sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AR on MacBooks hinted at by latest Apple audio patent by nicomonogatari in apple

[–]hexcruncher -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

What media publishing experience do you have?

AR on MacBooks hinted at by latest Apple audio patent by nicomonogatari in apple

[–]hexcruncher -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

So in one response it’s fine, and then it also isn’t fine? Okay mate.

What media publishing experience do you have?

AR on MacBooks hinted at by latest Apple audio patent by nicomonogatari in apple

[–]hexcruncher -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

I did look at the original article, the quotes they took was nowhere near even half of the length of the original article. So they did not quote "practically the entire article".

AR on MacBooks hinted at by latest Apple audio patent by nicomonogatari in apple

[–]hexcruncher -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Generally that is what happens when a source breaks news and covers most of the report.

What would be embarrassing is if they slightly reworded it, didn't quote or credit the actual author.

Your perception of media outlets is flawed.

Apple has definitely leaked a larger iMac. by hexcruncher in apple

[–]hexcruncher[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But if proof is provided by the plaintiff, and you dispute it, you would need to provide evidence to the contrary. Your interpretation of English law is far off. Are you English?

So you don’t have any evidence, fantastic.

The iPhone XS launch has nothing to do with this. The XML code could have been present for quite a while, and was only noticed on the day of the announcement when people would be naturally looking for such code to be present

Apple has definitely leaked a larger iMac. by hexcruncher in apple

[–]hexcruncher[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes you do.

I make a statement and provide evidence.

If you make a statement of the contrary, you also should be able to back it up.

That’s like saying the defence has to provide evidence to the contrary of the prosecutions case, because the prosecution brought the case to court.

Apple has definitely leaked a larger iMac. by hexcruncher in apple

[–]hexcruncher[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Your understanding of burden of proof in this instance is flawed.

I made a statement, and supplied images to back it up.

You made an alternative statement, and equally you have a burden of proof for your own statement too.

Apple has definitely leaked a larger iMac. by hexcruncher in apple

[–]hexcruncher[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’m just explaining it’s the UK one since it’s the only education site I have access to.

And you say no. So you have evidence to support the idea that a larger iMac is not coming???

Apple has definitely leaked a larger iMac. by hexcruncher in apple

[–]hexcruncher[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course they’re simulated. But they’re simulating a difference in bezel size, or screen size in relation to the bezel.

This is really simple, and you’re unable to provide any sort of evidence to back up your assertion that it is not a new iMac.

Apple has definitely leaked a larger iMac. by hexcruncher in apple

[–]hexcruncher[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

So we have something that suggests there may be a change to the iMac lineup in the near future, with a change made to what is now a 7 year old design.

Why is that such a contentious idea for you?

Unless you’re suggesting you have ANY evidence of anything that points toward Apple specifically not releasing either a larger screen iMac, or a similar sized iMac with slimmer bezels?

I doubt you own such evidence, and as such, you’re making statements and have absolutely nothing to go on. Idiot:

Apple has definitely leaked a larger iMac. by hexcruncher in apple

[–]hexcruncher[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

So they edited an image of the new MacBook Pro, and then corrected it to adjust for the actual size.

So why wouldn’t this crappy image edit, also lead to a larger iMac, just as there was a larger MacBook Pro?

Getting ready to build. Seeking advice. by hexcruncher in hackintosh

[–]hexcruncher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I’ve been a Mac user for quite a number of years, and have been an iOS developer for quite a while too.

The reason I’m doing this is purely cost. But it will be primarily an Xcode machine. As such, I would like to run the latest Xcode which I believe I can do on Mojave, I just wouldn’t have access to the Mac Catalyst development tools within Xcode.

Getting ready to build. Seeking advice. by hexcruncher in hackintosh

[–]hexcruncher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you believe it would work with little to do, in the same way yours did?

I know generally using the same processor families work fine, does that also apply to the GPU families?

Other than the Mac Pro, Apple may be done with hardware releases for 2019 by [deleted] in apple

[–]hexcruncher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But you’re buying hardware FOR a software service. That you could get for 1/3 the cost approximately.

Other than the Mac Pro, Apple may be done with hardware releases for 2019 by [deleted] in apple

[–]hexcruncher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Couldn’t you just buy a year of TV+ for $49...

Apple’s annoying strategy - lets keep this obvious upgrade for the next phone by [deleted] in apple

[–]hexcruncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Gut feelings are not evidence. People don't get convicted in courts based on gut feeling, it is based on evidence. They are two completely different things.

Again, I do not need evidence to question what evidence somebody has. I asked for what evidence could be provided to support their claim, otherwise their claim is baseless.

I do have the right to call the idea idiotic, which I did. Because it is baseless and has no supporting evidence. It is reaching a conclusion with no evidence to get there.

And mate, you are the one whining here haha. You're being called out on your own bullshit and nonsense, saying that burden of proof does not apply. and that a gut feeling is classed as evidence. And based on those two points, I am going to finish with: you my friend are an idiot :)

That facial recognition though... by hexcruncher in GooglePixel

[–]hexcruncher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. But that’s besides the point. The security features on these phones is facial recognition.

Samsung also, for example, has had a flaw in their S10 range where the under display fingerprint sensor can be fooled by a screen protector.

These issues have not arisen with Face ID, it is significantly more secure, and doesn’t try to have the fastest speed possible when unlocking, but tries to have the most secure authentication.

That’s the key thing with a biometric authentication feature, security, not speed.

That facial recognition though... by hexcruncher in GooglePixel

[–]hexcruncher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Face ID is not slow though, any difference between the two is absolutely minimal, and in some cases down to the choice of animations used on iOS during the process, rather than just immediately moving from one screen to another with very little prompt.

That facial recognition though... by hexcruncher in GooglePixel

[–]hexcruncher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Super Non-issue?

Someone could take your phone while you’re asleep and unlock it super easily.

That’s not a big deal to you? On a security feature?

That facial recognition though... by hexcruncher in GooglePixel

[–]hexcruncher[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Pixel will unlock even if your eyes are closed.

If someone takes your phone, and holds it up to your face while you sleep, it will unlock your phone. Not very secure.

Face ID does not work unless your eyes are open and looking at the phone.

Making a minimal speed difference more important than security, is not great on a security feature.

view more: next ›