warranty, they'd have taken it to Apple for free repair in the first place!

The argument here is that mane repairs can be carried out by competent techs with access to parts but Apple (like many companies) choose to discourage this for money and to make their lives easier by not having to deal with botched repairs. The other side of the argument is that consumers have rights (companies have certain legal obligations in this world) and one right is the right to reasonable repairs for devices where reasonable repairs are possible.

AppleZulu said:

This is irresponsible reporting. The headline and lede make it seem like this was somehow a failure on the part of the iPad itself. It was not.

Read on, and you'll understand that the issue was that, once dropped, the iPad became a wedged-in obstruction to flight control mechanisms. The same would've been the case if the dropped item had been a Microsoft Surface, or a paper notebook in a rigid binder. There is no fault in the hardware design or software operation of the iPad itself.

I think anyone can quickly assess that the iPad was not responsible. I recall a Harrier jet crash decades ago with a similar cause. The ground lost contact with the jet and it flew out to sea. Other jets were scrambled and they noted that the canopy was gone and the pilot was missing. The plane eventually crashed and the pilot found deceased in the woods somewhere. Investigation determined that a hand-held flashlight fell under the seat and when the pilot changed the seat orientation (maybe after turning into the sun), the flashlight wedged under the seat ejection actuator cable. As the seat moved, the cable got pulled and the seat ejection rockets fired the pilot through the canopy. The cause was termed "accidental extraction of crew". Remedy was to tie all loose items to a string to prevent it from getting under the seat.

chadbag said:

beowulfschmidt said:

Applejacs said:

Ok, so Apple cuts a check for how much?

Ideally, it would be the amount of money they made from the infringement.  But for a long time, it's been well worth it for Apple to infringe and then pay some pittance to make the problem go away.  The only way to stop infringement is to impose penalties that actually matter.

I know exactly how likely that is though, given how much corporations "contribute to" legislators.

Pray, tell.  How do you calculate how much Apple made from the claimed infringement?  If such a simple matter you should be able to enlighten us on the method. 

(I said “claimed” as the matter is not settled. This was just the next step). 

Simple. File the case in that county in Texas that seems to be good at adding massive punitive damages to these cases, so the infringer ends up on the hook for hundreds of millions (which gets reduced later by some other court, but is still a big enough number to mater).

StrangeDays said:

omasou said:

At no time was she smart enough to inform the police so that they could apprehend the United baggage handler who is stealing luggage?

Instead she posts to Twitter to guaranteeing the perp will not be identified.

Ah yes, when all else fails - blame the victim! Insult her intelligence for trying to get the airline charged with her belongings to handle it. 

Had she gone to the police first you people would be saying she could have dealt with the business first. Roll eyes 

Umm, she got the bag back. It seemed it was with the delivery people and other than being slow and not informative of the process, a bag (likely a bunch of bags) did not make it to the luggage carrousel and and after a long delay, it was delivered to the owner in the end. Sometimes it is not a good idea to see how the sausage is made.

I had bags sit at an airport where I missed my original connection and the bag was not placed on the next flight with me (and some fellow passengers). I saw the bag sit there for 3 days before the bag was finally forwarded to the local airport. I was unable ti reach a human being to actually tell them where the bags were, and the only time I was able to speak to someone who knew anything was watching the AirTag move form the airport to some commercial budding. I was able to streetview it and saw a courier sign on the building. I called the number on the sigh and spoke to the delivery people who confirmed they had he bag and were bringing it to the hotel.

9secondkox2 said:

zimmie said:

MacPro said:

I can't see what Apple could do?  If they improved the sensitivity wouldn't that just make measurements better for light skins too, thus maintaining the differential?  It's physics not bias. 

Not necessarily. All pulse oximeters use a measurement correction curve to convert from the amount of reflected light to an oxygenation percentage. That curve needs to change based on skin tone and possibly other characteristics we don’t even know about today (since only recently did a million people start carrying an oximeter around with them everywhere). Correcting the curve for darker skin would make readings for lighter skin less accurate, so it would need to be adjustable.

There should be a calibration setting. 

It may not be that simple. The amount of IR light that gets absorbed in the skin is dependant on different factors including the % of melanin in the skin. Melanin absorbs certain IR frequencies effectively so what ultimately happens is you have a lot less signal to work with. If you have insufficient signal, calibration curves won't help because you simply don't have enough photons to work with. It is unfortunate and in a way, the physics is racially biased (add us soulless gingers with a lot of freckles as well). I guess the choice is to not invent the device at all since it cannot benefit everyone?