Thank you. I completely agree. It’s implicit in your points about your manager and work group, but I’ll add that at bossless startup you can’t walk down the hallway and chat with different subject matter experts in hard science fields. Another point I would like to make is that working for a big company gives me the flexibility and means to continue going to school. I know graduate degrees can be controversial on HN. But getting a graduate degree is a life goal of mine. I wasn’t ready at the end of my undergrad to take on debt.
They're solving a problem they introduced themselves eh?
Voice command: shout at car to make it cooler. Car doesn't understand. Shout at car to turn off radio so your voice command is clearer. Car doesn't understand. Take eyes off road to turn off the damn radio with the touch screen. Crash!
The button interfaces actually work 100% of the time. Voice command... lol...
Tesla created an interface that can only be used while driving by handing control over to software that is unable to recognize when a vehicle in front of you is at a dead stop.
I find talking to a machine uncomfortable and embarrassing, regardless of whether they work. I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way. Why can't I just turn a dial?
Give me a voice interface that works 100% of the time (not 99% of the time, not even 99.9% of the time) and I'm sold. Otherwise I'll continue to prefer a knob that "just works".
This doesn't seem groundbreaking or mysterious. Battery stats are available for every application in settings > battery. I took a moment to reflect on the background usage for Facebook, and I turned that off. I did not delete the app. You can do the same thing in general > background app refresh. You'll still get notifications, and your newsfeed will refresh only when you open the app.
To be fair, it's only a matter of time before Apple patches this, or in this case, Facebook "pushes a fix".
Otherwise the advice is sound, disabling backround app refresh is the better approach if you care about the app functionality and don't want to use the sub-par mobile browsing experience.
There's no need to lose out if you don't want to, regardless of the sensational headline.
> To be fair, it's only a matter of time before Apple patches this
I don't think that's being "fair" to the consumer. Sure it may get fixed in the future, but it's an issue now. And even if/when this specific issue got fixed, you can bet Facebook and others will look for other ways to get around this "limitation".
Sorry, I was referring to "accidentally" using background audio. They never tried to say that was accidental, the accident was that someone basically left an infinite loop and it vacuumed people's batteries. That's what I'm talking about when I say there's no benefit.
Now it's working as expected. It's not an accident and FB never claimed that.
I'd be interested in knowing my battery stats but all I get is "Battery information will be available after using iPhone for a few minutes" (a solutionless problem that others also have, according to a Google search).
Now I don't use an iPhone as my main device, but many people are reporting that even turning off the background usage for facebook and still see a significant amount of background usage from the app.
I think background app refresh may be separate from location services, and facebook still tracks your location in the background. Try also turning off location services for fb (or set it to only when in use). Settings>Privacy>Location Services
iOS allows processes to run in the background (after being in the foreground) for some time even with this setting turned off. So this can be quite a difference (I don't use Facebook, but it's fairly noticeable with Viber).
Thank you for adding some sanity here. If someone's that obsessed with battery life, they can always delete all the apps off the phone and stay in airplane mode unless making a call. But then again, some people like to actually use their smart phone.
Last year I worked on development project with youth in Bolivia. It was common for them to use Facebook's website instead of app because it saved battery and data, both of which are extremely important to you if you are a poor teenager in a country with fairly expensive internet using a low-spec smartphone with generally poor battery life.
This way they could get a bit more out of it than they would otherwise which is a perfectly rational choice that doesn't deserve to be mocked.
Computers are less widespread than phones because latter are cheaper and you can also take them where (cheaper or free) connection is. They are not just an entertainment device although they use it for that too (and why shouldn't they?).
Any research for school or otherwise will be done through phones as libraries for many are not easy to reach or well stocked. And social networks play an important information role beyond socialising that every human person needs purely for health benefits.
Shouldn't we ALL save our money instead of blowing it on a phone that can run Facebook better?
What standard are you trying to hold these teenagers to? I don't understand why they would need a cell phone less than any other teenager, or any other person really.
Basically the judge agreed with the defendant that the FBI breaking the internet and then pretending to be repair techs sent in to fix it was an illegal search and thus anything they saw during their visit was in admissible (suppressed).
As there were a couple of instances of that they have to file a few more motions to suppress the rest of the FBI evidence but basically it looks like the judge will come down on their side.
In general I am glad that the judge decided that way, it should never be acceptable for law enforcement to go snooping around without a warrant. However, I've also noted in such cases that when the government loses like this they often put pressure on the property owners to avoid such losses in the future, and so I would not be surprised if Cesar's and other hotel chains will start including in their room contract, language clauses that allow them to grant access to the rooms to third parties with "reasonable need".
> language clauses that allow them to grant access to the rooms to third parties with "reasonable need"
It's already almost certainly there. Its also there in virtually all rental agreements; the existing caselaw (cited in this decision) supports the position that using the managements authority to access for 'need' as a pretext for a search is unlawful.
> Its also there in virtually all rental agreements; the existing caselaw (cited in this decision) supports the position that using the managements authority to access for 'need' as a pretext for a search is unlawful.
Does that same caselaw imply that if police want to search an apartment without a warrant, and a landlord lets them in, but the tenant did not grant permission, the search was illegal? I was under the impression that that was permitted, which is a downside of living in an apartment/rental.
Tenant's rights laws usually ban the landlord from entering the apartment without notice (except in the case of an emergency). So they presumably don't have a right to enter that they can extend to the police.
A few searches say that the landlord cannot consent to the search. A sample result:
There was a case, I can't remember the specifics, of a drug bust where there was more than one person in the house, the person charged did not want the police to come in, but someone else ended up letting them in. The search was contested as unlawful, but I'm not sure how it turned out...
Edit: Here it is, as long as they arrest the disagreeing party and remove them from the home, the Supreme court ruled the arrested party can no longer object to the search, and in that case they don't need a warrant. So I think the racket is they claim exigent circumstances to enter, arrest you, and then perform the search.
Curious about this as well. I was under the impression that even though you might not own your apartment or house (or in the case of a mortgage wherein the bank really owns it), you still have protections due to it being your home.
"Here, the government disrupted the internet service to the
defendant’s hotel room in order to generate a repair call. Government agents then posed as repairmen to gain access to the defendant’s room and conduct a surreptitious search for evidence of an illegal sports betting operation. By creating the need for a third party to enter defendant’s premises and then posing as repairmen to gain entry, the government violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights."
A bad a precedent (government sidestepping obtaining a warrant by just shutting down utilities and posing as repairmen) was shot down by a district court despite the magistrate judge suggesting that it didn't violate the 4th amendment because the defendant was not coerced/put under duress into consent. The district judge thought otherwise.
Like you said, the limiting factor is the extremely accurate scan. My workflow is not rigorous, just a proof-of-concept until the printing and scanning tech comes around.
I switched from the 6 to 6 plus. Reading is great. I'm 5'11" with hands average of that height. I think the only reason this has climbed so high on hacker news is because it has Apple's name on it. More choice is better. As people are consuming more content on their phones, like this website, bigger screens are helpful. Consider PDFs.
It's a rumor at this point [1] but if they completely kill small screen phones on the next release I'll eat my hat. Since the 6 came out, I've noticed that smaller people of either gender really prefer the smaller screen size. There's a gigantic market for the 4" screen, Apple already has support for it in their OS, and they're not the type to throw away billions that people are offering them for this size of device.
Yeah, I'd love to see this. I'd even consider holding out with my 5S until whatever comes in 2016 if I could have an equally performant device in a smaller package.
