sdw2001

jimh2 said:

Side loading can be theft if you have not paid for desktop version. Respect the software developers by not stepping all over their rights. 

That's utterly absurd.  No one is going to circumvent buying a desktop version of an iOS app.  We're talking about people who want to play Boom Beach on their Mac.  The whole prohibition is pointless.  It's just appeasing developers who have other beefs with Apple.  Apple gets to say "we're honoring the developers' wishes."  That's all it's about.

georgie01 said:

seanj said:

sdw2001 said:

I can't put this any more diplomatically:  I call bullsh*t.  

There is no way to know that the app "prevented" infections.  What it did was notify people that they may have been "close" to someone who tested positive.  Was that helpful?  Possibly.  How many of the notified users subsequently tested positive?  How does the app define close contact? The other feature relates to checking-in to venues that are ID'd as "high risk."   There are so many factors and questions here.  What if people who install the app are more prone to embrace a false sense of security, thereby engaging in public more?  What if people who test positive are less likely to download the app? Not only can we not say the app "prevented" infections, we can't even prove it's been beneficial.  Common sense would dictate that it is.  But that's not evidence.   

Unbelievable.

Random bloke on internet thinks he knows more than the researchers at Oxford University and the Alan Turing Institute. I know who I’d place my money on being right 

While what you say seems correct in theory, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who is able to think for themselves that there has been very little public expression of science regarding the coronavirus. Debate is an essential part of science, but despite that there is much conflicting information surrounding the ‘accepted’ perspective (and no concrete information supporting it), nearly all public debate is silenced. Silencing debate is not science.

The reason most debate is silenced is because managing the population is considered more important than being truthful. So we receive a narrative, not science, which we’re told is science in order to make us obedient. But in reality it’s just the latest ‘thing’ to keep us as pacified as possible.

As a result there’s plenty of reason to question any study by any group that conveniently aligns with the narrative. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, just a realist who can think for myself.

This. All of this.  Scientific debate has been squashed on coronavirus.  We have medical professionals being banned for YouTube from discussing possible treatments.  We have those who question lockdowns and masking (based on the data) being silenced and ostracized.  This thing has been political since the start, and I don't just mean domestic U.S. politics.  As you said, it's about control.  The virus is very real and represents a serious threat.  But our response has overall not been based on science.  There are countless examples, starting with the fact that the concepts of "lockdown" and "social distancing" do not appear in medical literature for infectious diseases.  And masking?  There is very little data to show that universal masking has reduced transmission. Here again though...I can't make that statement without it being turned into a giant straw man, or me being labeled some kind of anti-maskhole.  Notice what I did not say:  I didn't claim "masks don't work."  Or that I don't wear one.  The point is we can't even debate and discuss the data, which is a real problem.  

bulk001 said:

Intel’s hubris is made worse by the fact that Apple has never selectively highlighted facts that make them look better than their competition!!! (/s for those
of you with your jock strap too tight to miss it). While interesting, the reality is that we are 7 months into a 24 month transition with a first gen chip. Once major software from companies like Adobe are fully transitioned we will know the real world results. If this transition is what it takes to move Intel along then it is a win for a lot of people and companies not just Apple users. And if accurate, they will force Apple to work even harder!

OK, to be fair that is not true at all, particularly as it applies to the power PC versus Intel era.  Apple pretty much did nothing but photoshop comparisons.  Were you around for the “megahertz myth?”  There was some truth to it, but Apple played it up big time. Intel is doing the exact same thing now. The difference is it’s not going to work.  

I have a 1 year old surface for work and while it’s fine, it doesn’t even compare to my nearly 5 year old 15” MacBook Pro.  

This is a tricky issue, one that I see both sides of.  One one hand, big tech’s censorship is outrageous, unfair and obvious.  On the other, the way this thing is written is terrifying.  I think you’ll see even less conservative speech on the major platforms.  There is probably a more targeted way of address the liability issue as part of a multi prong approach to reign in big tech.  Write it so that platforms with X amount of revenue and users can be sued for ideologically motivated/unequal censorship (based on the argument that the large platforms are now the new public square).   But, keep a shield in place regarding their reasonable efforts to prevent illegal activity.  In other words, if they take reasonable efforts, however that would be defined, they can’t be held liable for their users’ content.