nerdjon

Right that’s largely the issue.

If enough people don’t use it, than people will just download it and see that no one uses it and never open it again.

Really the only other app with a serious enough use is Scruff. By nearly every metric it is a better app and does some really good things. But even being on both and basically bouncing between the 2 most of my conversations end up on Grindr.

There is another web app that has gained serious traction for offering a… unique value proposition but I am purposefully not going to name it here so someone doesn’t look it up and see something they don’t want to see. (I will just say there is a reason it’s a web app instead of an actual app)

Honestly I am not sure it will matter, there are better services out there but many people don't switch over for one reason or another.

Many just because they don't want too, or don't want to manage more than 1 app.

We also see several new apps spring up and just never gain traction.

It has developed a stronghold because most still use it, and that likely just isn't changing anytime soon.

That messages transition several months ago was one of the worst things they have ever done (and they have done a lot of poor updates).

Sucks that it still feels like a necessary evil just due to its user base. I continue to have conflicted feelings on paying for xtra. I hate it, but it's such a horrible experience without it.

Interesting, I figured infuse was just looking at metadata provided by jellyfin and I would not think any of the files themselves would matter at that point?

I don't have a particularly large library either (at least compared to what I assume many would have) so never really understood what was happening. I am curious about the file issue though, I have not had any issues with any files I have watched through the jellyfin appletv app.

I really wish we had a better tvOS (Apple TV) app for Jellyfin. I use swiftfin primarily and it works well enough but has some rough edges.

After switched from plex after their downtime caused my local server to not work (and just the direction of plex seems to be moving away from its original intention).

I have tried (and continue to pay for in hopes it gets better) infuse. And it works great when it properly has my library, but it constantly has issues of loosing my library and just forever “refreshing” or just never showing my library.

Why not just never connect it to the internet and never update the firmware?

I do wish I could just buy a dumb tv that just did TV things… but it’s simple to just use an Apple TV and never connect it. Or if I absolutely must to set it up or because there is a bug. Connect it via Ethernet briefly.

Better for privacy too.

My opinion is that most of the real uses of AI (like ML has always been) will be largely hidden things that are LLM based but not screaming at your face "AI". Particularly once the bubble pops and money stops being shoved into things just sticking an LLM in a pretty package with little to no value.

Some of the things coming in iOS like notification summaries and similar features are big examples. It's clearly LLM based but it's not a lot of the shoving AI needlessly into things that we are seeing now and provides a true improvement given the notification overload that we have right now.

Maybe it is too soon, but I would love it if they included a section of "security research discussion" or something. A place linking to those who talk about the system (good and bad) that understand this far better than I do.

I have been trying to look for that but I guess it will likely be a bit longer.

I keep wondering about this an no one is giving a clean answer on this.

I have no doubt that Uber and Lyft are in some ways doing this to game the system and I really don't want to defend how they treat their drivers.

But at the same time, if you are going to be paying an hourly wage you would expect some threshold of work activity during that time. If there are too many drivers on the road and that utilization is too low, than you are paying for people that you don't need.

That is how most hourly jobs work, you hire for the amount of work (or expected amount of work) that you expect needs to be done with an expectation of busy time.

All of the reporting has been about screwing over the drivers, but it seems like a thing you would do in any normal situation. The problem here is these companies before the law could have any number of cars on the road and it didn't matter how many people were using it. And any of the drivers were not interviewed in a traditional sense for the work.

> iCloud storage notifications saying have to upgrade to $9.99 plan to continue to store my photos, videos and even worse if I wanted to continue getting my iCloud emails. What(?), as my Google Photos is still sucking/backing up all the same media (goes back to 2016) for free. LAME Apple especially threat of not getting my iCloud emails!!!!

To my knowledge Google will do the same thing if you are running out of space. I believe it is shared also but I could be wrong. I have been out of Google's ecosystem for a while.

Apple should increase the base amount of storage with iCloud for free. What you mentioned itself is not an Apple thing to my knowledge.

> Apple Intelligence is so LAME compared to chatGPT app that runs on my iPhone. ChatGPT's iPhone app, it's assistant is almost sentient while Siri is still HORRID as it still at times doesnt understand you, you cant have a conversation with it or have it recall previous conversation/info you previously discussed as you can with GPT on iPhone. Again very LAME Apple!

