Not sure what OP is using for their photos, but Google Photos handles all of those mentioned features automatically for me. I’m sure there are other similar apps that do the same.
Even if the amyloid hypothesis is true (and most neuroscientists I know think it's not), this is a terrible decision.
1.) We don't know when to give the drug. Maybe giving it even earlier would help, but these trials don't tell us that. Answer: Run a new trial.
2.) We don't know how much drug to give. The drug was approved on the (bad, weak) evidence that in one high dose arm of one of 2 trials, there might have been an effect. Is that the right dose? Who knows! In the other trial, the high dose may have actually been worse. You can't titrate dosage in Alzheimers like you do in cancer where you can just watch how the tumor is shrinking. Answer: Run a new trial.
Giving this drug is not without downsides. You will have side-effects, including serious ones such as potentially brain swelling. Some people may be seriously injured or killed as a result of taking this drug. You have to make sure that the benefits outweigh that downside, and the trials show us a very dubious, weak effect.
The FDA should have said, "Good work, maybe there's an effect with this dosage, go run a new trial with the revised protocol." That's the right call.
Instead, they added, "Oh and you can sell the drug in the meantime and you don't have to tell us for 9 years."
How are you going to recruit patients for the trial? "We could give you the drug, but might give you a placebo." How many patients sign up for that instead of saying, "OR I could go out and buy the drug (which you claim totally works, and the FDA agrees!) independently."?
What if the trial fails in 9 years after you have tons of anecdotal reports (remember placebo shows an effect in past trials)? Now you have to take if off the market, imagine the loss of credibility that will entail for the FDA.
How about other drugs that reduced amyloid but showed no cognitive effect? (Eli Lilly's Solazenumab among many, many others) Should they get approved now too?
This is a mess for everyone and benefits Biogen. Everyone else loses, even the well-meaning patient advocates who created the political pressure for this decision.
I wonder if Face ID is still able to partially detect a masked user's face, just with a much lower confidence interval. Maybe the presence of the watch allows Face ID to lower the confidence threshold when it detects a mask blocking half of the face. This is just a guess, I have no idea how Face ID works.
If Face ID can't detect anything when a user wears a mask then I completely agree with you. It seems really silly to require the mask in order for the watch unlock to work. I don't understand the security model there.
It works because you put your watch on, unlock your watch. Your watch remains unlocked until you take it off. I was under the impression if you’re wearing your watch and it’s unlocked, and then you pick up your iPhone, it acts as the key to your phone.
Just a thought, but it seems like there can be a middle ground where people belonging to certain risk groups (age, preexisting conditions, etc) are encouraged to take stronger shelter in place measures, and in exchange are granted larger amounts of financial aid to compensate.
People not belonging to risk groups can resume working, still taking extra precautions to prevent transmission. The economy can gradually reopen while also slowly building up herd immunity among the least vulnerable population. It seems unsustainable to have an indefinite blanket lockdown, but I’m very open to changing my mind on this.
I'd truly love to hear a good counterargument to this. I've argued much the same thing only to have the same opposing talking points restated verbatim.
You and the parent posters are assuming that everyone lives on their own and that younger people don't live with or take care of older people. Once things open up, employers will expect younger employees to show up. Couple that with asymptomatic transmission, how do you practice social distancing in a closed home?
But quality criteria is subjective on an individual basis. Individuals place varying weights on aspects of a user interface. Some prefer speed over aesthetic, some prefer whitespace over information density, etc.
The quality criteria among one demographic may differ from the quality criteria among another. So I think it’s safe to say that a company can optimize its UI quality for a certain demographic, and that demographic may not include certain individual users.
Studies have shown that the rate of driving accidents is minimized when a vehicle travels at the same speed as other vehicles on the road. This means that in many cases, “speeding” with the flow of traffic provides the safest outcome. Although in the case of this accident, it appears that there was no surrounding traffic.
Would be interesting if you could treat each service (Youtube, Docs, Reddit, Messenger, etc) as a “disk” and stripe your data across them.