This just sounds like a boring definitional issue. 'Thinker' is a loaded word.
You are advocating for a particular (more inclusive) definition for 'thinker' which clashes with the author's, but his is equally valid. You're both just gesturing at different concepts and suggesting they should be tagged to that word.
OP raises a particular way to classify something about personalities, says he finds it quite interesting/discriminative, and calls that kind of personality a "thinker". You instead consider a "thinker" a broader category.
That feels like an empty disagreement (nobody is right on such matters) - the real debatable question of substance is whether the _concept_ OP is gesturing at has interesting discriminative power. That concept is something like "personalities which seem to value the act of thinking through a problem/problem solving itself rather than downstream result".
> ---- All above is pure fantasy and never happened, as you probably have already guessed.
Ah, while I was a bit suspicious, I thought it might be real (weirdly worded). What exactly is the point of fabricating this?- Is there a joke I'm blind to?
No joke, it is just I don't like to leave any trail about law issues, even if it is hardly a menace. This last sentence is for law enforcement in the really hard to imagine case it might be relevant sometime.
Forget OS updates. The biggest obstacle to exploit persistence: a good old hard system reboot.
Modern iOS has an incredibly tight secure chain-of-trust bootloader. If you shut your device to a known-off state (using the hardware key sequence), on power on, you can be 99.999% certain only Apple-signed code will run all the way from secureROM to iOS userland. The exception is if the secureROM is somehow compromised and exploited remotely (this requires hardware access at boot-time so I don't buy it).
So, on a fresh boot, you are almost definitely running authentic Apple code. The easiest path to a form of persistence is reusing whatever vector initially pwned you (malicious attachment, website, etc) and being clever in placing it somewhere iOS will attempt to read it again on boot (and so automatically get pwned again).
But honestly, exploiting modern iOS is already difficult enough (exploits go for tens millions $USD), persistence is an order of magnitude more difficult.
That's how you get off such charges. I'll work for you, if you drop charges. There was a reddit post I can't find when EMPRESS had one of their episodes where she was asked if she wanted to work for. It's happened in the cracking scene before.
> The jailbreaking community is fractured, with many of its former members having joined private security firms or Apple itself. The few people still doing it privately are able to hold out for big payouts for finding iPhone vulnerabilities. And users themselves have stopped demanding jailbreaks, because Apple simply took jailbreakers’ best ideas and implemented them into iOS.
Does anyone have an actual technical theory of how it’s possible for commands that used to work , say a month ago, to just stop working?
What is it about Siri’s architecture that causes “Set bedroom light to 30%”, a command that worked for years, to randomly stops working on a random Tuesday with no OS update or home change?
I mean, what on earth are they doing on the back end…?
My hypothesis is that when Siri does processing on the phone its abilities are severely diminished. Perhaps there is some heuristic it uses to pick if it processes voice to text on the phone vs on the server (e.g. possibly based on server load). That might be why you see inconsistencies day to day.
For me, the standout was a period of 6 months or so when Siri stopped understanding the world "half" (as in "lights to half"), and thne it abruptly started working again.
This was quite catastrophic - everything was down, even nationwide mobile data for Vodafone users (and piggybacking MVNOs). I hope we get more info or a postmortem.
It also had spillover effects on other providers — O2 service was degraded
In this case, I think the interesting part is the video itself / the process. He breaks down a very inaccessible product and explains how it all works.
She watches videos about ancient Egypt, her friends lip syncing to songs, and knitting. The content on Tik Tok is way better than the trash on network TV or Hollywood movies.
I consider the Chinese oversight a plus. It’s much more sensitive to Asian values for the most part.
There are no “Asian values” on TikTok. TikTok is banned in China.
If it had values your 12yo wouldn’t be on it as Douyin has an age restriction of 18+, and prenatal consent if 13-17. Under 13 is prohibited. It also has time restriction of 40 minutes per day for 13-14yo and only accessible between 6am till 10pm. Not only that content is highly censored and restricted.
But keep living in a bubble that TikTok is totally fine.
You are advocating for a particular (more inclusive) definition for 'thinker' which clashes with the author's, but his is equally valid. You're both just gesturing at different concepts and suggesting they should be tagged to that word.
OP raises a particular way to classify something about personalities, says he finds it quite interesting/discriminative, and calls that kind of personality a "thinker". You instead consider a "thinker" a broader category.
That feels like an empty disagreement (nobody is right on such matters) - the real debatable question of substance is whether the _concept_ OP is gesturing at has interesting discriminative power. That concept is something like "personalities which seem to value the act of thinking through a problem/problem solving itself rather than downstream result".
reply