Unless you are on the beta, you are not actually using Apple Intelligence. Even if you are on the 18.1 beta, they have made it clear that they there are multiple updates for everything to come out.

I think the better option is... why not both?

Update the first example to something like:

For additional order details, go to your account by clicking here.

and `go to your account by clicking here` is the link.

The argument around this that drives me the most insane, someone tried to argue with me that "how is this different than how we think" or "how do we know its different than us" or some variation of that.

As if because we can't prove it, it means that we should just assume it is doing something.

Then showing an example of it explaining a simple script as if that really proves anything.

The other one is "well humans make mistakes too". Well yes, but until now we generally expected that computers don't make mistakes or if they do there was something wrong with how it was coded. That assumption is now not only wrong, but we have to deal with the speed that AI can be wrong and how people are already comfortable with it manipulating data.

Not defending the use of the FAQ to clarify the clearly misleading marketing.

But part of this article implies that the FAQ was not there at the time of signing up. First I am curious if this is actually true?

If it is, does tmobile have any way of tracking the state of FAQ, contracts, etc at the time of signup instead of just the current version?

Clearly the comments made by the CEO about being an "uncarrier" is plain crap if they pull stuff like this.

When I first saw this I did not think about those that financed their phones through the carrier. That is a pretty horrible situation. Good idea to avoid financing through the carrier anyways and ideally hope the manufacture (like Apple) can do it.

I really hate all of the talk about how this has been received. It was clear to anyone that was not trying to push clickbait headlines that this was never meant to be a mainstream device. Apple may charge a premium for their devices but they also understand the market enough to have lower priced Macs, iPads, and iPhones.

No one thought a $3500 device was going to be mainstream when we see people complaining about phones being above $1k.

The fact that the first one came out with the "Pro" name made this even more clear.

Headlines like this make it seem like it "failed" in some way that is only because we are putting expectations on this to match other Apple products but this is just like the other "Hobby" projects that apple used to classify products like the Apple TV.

The market for AR/VR is incredibly early (if it manages to take off at all) and the technology just isnt there yet. But while we wait for the hardware to catch up why not start working on an idealized vision of what it could work like with its own caveats. I would much rather this than the xreal's and similar headsets way over promising (borderline lying in their marketing) and severely under delivering.

We still really should not be confident. We have seen this time and time again that the output cannot be relied on.

People keep trying to downplay the problem as "not a big deal" or that it happens rarely, but that is kinda the problem. It is right enough times that people get confident in it and we stop double checking the work. When it is manipulating data that makes it even more problematic.

Now if what is happening here is the AI is generating the code that makes the visualizations and that code is still working in a traditional way (accessing the data directly), than I think its fine. Sure maybe some of the code may be wrong, but at least it is not manipulating the data and coming up with wild conclusions.

I despise sites that disallow pasting into fields.

Banks seem to really like to now allow you to paste direct deposit information, which is insane. I get that they likely are thinking, well we don't want you type it into the first field and copy it into the second.

But I am copying it right from my bank's website, being forced to type it twice is just going to make it more likely I enter an error and I can guarantee you I am looking at that first field when I am typing the verification one.

I think you are missing my point here.

Is there a requirement that a signup flow is a single process that you do all at once?

What if they just moved the last contract you had to sign to something that you clicked on the technicians phone after they set everything up?

I get that it is part of the install process and we think of it as a different phase. But in reality how much of a diasctintion is that really?

I am trying to understand what is realistically stopping Comcast from saying that the signup process is not complete until service has been activated? Nothing I am seeing or what is being said here is telling me they could not argue this.

> They didn't require someone to come out to get you signed up for service.

I am struggling a bit to understand how Comcast could not argue that it is required?

I don't fully remember but I don't think I started paying anything for my service until someone came out to install when self install wasn't an option. (I could possibly see them justifying removing self install in the name of retention later, since how many people really have a choice in their ISP and will just not deal with waiting for someone to come?).

If service was unable to start until someone came out, to me that could be argued as part of the sign up process.

