Soli

chflags nohidden ~/Library/; killall -KILL Finder

gatorguy said:

"Recall that Keychain stores passwords/tokens saved by the user, including ones saved in Safari." 

But the most important note is this:
"Calisto’s activity on a computer with SIP (System Integrity Protection) enabled is rather limited. Announced by Apple back in 2015 alongside the release of OSX El Capitan, SIP is designed to protect critical system files from being modified — even by a user with root permissions. Calisto was developed in 2016 or earlier, and it seems that its creators simply didn’t take into account the then-new technology. However, many users still disable SIP for various reasons; we categorically advise against doing so."

So it's extremely unlikely that very many real-world users need be concerned with it IMHO.

csrutil status

hagar said:

The biggest news is multiple timers? What about multiple user support? Or are the majority of Apple users hipster single home dwellers?

techprod1gy said:

These will be welcome additions.  My main request is multiple user support but that may be ahead of its time.  It is very important that Apple authenticates who it is and what is shared audibly.  Unfortunately I think this is waaaaaaay more complicated than multiple users on a device.

Notsofast said:

Soli said:

tallest skil said:

gatorguy said:

Google ain't selling 'ya, not even making "you" and your data available to anyone else unless request it or under legal orders to do so (like Apple is). Google is far from the top dog. Unlike everyone I listed above they don't "sell you". They sell ads. Worry about Google selling it is not one of them.

How much are you paid per post? Just curious.

Are you reading what he's posting? Do you really think AppleInsider knows my name, email address, physical address, age, sex, gender, etc. simply because they use Google AdWords?

Google doesn't sell your personal data! How that can be more clear? It would be foolish for them to do that and they wouldn't exist today if that was their business mode. The long money is keeping the data for themselves. Google is profitable because they have collected data about you that no one else has.

Apple also collects data in much the same way that Google does, just through different avenues. The key difference is that Apple isn't selling ads as their primary source of income. They had 6 years of doing the same thing as Google with iAds because closing up shop 2 years ago.

Do you also think Apple sold your personal data to their iAd partners? Of course you don't because it doesn't fit your Google is evil and Apple is good narrative, and yet it's the same model. Even now you deny that Apple uses all this data about their consumer base to both create targeted ads and create products that lead to increased spending.

Please stop the fake news.  People can't take you seriously when you make comments like Apple and Google are the same when it comes to your privacy.  Not even the most ardent Android Boy would make such a silly statement.   Apple does not collect data like Google.  Apple has no need for your personal data and doesn't want it.  Google couldn't exist without your personal data and vacuums up every intimate detail of  your life. 

• https://appleid.apple.com/

DuhSesame said:

Soli said:

DuhSesame said:

Soli said:

tmay said:

KITA said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

KITA said:

AppleInsider said:

For these tests, we were rocking a six-core Intel CPU inside our 15-inch MacBook Pro. It a Core i7 processor with a base speed of 2.2GHz with boost speeds up to powerful 4.1GHz.

Geekbench 4 returned 4,884 for single core and 22,179 for the multi-core. Even though we have the base model 15-inch, it still outpaces the top of the line 2017 model which earned 4,360 and 11,979 for single and multi-core scores respectively.

That also is way above the scores we clocked earlier on the base 13-inch pro which earned 4,602 and 16,699 for the single and multi-core tests.

Geekbench is not telling the full story here at all:

You snipped out the rest of the quote in your zeal.

"In the real world, thermal constraints may be limiting the maximum power that the MacBook Pro could have. We've already started looking into this, and how to solve the problem absent of any patch from Apple, and will get back to you about it."

No, my focus was intentional.

I'm simply disappointed at the amount of attention Geekbench is getting when its results are proving to have very little to tell about the device.

Since I'm unaware of what your actual workload / workflow is that requires a laptop computer that doesn't throttle, and if the MBP doesn't fit your performance needs, why not just buy the Dell and be done with it?

Otherwise, why not have a bit of patience and wait for Mojave and whatever application updates that will follow to get a reasonable idea of how these MBP and applications will actually work together. Everything up until now seems quite premature for decision making, other than to wait for confirmation one way or another.

I don’t think he cares about any of that. For some reason (maybe he’s paid? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) he comes here to point out how Macs are crap. Have you ever gone to a Huawai forum to point out how their build quality sucks monkey balls? I certainly haven’t and can’t imagine under what circumstances I’d ever do that.

Although this time he (or Notebookcheck.com) is right about the cooling.  I knew the 8th gen will be a lot hard to cool due to its nature, and a redesign might helped a lot (but not completely).  I didn't see the any change in thermal systems though.

I don't know what Apple is thinking this time, maybe just following their "schedule", they knew is bad but still choose not to bothering it anyway, or they're being confident that "everything works out just fine?"  

10nm next year might change the whole issue, and that's another year.

It seems like the best of a bad situation brought on by Intel delays, or which Apple is still wholly dependent on.

I have to assume that when they design a case they plan ahead for the half-decade plus they’ll be using that case.

I’m still curious how they were able to increase the battery capacity significantly without increasing the size or weight. Well, it seems clear they shaving a significant amount off the top casing, but I’m curious why they could do that now but not previously? I doubt milling complexity or cost is an issue, and saving on aluminium is a bonus, so why not have done it previously? Is the top casing now less rigid? Are using a stronger grade of aluminium, like they had to do with the iPhone 6S over the iPhone 6?

I think they didn’t fulfill their batteries compartment to begin with.  Remember how much empty space they have in 2016-2017?