Apple is definitely not the worst in this regard, but the most recent version of iOS to support the iPad 3rd generation (the device we are discussing which is being used as a PDF reader) is iOS 9.3.5 (a security/bugfix release on August 25, 2016 which supports the WiFi-only version of the iPad 3rd generation) or iOS 9.3.6 (also a bugfix release on July 22, 2019 which supports the WiFi+cellular version of the same device - specifically, this was a fix to keep GPS working).
The iPad 3rd generation was released in 2012, so the 2016 9.3.5 iOS release gave 4 years of security/bugfix support for the WiFi-only version of that device.
Apple patches anything with a proven exploit as long as it’s in a supported version of the OS. E.g. They will not patch versions beyond macos 10.14 i believe, not sure what the cutoff for iOS is but it’s usually about 6 years of security updates. Which means that iOS 9.3.5 is well outside of that and so a bug that impacts that os will not be patched. Which means using an old device like that on the open internet is deeply foolish
My whole point is that what you believe isn't correct. Apple continues to release security updates for "unsupported" versions (let's be careful about terminology, that term is specific and we're both using it), generally for two more years after a version becomes unsupported.
This is in a lot of the reporting about the topic and linked repeatedly in these comments. Please don't repeat false information.
Now you're right that this particular really old version also doesn't get security updates - but boy do I not have that expectation, and I would be surprised if anyone acting in good faith did.
The homelab and professional editions have lifetime licenses available - I didnt notice them in the pricing section but there’s a link to them in the FAQ
You will own a lifetime license for the software if you choose the lifetime plan.
Everyone has seen it in practice that some companies try to pull a bait and switch by then changing the terms of licenses or simply shutting down the servers when going out of business. Since this is a desktop tool not hosted on any server infrastructure, at least the latter part isn't that much of a risk. You still have to have some trust in me to honor the license terms, but I try my best to build that trust.
There is also an offline license functionality, meaning that if you obtain a lifetime license and request an offline license file, that one will not perform any verification with any online services, so it will work forever without any dependency on some SaaS infra. Anyone interested in that can simply request an offline license, you can find the details on the pricing page. The offline licenses are also often used for usage in air-gapped environments.
I use an iPhone, and my Messages app is using 72GB at the moment (and it would be a lot more if I hadn’t lost all my history about 5 years ago). The issue is that extended family members send a lot of media (mostly family photos / videos) via group messages, and although there is a way to expire messages older than a certain age, there isn’t a way to only expire media from messages older than a certain date and/or automatically bulk export media from messages (you can do it manually, but we’re talking a LOT of media here). I guess I just haven’t been disciplined enough or had enough time to export media I wanted to keep and then remove it from Messages as time went on.
In any case this feature wouldn’t benefit me, because I don’t think any of my extended family would want to use it.
I wish more people would send things via `Share iCloud link` instead of just sending media directly. I usually try to do that.
I finally fee like this feature is pretty good at photo sharing, works well and bug free. The way it works is you select what media you want to share over iMessage (even >1k works succesfuly for me), and Apple then gives you link which when a recipient visits, they can directly add to their iCloud, seems like it's a backend-to-backend copy, since even very large transfers worked quickly like this for me. And the benefit is that it doesn't use up iMessage space (just iCloud photos space).
Flights seemed to be one of the use cases they talked about being an amazing immersive experience even though you’re physically confined to a (usually) small seat. What about it didn’t work?
Am I wrong in thinking that checkboxes/tickboxes/whatever-one-calls-them are ubiquitously understandable across cultures from both an interpretation and interaction perspective? If so, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve made this assumption/mistake so I’d be happy to hear about it!
If not (and I am right in thinking these are globally understood), then there’s a clear advantage of the checkbox over the switch in that it doesn’t depend on any color recognition to convey the current state. This is a huge win - I have definitely encountered UI controls where the current state was not at all apparent.
I happen to use an iPhone, and haven’t personally had any issues interpreting the “switch” state nor the checkbox, but what if you’re color blind or from a culture where the color doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does?
Checkboxes also have a fundamental dependency on the label to assist them with their affordance: a label for a checkbox should almost always be in the form of a yes/no question: “are you hungry? [ ]”
The “checked” box is an affirmative, empty is a negative. A checkbox without a label is useless because it has no context.
But I constantly see checkboxs without the question label. Think back to all those control panels and settings windows youve seen where the label for a checkbox is something like “animations [ ]”. Does that mean they are on by default? Does checking the checkbox switch them on or off?
