kirklennon

Do not install any third-party antivirus software. It’s unnecessary and is itself a massive security risk. You have to literally override the built-in protections in order to allow the antivirus application to scan the other applications and files.

Then why did you waste time describing what you believed was the intention behind it earlier when you said

I never said that was the intention. I said that’s what I think of it as. In practice all it does is underline a point. These same people also totally screwed up how we chose the president and vice president and failed to provide a proper mechanism for replacing a dead president.

horribly incompetent at writing legal language

Horribly incompetent? No. Flawless, or even particularly prescient? No. They got a lot of big stuff right; they got a whole lot wrong.

it is worded incredibly clearly and explicitly as a prohibition

And yet it’s inherently non-operative. I’m unconcerned with how it was intended since that’s totally irrelevant to what it actually is.

Indeed, the limitation in what can be amended is in practice totally powerless. I think of it as a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the importance they placed on representing states rather than people. For what it’s worth, I advocate for the full abolition of the Senate. It’s an anti-democratic institution. There’s no way to fix it without making it a clone of the House so let’s just do away with it entirely.

And yet that provision is itself still part of the constitution so really an amendment just needs to have an initial sentence to override that limitation first. If there’s actually support for a change, anything can be changed.

No, my phone went into SOS mode yesterday. No apps, just a button to call 911.

That’s not a thing that exists. The closest thing is the shutdown screen, where the options are “slide to power off,” “Medical ID,” “Emergency SOS” and a cancel button, which requires you to enter your passcode and then takes you back to the home screen.

Sounds a bit sensationalist and doesn’t contradict what I said: if you already added your boarding pass to your phone, it will still be there, regardless of whether you have internet access at the moment. Furthermore, the staff can still pull up your record so nobody is going to miss their flight.

Mattresses have an enormous variance in thickness, and sheets vary considerably in the depth of the “pocket.” If your sheets can barely fit over a too-thick mattress, then they’re going to pop off when you move on them. You might just want to buy some new sheets with a deeper pocket. Alternatively, you can buy elastic straps that go under the bed and clip onto the sheets. You’ll generally either find these as a four pack of short ones that are meant to go only at the corners, or as a two pack of long ones meant to stretch under the entire bed and attach opposite sides. Get the long ones; they generally perform much better.

I think this is one step in ongoing efforts to further enhance the security of iMessage and has nothing at all to do with random topics that the tech press happened to focus on. Contact Key Verification came out in October. Beeper Mini came out in December. One of the third-party security analyses Apple provided for this PQ3 enhancement is dated January 15. I think it’s pretty clear that PQ3’s development long preceded Beeper Mini.

deleted by creator

But the stakes are too high to skip the 5 minutes it takes to print a paper copy. I can almost guarantee that everyone else is one close call/missed flight away from doing the same thing, too.

I don’t understand what scenario you’re imagining where there’s a problem. You check in 24 hours before the flight and add the pass to your phone. It’s not going anywhere. How would you ever miss a flight because you didn’t print it? Absolute worst case scenario: they have to look it up at the gate.

I know that you can’t fire someone just for being a sex offender unless it directly interferes with work duties (in the US)

You can definitely fire someone for being a sex offender in the US. Outside of a few exceptions that probably don’t apply in your case, you can also fire someone for being merely an accused sex offender.

You can also fire someone for laughing in a weird way, or wearing a color you don’t like, or being born on a Monday when you don’t like Mondays.

If you want the tech that badly why NOT license it?

Because they don’t think the patent is actually valid. Getting it officially invalidated is a process but if it really should have never been issued in the first place, then Apple is not truly infringing it and has no obligation to pay a cent to anybody else for it.

but the two that held up seem pretty valid to me

I’m not qualified to say either way but Apple’s $1000+/hour patent attorneys clearly don’t think the patents are valid and they’ve already shot down most of the rest. And Apple is so confident that they’ll win that they’re willing to pause sales and even (temporarily) disable a marquee selling point. Apple doesn’t need to be right on this and yet is confident that they are. For Masimo this is an existential question so they can’t not fight, even if they thought they had a weak case.

So based on all of that, I think Apple will prevail.

I don’t see how intimidation has anything to do with it. If you think the patent is BS and you have the financial resources to actually fight it, it’s good to fight it. It’s better for everyone when patents that shouldn’t have been issued are invalidated.

The short version is that a lot of patents were issued in the 90s and early 2000s for “inventions” that actually already existed “but on a computer!” After a lot of legal wrangling the standards got stricter and these never-should-have-been issued patents have been systematically invalidated, though it’s a one-at-a-time process. I think Masimo originally claimed infringement of a dozen patents. From memory, it’s now down to two patents that have not been entirely invalidated, and I think even those have already been carved down to remove most of the claims. So basically there are two half-patents left to litigate and Apple thinks they can finish those off as well.

No surprise here. Apple’s position, which I expect they’ll likely eventually prevail on, is that none of Masimo’s relevant patents are valid and they should have never been issued. Why pay money to license an invalid patent?

Because we have an elected government. If the government causes somebody a loss, voters, and by extension their representatives, and by extension, the government itself, wants to make them whole. Without allowing lawsuits, the only option is passing individual laws for each possible claim, and also creating a way to adjudicate those claims. We already have courts to handle the exact same kinds of issues between private parties. Congress decided to let it apply to the government too, when appropriate.

The government has sovereign immunity and can be sued only when it allows itself to be sued, such as under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

One of the more obvious use cases for the Apple Vision Pro is watching videos on a plane, which means you need to be able to download to the app first to watch offline. Netflix’s iPad app already works perfectly fine on Apple Vision Pro so supporting it required literally no effort at all. They went out of their way to disable availability.