This is a beautiful way to present extremely high quality information. I sometimes lament the unpleasant friction involved in finding and reading academic papers (the overly formal style is a necessary evil, but the irritating paywalls, followed by inevitable searches for '%{title} filetype:pdf' feel like unnecessary ones).
I've never made an iOS app and don't have plans to. But my assumption is ~every >= medium-sized iOS app would be monetised by selling data to aggregators.
Loupe itself can see if you have tinder/bumble/hinge installed (verify for yourself: install tinder, then install loupe, don't give it any permissions, and it can tell if you have tinder installed or not). So the answer is: buy the data from any app your partner has installed! Or more easily, a data aggregator which will have already combined data from hundreds/thousands of apps.
So your partner only needs to have had 1 single app from the list that sells user data to a data aggregator for this to work. They do not need to have installed some special app.
Here's a random Slate article about apps getting your data and selling it to aggregators/brokers, who sell it to third-parties (you, or I, could be one of those third parties).
> How Shady Companies Guess Your Religion, Sexual Orientation, and Mental Health And sell that data to the highest bidder.
They don't, utilise the fact that every single iPhone app has access to what other apps are installed! - purchase that info from literally any iPhone app or aggregator that has it for that user. Curious how much this would cost to purhcase - a working credit card goes for $5-10 on the black market so 'apps installed on X's iphone' might be, like, 10c?
Okay it's weird but the first thing that came to mind. Logic: if I can think of a monetisable, nefarious application in 10 seconds, then it stands to reason that very many nefarious applications would be possible with more time/effort.
Why does a random app (with no special permissions given to it) get access to so much info, and why doesn't Apple tell users this (important) info? Why can't Apple make a long list of check boxes so users can dis/allow on a per-category and per-app basis?
E.g. I had no idea a random app you install (and give no permissions to) instantly has a list of every app installed on the device (e.g. can infer whether you're dating [or cheating!] from presence of tinder/bumble/hinge). That alone seems instantly monetizable by unscrupulous actors via 'is-my-partner-cheating' as a service: charge $10 to give a probable answer.
Could be useful for mass production of espresso-based drinks (like the ones sold at convenience stores), and possibly various foods like Tiramisu.
An average coffee shop's espresso machine might use $200/month of electricity, so even though the percent saving (75%) is high, it's off a base that's small relative to other costs; possibly too small to be enticing.
They do (one hand), but it doesn't require anything precise (like finding the app and clicking on it, which you can't really do while driving). If Siri could open an AI voice chat, that would awesome. But I'm not counting on that within this decade.
I placed eggs into boiling water and because my hands were wet I used voice and said "hey Siri, start a timer". It replied "you'll have to unlock your iPhone first", so I hovered my face over the bench the phone was sitting on, then the screen rattled and prompted for the numeric passcode. Ugh..
Using Siri essentially required me to use my hands anyway, so what's the point of voice?
I'd very seriously consider moving away from iPhone to a device that treats voice AI as a first class citizen (presently I mapped the 'double back tap' to open grok voice chat, and triple back tap to end it, which is a wonderful improvement over not having these, as you can do that pretty easily, even while driving etc).
Unacceptable given it could be life and death. Understandable that clients' coverage struggles courtesy of Philippines' patchy cellular networks, but far less forgivable that a server for a critical emergency website has problems.
Very cool. Small (almost so small as to be silly) suggestion. But my first instinct as a non-classical music listener was to copy the names of songs into youtube so I could see if I recognised them. But for whatever reason I can't select the text (on desktop, not sure if different elsewhere). Could be cool to allow the text to be selectable, or even better link directly to it if it's on yt or other platforms/places.
Current policy is victim-blaming: it excludes from social media potential victims (children) but allows perpetrators (convicted csam users).
But this was always about governments wanting to know who's posting what (and controlling them, through chilling effect); not about saving 'the children'.