I am not necessarily agreeing that it is part of the signup process. But we know that these companies love their shady practices and will have their lawyers finding any loophole they can find.

I bought an xreal pro hoping for a cheaper vision pro while technology catches up.

Honestly xreal's marketing is generous at best. They seem to really try to push it as being an AR device when its really nothing more than a monitor stuck to your face that you can't change the size of.

Using the beam or the software on your computer adds some AR ability, but due to the way it works on your Mac it really is not a pleasant experience and uses a ton of resources. The tracking is not great.

The lack of any sort of pass through (all you can do is dim it) makes it fairly useless in many situations, like the one mentioned in this article.

Options are great, and it is great that is significantly cheaper. But I bought the xreal pro, I keep trying to use it for watching something, games, programming or other work. But every time I use it for maybe 20 minutes and just get frustrated and put it away for a few more weeks.

It is one of the reasons I think that the price (and size) of the vision pro is justified. The tech to make something smaller and cost less just isnt here yet. All of those headsets like the xreal have serious compromises while trying to push an "AR" narrative for features they just don't really have.

> will require sellers to make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up.

I am very curious what exactly this means? Is it the number of pages or forms you had to fill out? People you had to talk too?

So if for my internet I had to have someone come out to install it before service would start could they argue that they require someone to physically come out to turn off service? Or a call since a call would be "easier" than someone coming out?

Could they make the signup and cancel process worse at the same time at certain times of the year if there is a certain time of the year where cancelations are high to justify a worse process? Or does this require knowing what the process was like when each customer signed up?

It feels like this could be fairly easily manipulated. Throw in an extra page during sign up just so they can add in an extra "please stay" page when you try to cancel.

> most notably dropping a requirement that sellers provide annual reminders to consumers of the negative option feature of their subscription.

I assume this means sending yearly reminders that a subscription is about to charge and how to cancel? This is fairly disappointing if so.

I really wish they just required what Apple requires on the App Store. It requires 2 clicks, clicking cancel and then confirm. No upselling since it all happens within Apple's Settings.

Then any yearly apps I always get an email about a week or so (not 100% sure of the timing) that it is going to renew soon with instructions on how to cancel.

> Consoles tend to break compatibility every like couple of generations anyway.

True, generally with an architecture change. (Nintendo being the exception because... well Nintendo).

Recently though, especially with digital stores, companies have been getting more flack for it. There was a lot of concern over Sony being non-commital about the PS5 before release regarding PS4 compatibility.

Xbox was celebrated when they started their initiative last gen to add support for Xbox 360 and OG xbox games (while limited, it was something).

I am just not convinced that gamers are going to be as forgiving of it happening again in the digital age as they were before.

> I agree with you on the custom PC market, but that has to be pretty small compared to consoles.

Oh for sure, but I think it also tends to be a very vocal group. There is a reason `pcmr` is a thing.

> Consoles used to be MIPS, POWERPC and stuff and PCs where x86 "back then".

True, but at those times it was far more common for games to ship on one console or skip PC entirely. Even during the Xbox 360 generation which was still powerpc based.

My point there is less that they won't move to ARM for consoles, just that at this point I would be shocked if they were moving to ARM for the 9th gen and we don't start hearing rumors about it now.

And that doing so would have an impact on developers.

> Nobody on Mac is actually a gamer.

I always hated this generalization, Mac is my preferred OS but because I can't really game on it (despite it being quite powerful hardware) I have my custom build desktop. I would much prefer to have just my MBP.

> I will btw. I do not understand why people here love mobile games. No wait I do. They are easy, quick and P2W. They are busy adults or kids or pajeets with no money.

I agree with you mostly here. But the reason I mention this is I have gotten in an argument about what is "real" gaming and people love to point out how much mobile games make as if that is the important metric.

I think there are just 2 different forms of gaming. Neither are necessarily wrong, but they are fundamentally different.

I think for most 'general' computing, yeah Arm is fine. It has been that way for a while with smart phones and tablets being the primary device many people use now. Either you can run it through a compatibility layer like Rosetta 2 or it shifts to native. The performance hit is unlikely to really be felt for something like Word.

