Roll out of Big Sur caused havoc on Mojave/Catalina macs.

[Alcofribas]

4 hours ago, dr lopez said:

how are you posting this???

i believe that was a mail in post, by shea

[dr lopez]

18 minutes ago, thawkins said:

A lot of people care about privacy. Stuff like the cookie law (however dumb the implementation) and GDPR is not there because a few folks wrote blog posts about these things. They exist because on a fundamental level people are catching up that keeping your stuff private on the internet is a big deal.

It's just not that easy for many folks to put the money where their mouth is and switch to a platform that does not spy on them, because - as I said before - Windows is a similar mess of snitching, and administering your personal Linux workstation is a big fucking headache even for people who are at home with computers, and basically a nonstarter for anyone who needs software that does not run on Linux. Let's not forget that majority of the work that goes into keeping Linux the platform of choice has to do with how it works as a headless server sitting in a datacenter rack - almost nobody cares about a desktop user experience.

I guess your attitude is basically "haha stupid mac users deserve what they got, nobody cares anyway", thanks for your informative contribution.

no they didn't "deserve" it, and they're not stupid. and i don't hate apple. I've used macs literally my entire life and will continue to do so. I just think often articles on the (very real and scary) concerns over digital privacy treat every computer user as a hyper-online tech-savy person who can at the very least explain the differences in linux/mac/win. that right there eliminates SWATHS of computer users. a majority of people on earth I would reckon. So my point is that apple has probably made a calculation that most consumers dont really know or mind about those internet based checks, cookies etc. Those who demand digital privacy will do something else. 

[thawkins]

Anyway you Linux posters better be ready to prove how you got sound working on your machines or get run out of this forum as the charlatans you are!

[ignatius]

Just now, dr lopez said:

no they didn't "deserve" it, and they're not stupid. and i don't hate apple. I've used macs literally my entire life and will continue to do so. I just think often articles on the (very real and scary) concerns over digital privacy treat every computer user as a hyper-online tech-savy person who can at the very least explain the differences in linux/mac/win. that right there eliminates SWATHS of computer users. a majority of people on earth I would reckon. So my point is that apple has probably made a calculation that most consumers dont really know or mind about those internet based checks, cookies etc. Those who demand digital privacy will do something else. 

i know people who don't know where photos go when they download/save from emails. "i downloaded it but i have no idea where it went" usually it's an older person on a windows machine. but plenty of people have limited idea of how a computer functions, why it's behaving slow etc when they have like 50 browser tabs open or downloaded a bunch malware games etc. 

they often interpret the computer behaving slow as "it's time to get a new computer". 

i find that usually the outrage over some computer privacy issue is overblown, then more understood as a more benign if a bit creepy OS thing.. but sometimes the outrage is justified.. it's just a matter of figuring out when the sky is falling and when it isn't. 

3 minutes ago, thawkins said:

Anyway you Linux posters better be ready to prove how you got sound working on your machines or get run out of this forum as the charlatans you are!

linux works for some things and there are more apps and plug ins that support it. the most common thing i read about is not being able to get driver support for audio/midi interfaces and needing some serious troubleshooting chops to figure that out. 

bitwig, reaper (i think), u-he, audio damage offer linux versions of their software. i'm sure there's more linux specific stuff but i'm uninformed about it. 

[thawkins]

1 minute ago, dr lopez said:

no they didn't "deserve" it, and they're not stupid. and i don't hate apple. I've used macs literally my entire life and will continue to do so. I just think often articles on the (very real and scary) concerns over digital privacy treat every computer user as a hyper-online tech-savy person who can at the very least explain the differences in linux/mac/win. that right there eliminates SWATHS of computer users. a majority of people on earth I would reckon. So my point is that apple has probably made a calculation that most consumers dont really know or mind about those internet based checks, cookies etc. Those who demand digital privacy will do something else. 

Yeah I guess. My consolation is that so far Apple is not selling your data, they are just handing it over to law enforcement.

[thawkins]

4 minutes ago, ignatius said:

i find that usually the outrage over some computer privacy issue is overblown, then more understood as a more benign if a bit creepy OS thing.. but sometimes the outrage is justified.. it's just a matter of figuring out when the sky is falling and when it isn't.

