larryjw

Apple can’t stop the leaks directly. 

You know the Rational Economic Man -- the guy who makes rational economic decisions?

He doesn't exist. 

Here's what I've learned after 50 years of investing. 

Nobody know what they're talking about. It's all verbal masturbation. 

NASEM (National Association of Science, Engineering and Medicine), formerly just NAS, issued a report in 2019 requested by Congress, on Reproducibility and Replication in Science. I'd highly recommend it. 

The report distinguishes Reproducibility from Replication. To reproduce is to take the original data and reanalyze it, sometimes also using the same software used in the original study. Replication is duplicating the original study -- different researchers, different conditions, etc. 

The NASEM report notes that software used by researchers are subject to change (black boxes, if you will) and this can alter results of studies. Software like R, SAS, SPSS, etc are often updated. 

Frankly, I'm not at all clear what these paragraphs from the above article mean:
"Two sets of the same daily heart rate variability data collected from one Apple Watch were collected, covering the same period from December 2018 until September 2020. While the sets were collected on September 5, 2020, and April 15, 2021, the data should have been identical given they dealt with identical timeframes, but differences were discovered. 

It is thought that tweaks by Apple to algorithms used in the Apple Watch changed how the data was interpreted before being collected. "

A set of data from December 2018, and another set from September 2020? Why should data have been identical? What am I not understanding? Did they really take some raw data from December 2018, and pass it through two separate algorithms and found a difference in how that data was interpreted? 

In any case, I don't take my Apple Watch results that seriously. I expect a lot of variation. Where on my wrist I wear it, software upgrades, skin changes, sweat, environment, different watch with different sensors. Big picture trends is the only thing that I would expect would count, not absolute values. I have no clue as to the error bars of the Apple Watch. Using medical quality devices would be ideal, but nobody wears them for 20 hours per day over years -- medical equipment is used over a few days or a few minutes -- quite limited in value even if perfectly accurate. 

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Corollary: If you get to see into my glass house, I get to see into yours.

Rayz2016 said:

larryjw said:

I think Apple's guideline rejecting executing code is needs to be eliminated -- an emulator is an emulator. 

In reality, executing code in an emulator is what programs do. For example, PDF files are themselves computer programs which instruct and iPad how to render a PDF visually.

Isn't programs as data and data as programs the basic principle of computing? 

No, PDF is a document format. It doesn’t run, it’s rendered, same with music files. But that’s not the real problem. 

The emulator allows apps to run code that can’t be seen or examined by Apple, and that has always been against the rules. PDFs, the other hand, are pretty benign. It would be quite hard to piggyback an App Store in a PDF document. 

So the real problem is the lack of consistency in applying the rules. This should never have  been allowed in the App Store in the first place, so they’re going to look like real dicks for removing it now. 

No, a PDF is a program. Just because a PDF can be labeled a document doesn’t mean it’s not a program. You need to take abstraction up a level.