But the traditional gaming market (not mobile, I am not dismissing mobile but it is not the traditional market that is relevant to this conversation) is likely not going to make that shift anytime soon.

To the best of my knowledge I have yet to see any ability for a consumer to build their own ARM pc (someone correct me if I am wrong here?) and there are many gamers that will fight tooth and nail to not give that up.

If consoles did it, it would most likely mean a break in backwards compatibility or a lot of investment in emulation.

With consoles often being the devices that set a performance standard for PC's, I doubt they would be moving to ARM in the next generation so would not happen until the 10th generation. We are likely 2-3 years away from hearing about gen 9, and then another ~8 years until ARM becomes a conversation for any serious game console. There just would not be any incentive for PC to make a serious switch until that point (or around that time) since it would also fruther complicate game development.

There just have not been much movement in this regard. We are seeing a few ports come to Mac (and iPhone) but those are the exceptions.

Not saying that companies are not trying to try to push Arm hardware for gaming, try to claim that their compatibility layer is just fine for playing games on Windows. I am sure some people will do it. But I just don't see any serious effort to push Arm into gaming outside of mobile devices.

That is the point of the article but I am failing to see that point fully made.

I am not seeing that it has nothing to do with customer demand but instead the quote you said to meis saying it leads to problems with responding to an increase in demand.

If I understand the point of this article properly they require 58% utilization to pay minimum wage.

The article even mentions the cost savings for these companies to optimize their drivers to have a higher utilization rate.

Edit:

> Do said in a Sept. 27 public testimony at the city council that his agency intends to announce rules by the end of the year that would limit new driver onboarding as a way of deterring future lockouts.

I don't think they would be contemplating the above if there was no relation to customer demand.

There are only 2 parts of this I agree with.

First the naming convention for all of the iPhone models needs a cleanup. "iPhone 16 Pro Max" is weird. But not fully sure of an alternative.

and "iOS". It no longer makes sense to be generic and should just be "phoneOS" to match everything else. But at this point "iOS" is also largely solidified but not sure how much sense it makes to change and how many people outside of tech actually fully realize that "iOS" and "iPadOS" are now different.

Correct me if I am wrong, but both Uber and Lyft have almost no barrier to entry beyond a background check and maybe some hardware right (and obviously having a car)? Like no interview, no hoping to get it, you just get it? That was always my understanding.

If that is indeed the case, I feel like this makes sense and is a normal thing for a job. Making sure that your employee is staying productive to a certain degree and not over-hiring.

Too many drivers on the road means people have less work to share. I am super reluctant to side with either of them but to call this a "loophole" doesn't seem right. To me it seems like them doing what they should have been doing this entire time and making sure passenger demand and driver availability properly line up.

What am I missing here?

There is something strange about asking "what ads" and then saying you are using ublock origin. Thats your answer to "what ads" right there...

I don't run ublock origin on my work computer (which maybe I should) which is where I viewed this article.

The ads on this site are horrendous. At one point I had a video ad pop up that I could not close and I had to refresh the page.

Even as a developer, I have started to think that almost any time a developer complains about something they can't do or a safety net on my device. It is likely a good thing that it exists.

We saw this with app tracking (just yesterday I saw "we want to keep this app free for you" alert encoruaging me to click "allow" instead of ask app not to track.)

This is already how photos works and its long time that contacts followed suit. Hopefully it leads to people being more aware of the data they are sharing but I guarantee that apps are going to throw up scary screens to encourage you to allow all.

IF this feature is somehow the thing that is blocking you from making a company, your company doesn't deserve to exist. And I apply that to the social media companies that already exist thanks to being able to mine this data before.

I am genuinely excited that we may have found a way to protect Banana's future and clearly the way they developed this was the right way to do it.

But I am not looking forward to the anti-science folks vilifying this since the way I am reading this is that it is an GMO? Or did they just use the genetic tools to figure out what to breed in a traditional way?

If every single banana is GMO it is going to really set off some conspiracy theorists.

I really wish this anti-gmo thing never got enough traction for there to be laws requiring labeling. It has gotten to the point that if a product proudly claims its "non gmo" I will not buy it if I have a choice.