I am at the level of cynicism where if I read news like this, I assume the reality is far worse and we will get something closer to the truth some 5 years later when someone accidentally discloses another top secret slideshow about mass surveillance.

[ignatius]

8 minutes ago, thawkins said:

I am at the level of cynicism where if I read news like this, I assume the reality is far worse and we will get something closer to the truth some 5 years later when someone accidentally discloses another top secret slideshow about mass surveillance.

i tend to assume if one company is doing it then they all are and it's worse than we know. but then i wonder for a while "what does it mean?" and eventually i forget about it and move on unless there's something simple i can do to moderate any potential harm

[thawkins]

11 hours ago, ignatius said:

i tend to assume if one company is doing it then they all are and it's worse than we know. but then i wonder for a while "what does it mean?" and eventually i forget about it and move on unless there's something simple i can do to moderate any potential harm

I don't think Apple is selling the data it collects to outside companies, like Facebook or Google are doing. I am naively assuming this because their core business is making the hardware and software so they really should not hurt for cash.

That said, they probably are branching into this field by bluetooth tracking in physical stores and all the other fun stuff that I forget or don't know about.

Until the US government starts properly regulating big technology business unfortunately there is nothing to do but take it.

[Limo]

2 hours ago, thawkins said:

I don't think Apple is selling the data it collects to outside companies, like Facebook or Google are doing.

To be fair, Facebook and Google aren't selling their data to outside companies either. They're selling access to specific demographics to advertisers. To very, very specific demographics.

The advertisers don't ever see your data, they don't know they're advertising to you specifically and they have to trust Facebook and Google that you're in the group of people they want to target.

 

[thawkins]

Yes, you can say that technically they are not selling the data, but providing paid access through some querying interface or other tool, but effectively it is still selling the data and monetizing it. Zuckerberg has slipped a couple of times and basically let through that Facebook internally thinks of this as charging their customers to have access to data.

The tech companies themselves are really really careful about not even slightly appearing to leave an impression that they might be handing over anything to some shady parties, but I am 110% sure it is happening. At best it is a sleight of hand where a team at Google or Facebook provides a specific API (https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/) or service for a paying customer so that they can say that no actual data leaves the premises, and the 3rd party ShadyCorp just gets a very detailed easily deanonymized dataset through entirely legal means. They have developed this stuff for law enforcement queries and they are going to eventually try to sell these products to random companies as well because after all it's already done anyway - why not make money off it?

Bottom line is that as this data is their lifeblood and profit center, they will be always motivated in more and more spying and analytics and tracking. For Apple at least for now this is not the core business, but it may as well turn out to be.

Edited November 16, 2020 by thawkins

[oscillik]

2 hours ago, rhmilo said:

To be fair, Facebook and Google aren't selling their data to outside companies either. They're selling access to specific demographics to advertisers. To very, very specific demographics.

The advertisers don't ever see your data, they don't know they're advertising to you specifically and they have to trust Facebook and Google that you're in the group of people they want to target.

 

I guess you don’t remember the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where Facebook is concerned? To be clear — Facebook absolutely sell actual user data, not anonymised or anything like that. 

[Limo]

11 minutes ago, oscillik said:

I guess you don’t remember the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where Facebook is concerned? To be clear — Facebook absolutely sell actual user data, not anonymised or anything like that. 

Good point - but IIRC Cambridge Analytica acquiring user data was due to sloppiness on Facebook's part, not actual intent. Facebook has since (supposedly) closed the loophole that allowed external parties to read in people's friend graphs. From their own point of view that's probably for the best, as they can make much more money if they are the gatekeepers to that data.

But yeah, like I said, good point.

Google, on the other hand, has not yet leaked data - as far as we know.

[thawkins]

8 minutes ago, rhmilo said:

Google, on the other hand, has not yet leaked data - as far as we know.

