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?
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.
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…?
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
I just discovered that we both may have been wrong.
Looks like you can skip the AfC review process entirely and this is given the go-ahead by Wikipedia (it's not frowned upon).
Basically, you have to create a Draft-namespace article (for example, Draft:Rust).
Then, once you have auto confirmed privileges (10 edits and 4 days account age), you can move the page namespace from the Draft namespace to the (Article) namespace...
Computational photography (what you call "some are enhanced with AI or whatever Machine Learning") is a perfectly legitimate evolution in the field of consumer photography. I'm not sure why you are so critical of it.
This is so painfully true. I've tried to submit two articles so far to AfC (articles for creation) and both were rejected. It's puzzling to me because I often see extremely low quality articles (with just one sentence, for example), published onto mainspace.
Realistically, how useful is compromising modem firmware if like 98% of communication done through it is encrypted at the AP level? It’s sorta like wiretapping a fiber optic cable—okay, what now?
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".