GG1

About

Username
GG1
Joined
Visits
205
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,159
Badges
2
Posts
483

Reactions

674Like0Dislike77Informative

  • Apple employees express concern over new child safety tools

    GG1GG1
    entropys said:
    Why does it matter who owns the hash list?
    Point is the process has been created. The algorithm can simply pointed to any other hash list of photos (or data really) that Apple is made to do. By a despot, a State actor, the courts or whatever.  It won’t be able to say no if it creates the ability. 

    Do not create the ability in the first place and Apple won’t be forced into trying to say no, and fail.
    This post and an earlier post by you demonstrate the slippery slope, such as:

    Say I reside in Australia and have pics of Winnie the Pooh on my phone to entertain my kids. I visit China on business, where the CCP provides the hash database. When I leave China, I'm detained for having dissident information on my phone. Plausible scenario or "the sky is falling?"
    darkvaderelijahgOferzeus423

  • Police, GreyShift struggle to keep iPhone unlocking tool purchases secret

    GG1GG1
    gatorguy said:
    nizzard said:
    The hottest corners of Hell should be reserved for the people that make these device and those that keep them secret.
    OMG!! You haven't a clue. 

    The hottest corners of Hell should be reserved for the people who kill and maim and hide behind "privacy" as they are doing with my son who was killed 6 days ago by one of them, and not by accident. Check your priorities.

    That's all I'll say about it. 
    My condolences.
    gatorguywatto_cobra

  • Right to Repair will never be effectively legislated, until it is fully defined

    GG1GG1
    DAalseth said:
    I mentioned on another article on the same subject earlier today that I’ve come around to agreeing with Right to Repair, to a plint. Our devices are for the most part boxes containing modules. A battery module, a motherboard module, a screen module and so forth. I agree with the article that it’s unlikely, indeed a bit silly, to demand schematics to allow people to do their own board level repairs. Almost no one is going to want to do that. On the other hand Apple and other’s insistence that the devices are sealed for your protection is too much as well.

    If battery and screen replacements were easy and available at more 3rd party shops, then I suspect most of this Right to Repair hoopla would die away. Anything above that should go to Apple, but that would cover the vast majority of repairs people want. 
    I am guessing that the majority of desired repairs involve the battery, screen, glass back, and possibly side switches/Lightning connector. So perhaps Apple can optimise for these repairs (in future models). Will they?

    All other component repair is realistically beyond the capability of nearly everyone due to the specialised surface-mount technology used in the logic boards, specialised interconnect cables, etc. I once repaired the Lightning connector/flex assembly in an older iPad, and it was very challenging. I had to use the hot-air gun and microscope at work to do it. I doubt Right-to-Repair implies this level of accessibility to repair, but as the article points out, there must be a relevant definition of what's considered repairable.
    muthuk_vanalingamronnFileMakerFeller

  • Apple is now Google's largest corporate customer for cloud storage

    GG1GG1
    Don't Apple have several data centres around the world, including a few in the US (AZ, NC)? I guess Apple outgrew them, or it's more cost efficient to have a third party (Google) handle the ever-increasing hardware needs.
    watto_cobra

  • New 14-inch and 16-inch Apple Silicon MacBook Pro, redesigned Mac mini in pipeline

    GG1GG1
    sflocal said:
    I can totally see the new Mac Mini being no bigger than their old SuperDrive external CD-ROM drive from a few years back.  Basically the width of a couple iPhones laying down side-by-side.  

    These new chips and their low power/thermal advantages really open up new design possibilities.
    I thought I read that the current Mini form factor was purposely kept the same as the original size due to its widespread use in rack-mount applications (MacStadium, etc.). But after seeing the thinness of the 24" iMac, I can see the advantage of a new form factor for a purpose-built Mx Mini, such as two in the space of the current form factor.
    watto_cobra