Well technically they have, but not on a huge scale, that's true https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/3/17533108/google-gmail-privacy-read-email-messages-response

[Limo]

3 hours ago, thawkins said:

Well technically they have, but not on a huge scale, that's true https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/3/17533108/google-gmail-privacy-read-email-messages-response

Not even remotely the same thing. People explicitly gave apps permissions to look at their Gmail messages. Which is arguably their right because, hey, it's their inbox.

Cambridge Analytica, on the other hand, scammed users by making asking them for permission to forward fun quizzes to their friends. This allowed them to build a social graph of users. Then, because Facebook's privacy measures were so lax they could read in any bit of data about the users in that graph they wanted.

You *could* argue you can learn a lot from looking at someone's email as well, and you'd be right, but in that case apps were explicitly given permission to do so, whereas Cambridge Analytica was only given permission to show Cosmopolitan type quizzes to friends.

 

[oscillik]

7 hours ago, rhmilo said:

Good point - but IIRC Cambridge Analytica acquiring user data was due to sloppiness on Facebook's part, not actual intent. Facebook has since (supposedly) closed the loophole that allowed external parties to read in people's friend graphs. From their own point of view that's probably for the best, as they can make much more money if they are the gatekeepers to that data.

But yeah, like I said, good point.

Google, on the other hand, has not yet leaked data - as far as we know.

Nope, it wasn’t sloppiness — it was an intended feature of the Facebook system. Facebook just feigned that it was an oversight so it would get them out of some extremely boiling hot water. They knew exactly what was going on, and they knew what data could be accessed on individuals through this system. 
 

but we’re digressing a bit, so I won’t go on about Facebook too much. 

[Braintree]

On 11/14/2020 at 3:45 AM, rhmilo said:

I heard stories from people in Silicon Valley that Apple is not a very attractive employer. Pay is not great, perks are fewer than at the other FAANGs and hours are long.

As a result, people don't stay there for long.

The somewhat expected result of this is that it's mostly junior developers that run the show.

Whether this is true, I don't know (of course), but Apple certainly acts as if there's not a lot of seniority in the software development department:

- API's get deprecated and replaced at breakneck speed.

- Documentation is poor or non-existent.

- Decisions are made that may make sense in some very narrow way but are terrible when viewed as part of the whole picture - such as this one, where running an application needs the system to phone home - as if home is always available.

Typical rookie mistake.

 

I know several people that work at Apple. From what I know through them, their salaries and benefits are awesome and people tend to stick around for a while. Recently, one of my friends (who was integral in designing and integrating the new step sequencer in Logic) was complaining about how people stick around forever and he doesn't have much upward mobility in his team. However, a lot of teams are silo'd so it may be different in other parts of the company.

I think they get a reputation for underpaying their employees because Steve Jobs tried to get other tech companies to cap pay back in the 2000s.

[dr lopez]

yeah i have friends at apple and google and adobe and the ones at google and adobe are far more miserable and say it fucking sucks all the time

[Limo]

7 hours ago, Braintree said:

I know several people that work at Apple. From what I know through them, their salaries and benefits are awesome and people tend to stick around for a while. Recently, one of my friends (who was integral in designing and integrating the new step sequencer in Logic) was complaining about how people stick around forever and he doesn't have much upward mobility in his team. However, a lot of teams are silo'd so it may be different in other parts of the company.

I think they get a reputation for underpaying their employees because Steve Jobs tried to get other tech companies to cap pay back in the 2000s.

 

6 hours ago, dr lopez said:

yeah i have friends at apple and google and adobe and the ones at google and adobe are far more miserable and say it fucking sucks all the time

Well I stand corrected then. I was going off HN posts such as this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21217426 (can’t find the one about low pay and Apple rewarding writing new tools, APIs and libraries and discouraging maintenance of existing ones - not to mention the fact that they don’t do a lot of testing).

In a way this makes it even worse as it gives them even less of an excuse to make such rookie mistakes all the time.

edit: or try this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15801974

Edited November 17, 2020 by rhmilo

[zlemflolia]

if youre not a tinfoil hat person talking about how they want to control all of our computers and steal our data and lock us in to their systems your dum

[thawkins]

14 hours ago, rhmilo said:

Not even remotely the same thing. People explicitly gave apps permissions to look at their Gmail messages. Which is arguably their right because, hey, it's their inbox.

