There's an option in Settings to use attention-aware features, like dimming the screen faster if you're not paying attention. I imagine disabling that feature would turn this off.
You can easily tell whether someone is smiling or not underneath a mask, and I think most people have learned to "smile with their eyes" to make it even more obvious. It's not that big a deal.
They absolutely can. They're obviously limited by passenger comfort as the other commenter said, but the difference between an Acela and a Northeast Regional in acceleration speed is obvious.
Why? Apple makes everything from the hardware up to the apps on the homescreen. Why do you trust the hardware, the kernel, and the OS, but not the "apps", when all are made by the same organization? They're the same as any other software on the device, they just have an icon associated with them.
With all due respect, if you're not familiar with the concept of voice in linguistics (which has a particular technical definition, and makes no sense to apply to a purely adverbial phrase like "surprisingly" or "to our surprise"), maybe you should read up on the concept before trying to determine the difference between active vs. passive.
I guarantee you the product manager for Clips probably just made a lot of noise about trying to reduce onboarding friction as much as possible, and their manager talked to someone else's manager and got that entitlement. I agree it's bad optics, but on the other hand I'm not sure there's a practical difference between the Camera app having this entitlement, and Clips having this entitlement. Both are made and distributed by Apple, regardless of the method of installation.
The fact that "anyone can add a feature" doesn't excuse the lack of a feature existing _right now_, especially considering (as other commenters point out) accessibility is very difficult to retrofit. Not to mention, accessibility should be a top priority for any user-facing software, and the fact that it was utterly neglected suggests there may be other basic flaws.
> You can take steps to stop bad men without being an executive.
You just spent the previous sentences explaining how women couldn’t possibly be complicit because they’re not on boards. But now anyone can be complicit?
> focusing on the men-enabling-men problem will have the widest societal impact for women
Eh, are you sure? I’ve never read an exposition of a dysfunctional abusive company that wasn’t full of women in powerful positions also enabling terrible behavior.
Eh, if it makes you feel better it's probably not going to happen. PCs and Macs won't become any less tinkerable. Gatekeeper can be turned off with a single terminal command, iPhones and iPads are becoming more tinkerable, not less. Shortcuts basically exposes a visual scripting and automation language. It's really not doom and gloom.
I'm not a linux kernel maintainer but it seems like the maintainers all agree it's extremely unlikely a static analyzer could be so wrong in so many different ways.
If you have an iPhone or iPad, have you played around with Siri shortcuts at all? You can essentially create voice-operated scripts that can perform chains of actions on your phone. It's limited, but not as limited as you'd think.
Do you honestly believe this is something only men do? You don’t think there’s even a chance that maybe the existence of the “mainsplaining” concept is self-reinforcing, since every instance of a man doing it will be further evidence it exists (confirmation bias), other cases will be ignored, and anyone who questions it is socially marked as incel or MRA-adjacent?
By Siri you don’t actually mean Siri, but the accessibility voice controls right? Like VoiceOver or Voice Control? Siri is not an accessibility tool so if you were trying to use it as one it could explain your problems.