Now compare with this “animations? [ ]” checking the checkbox has now become an answer to a question
Some states have weird laws that affect prices, too. I once got hit while in MN, and the insurance company had to pay out for the cost of a new body panel. The shop gave me the option of a new panel, or a refurbished one off of a scrap car.
It looked identical when they were done, but I ended up getting a check cut for half the value of the new panel because the used one was so much cheaper.
As I was in college at the time, a free $800 made my day.
I could see the state requiring new parts because of unscrupulous insurance companies insisting that shitty used parts were fine: but it’s nice you had the option of taking the cash. Best of both worlds, really.
Really, in the long run all it does is make your premiums more expensive.
> insurance companies insisting that shitty used parts were fine
That's not up to the insurance company, because they aren't the ones sourcing the parts or doing the repairs. You go to a body shop that either works directly with the insurance company, or the company cuts you a check in the shops name for the quoted work.
It makes no sense whatsoever to put a brand new body panel on a car that's already lost 70-80% of the MSRP value to depreciation... IF the used parts are not damaged already, and the paint matches. Again, though, that's in the hands of the mechanic, not the insurance company.
My state (Oregon) requires insurance for motor vehicle operation. I understand the idea, but I can’t help but feel like it’s business model protection ensconced in law. The insurer isn’t obligated by law to pay for… anything. They’ll do everything they can to get out of paying for anything.
And yes, you can buy “uninsured motorist protection” from your insurer as well. Even in states where it shouldn’t be possible for there to be uninsured motorists.
If people engage in a risky activity where the legal system expects them to pay for damages if something goes wrong, but damage sums are so high that most people are unable to pay for these damages, it makes perfect sense to require people to have insurance if they want to engage in this risky activity.
The real crime is the state then zoning and building infrastructure in a way that forces you to engage in said activity, effectively forcing all citizens to buy insurance.
Regulations frequently kill competition, either explicitly on purpose, or accidentally. Insurance is otherwise a hyper-competitive business anyway. Super easy to shop rates among many companies, so they all gravitate downward to about the same level, net of small differences in coverage or services, fancy websites, etc.
And of course uninsured motorist coverage is a thing, because making something illegal doesn't mean people won't do it.
> making something illegal doesn't mean people won't do it
Isn't that the point of making something illegal? Here the system is: no insurance, no plates.
(it's also no inspection, no plates. One has to be wary of the sketchier tourists, but everyone with local plates has both insurance and a functioning vehicle)
Every state I've lived in requires auto insurance.
The idea makes sense -- the state recognizes that vehicle accidents will happen and preemptively deals with free loaders by requiring auto insurance, instead of just suggesting it. It falls down when the state isn't actually requiring the insurers to do their damn job.
Mandating insurance makes sense from the perspective of CYA, though I wonder if the govt could do something to enforce competition. Maybe make public actuarist data, and payout rates and information?
Worth noting that these won’t work with the usual garden variety USB-C hubs sporting USB-A ports; instead, you need to use an adapter as opposed to a hub[0] - maybe because of power issues? Source: I have a SuperDrive and have experienced this first hand on a USB-C-only port Mac.
Correct, the SuperDrive requires 5V at 1.6A while most hubs only provide the standard 5V at 1A. Any fast-charging USB-A port will work though and that are hubs that support that.
What I do is buy a smart TV, never connect it to the network (thus making it a dumb TV), and plug an Apple TV (or other devices) into it. So far, this has worked - I haven't seen any ads from the TV itself (the apps running on the Apple TV are another story), and it can't phone home about what I'm watching or otherwise doing with the TV.
> and it can't phone home about what I'm watching or otherwise doing with the TV
Are you sure?
The old idea of giving TVs built-in cellular backup connection is probably still too risky/expensive - dealing with people extracting and repurposing the SIM card with a free (for them) data plan is a hassle. But what about eSIM?
Why bother with an esim, when you can use something like Amazon Sidewalk, just use whatever nearby Echo or other device to send whatever small data packets
Intriguing and possible I suppose; Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
However, I imagine the numbers would show it's unnecessary these days. My humble estimation is that most people, at least in the developed world, connect the TV to wifi for the convenience if available.
Mark my words: one of these days, there will be a huge national security scandal involving data stolen from a SCIF, possibly with loss of life as a consequence, and it'll turn out there wasn't any intelligence op or treason involved - just adtech fuckery getting out of hand. Think disposable microphone and eSIM in a popcorn bag, sending telemetry to a publicly-readable S3 bucket, or something, because it's superbowl and they HAVE TO know if you're watching.
The iPad 3rd generation was released in 2012, so the 2016 9.3.5 iOS release gave 4 years of security/bugfix support for the WiFi-only version of that device.