Cambridge Analytica, on the other hand, scammed users by making asking them for permission to forward fun quizzes to their friends. This allowed them to build a social graph of users. Then, because Facebook's privacy measures were so lax they could read in any bit of data about the users in that graph they wanted.

You *could* argue you can learn a lot from looking at someone's email as well, and you'd be right, but in that case apps were explicitly given permission to do so, whereas Cambridge Analytica was only given permission to show Cosmopolitan type quizzes to friends.

 

There is an incredibly big difference between giving permission to an 'app' and to a real human developer of that app. IIRC the case I referenced was actually app developers receiving some sample data for testing, because before you make an app you necessarily have to develop it using some more or less real data. So I doubt that the any user actually gave any permissions at all. Finally, I think it's also quite important to mention in the permission grant that  'this app will have access to your data and upload it to the app's servers in fuck knows where', which no application that I know of does.

Let's also not forget that Google and Facebook have immense PR and legal departments who get paid a lot to mitigate and deflect any impression of wrongdoing so it's pretty much given that the reality is much worse. Finally all they do is say "sorry, we will do better" or "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" and if it does not cut into their stock price - fuck all is going to change.

 

Bottom line, Google and Facebook are collecting people's data and make money from that data. It is not a big distinction whether they are directly e-mailing zip files or providing a way to query what they have. The end result is same - even without any leaks or bugs it means that people's information gets accessed without their knowledge and consent to do SOMETHING which may be beneficial or malicious, who cares as long as it makes the company some money. And at least in Facebook's case, the company is actively interested in allowing horrible shit to go down on their platform as long as the money keeps rolling in.

[Limo]

44 minutes ago, thawkins said:

Let's also not forget that Google and Facebook have immense PR and legal departments who get paid a lot to mitigate and deflect any impression of wrongdoing so it's pretty much given that the reality is much worse. Finally all they do is say "sorry, we will do better" or "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing" and if it does not cut into their stock price - fuck all is going to change.

This is impossible to argue with. "I can't see them doing evil shit but they have lawyers so they must be doing it" is unfalsifiable.

The bottom line is Google collects a lot of information but has, until now, been very good about keeping it to themselves. Facebook: not so much.

Both companies are in the business of gouging advertisers. Your data is merely a resource to help them do that somewhat convincingly.

[thawkins]

44 minutes ago, rhmilo said:

This is impossible to argue with. "I can't see them doing evil shit but they have lawyers so they must be doing it" is unfalsifiable.

Again, my point is that both Google and Facebook have a financial incentive to collect as much data on you as possible and to lie to you as much as possible so that they can keep doing it for their profit. It does not matter if they share the data with others or not - it is their source of income either way. Apple is different because it makes money selling their devices so they do not (yet) depend on large scale personal data collection for their revenue.

And yes, it is unfalsifiable, but this is the industry tendency:

• All major tech companies are currently trying to find out exactly how much laws apply to what they are doing.
• All major tech companies are spending huge amounts of $$$ in order to block any laws that may negatively affect their business (see prop 22).
• No major tech company is being regulated to the point of having to provide their algorithms and processes to peer review. However, these algorithms have real world consequences for many people who have basically no recourse against the companies aside from screaming on Twitter.

I mean you can go on to believe that somehow Google is not doing any bad stuff just because they have not gotten caught with anything. I think the standards are a bit higher for a company that owns so much internet infrastructure that it should actually be classified as a public utility. Also it's an unfortunate reality of capitalism that no industry self-regulates itself - this is always something a governmental oversight body has to do.

[hijexx]

New Mac M1 looks like an audio beast

 

[Braintree]

I'm still using a Mac Mini from 2012 and it only started to show its age this year. I only have a couple plugins that slow it down. Will definitely consider one again when I need to (or am forced to ) upgrade.

[hijexx]

Yeah prob be a little bit before most of the audio apps get a universal app rewrite but from what I've seen from the gaming side of things even games going through Rosetta translation are playing pretty snappy.