It would be helpful to others if you explained what exactly your purported fallacy entails.
I can find only one other reference to it and it's on HN.
254 karma · joined May 22, 2014
I can find only one other reference to it and it's on HN.
This is too bad. With vision clearer in hindsight, it appears Ford should have taken a more "lean" approach in testing his means of production, perhaps at a smaller scale requiring fewer personnel and ultimately a smaller investment.
I am no botanist, so I'm unsure if they had the means of fighting blight at that time, but the presence of it would have made me question the resulting scalability (if density of plantings had to be reduced).
However, the foible seems understandable, given Ford's ambition and track record of solving problems.
Of course you are more exposed to injury when you need to simultaneously use a heat gun and 1-2 other tools just to get started fixing a cracked display on an iDevice...
Edit: Speaking from experience here. Used to purchase broken iPhones in college, fix them, and sell them for a profit. The latest generations are miles away from the repairability of the first several generations.
Perhaps they should focus on building a reliable premium product rather than a premium product that suffers failures due to too many gadgets (too put it simply).
As far as what is a better strategy for them moving forward on their policy re: replacement & repairs, they're probably trying to figure out what to do right now based off your mentioned hidden numbers.
I hope they do the right thing by the customer, as many of us are heavily invested in their product line, in multiple ways.
(Yes, I fully regret selling my previous gen MBP.)
Like another person on here said, these replacements & repairs hurt both the customer and the company.
I don't understand why Apple makes these drastic changes on major products without thorough, repeated, and lengthy QA processes.
What's happened?
Huge props to you for stepping out and sharing what you were going through. If only this was more commonplace for others in your situation.
At the end of the day, we all deserve to be happy, and I hope you reach that point very soon through careful management of all things “life”.
It might seem rare in the States, but only because 1) the entrepreneurs heading these ventures do not want to give away profitable niches in the market and 2) they are not as fun to talk about as startups with lofty billion dollar goals.
[1] https://blog.chromium.org/2010/12/year-of-extensions.html
[1] https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-enlisting-interacti...
A challenge-response test may include a type of authentication where one party (e.g., security device 240) presents a question (e.g., a “challenge”) and another party (e.g., attacker device 210) is required to provide a valid solution (e.g., a “response”) to be authenticated. An unsolvable challenge-response test may include a challenge-response test that does not have a correct solution and/or a challenge-response test where attacker device 210 may be incapable of providing the correct solution (e.g., when the correct solution includes a character that may not be typed using a standard keyboard, etc.). In some implementations, security device 240 may generate the unsolvable challenge-response test in the form of an unsolvable CAPTCHA. In some implementations, security device 240 may generate the unsolvable CAPTCHA using one or more construction techniques that are designed to block attacker device 210 from sending a request to server device 230 without making attacker device 210, and/or a user of attacker device 210 (e.g., a hacker), aware that attacker device 210 is being blocked (e.g., by security device 240) from sending the request to server device 230.
While I am all for escaping the "black box" that is Facebook's in-app browser due to our inability to see what they are loading/tracking on the backend, that likely won't happen until people stop using Facebook all together, as it is more convenient for the everyday user. Simply put, Facebook's in-app browser creates less visual noise than a link opening externally in Safari (where there is often the animation of a new tab being created). This ignores the fact, however, that Facebook requires this behavior and thus I cannot be sure that my above statement "everyday people prefer a more convenient / less UX noisy solution" holds true.
Can anyone recommend any resources to better understand the interaction between the aforementioned choices (e.g. why would one company prefer a certain combination of language and infrastructure over a different combination)?