Rotoscoping was utilized for some difficult shots. Mostly live action was used for reference, not directly traced, Fleischer style. I've never seen rotoscoping that looked so masterful as Snow White and similar golden age films.
This can be true of security (and every other expense) whether it's regulated or not. Which do you think will result in fewer incidents: the regulated bare minimum, or the unregulated base minimum?
I haven't done anything with X11 in a few years, but last I looked made no sense to do anything with XCB because the documentation is half complete, whereas Xlib has everything you might need documented.
Otoh, Xlib's approach to networking is kind of wrong on so many levels.
> Calls that don't require a response from the X server are queued in a buffer to be sent as a batch of requests to the server. Those that require a response flush all the buffered requests and then block until the response is received. [1]
X11, the protocol is a distributed systems protocol, built on asynchronous message passing, that outputs to the screen as a side effect. Xlib hides the nature of the underlying protocol, and makes it very hard to pipeline things that should be pipelined for maximum performance. Xcb separates out sending a request and waiting for a response, so if you absolutely need the response before you continue, you can do that, but you can also request many things and then wait when you need them.
When friends with iPhones send me images or videos using iMessage, they are very low-quality compared to what iPhone users receive. But when Android users send me the same, they are higher quality.
So I think the specific answer to your question is "iMessage and its lack of support for <protocol (RCS?)>".
Cause it would be better for Apple's customers. This one doesn't even have the "my parents security" defense like installing non app store apples does. Do you honestly think any costumer WANTS iPhone to be shitty at sending images?
Why do you have to defend every little thing that Apple does as if you were their lawyer? I get that you like some parts of their walled garden, but why do Apple stans behave as if Apple was a sacred company that could do no wrong, when there examples like this that they are literally harming their own customers to protect their moat. I get why Apple does it, I don't get why anyone here would side with Apple.
imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because it's a common way for people to communicate. It was fine for us to start laissez faire but now that we see Apple abusing things by not interoperating -- deliberately in order to sell more phones [1], the people should intervene.
> imessage (the protocol) doesn't. iPhones should, because it's a common way for people to communicate.
iPhones are fully capable of transmitting images (and even other types of files--what an amazing world we live in). Feel free to install any of the numerous apps available that allow you to do this.
I never said iMessage needs to support anything, I was merely answering a question that I thought was asked in good faith.
The US government claims that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices by degrading the behavior of iMessage when communicating to non-Apple devices.
Your stance seems to be, this should not be something for the government to be involved in, let the market decide.
This is ambiguous. Perhaps you believe that US antitrust laws shouldn't exist, or should be changed so they don't apply to this case, or actually don't apply to this case (ie the government is wrong that Apple's behavior violates the law).
Those are all coherent stances you could have, though I think it would be helpful if you identified which of them you hold if you want to engage in meaningful discourse with others.
My understanding is that Apple wont add RCS support until end-to-end encryption is part of the RCS standard, which it currently isn't. And they wont use property add-ons such as what Google use for encryption.
Competitors stuffed around trying to build a competitor for over a decade and failed. Is that Apple's fault?
> By default was missing from the sentence. You can do it with Whatsapp etc, but both you and the other party need to download a 3rd party app to do so.
It's an obvious abuse of their monopoly to suppress competition. Most kids use iPhone and for the general public in the US iPhone has >50% market share, so to expect most people to stop using iMessage to get better support with Android users is not happening, and it's silly to think that will change without a change in laws, so most kids end up getting iPhones so they're not left out.
Remember, this is all a very arbitrary restriction by Apple that lets them take advantage of their monopoly to suppress sales of competitive products. That's the illegal part.
You ever notice you can
-use tires from arbitrary manufacturers
-use oil from arbitrary manufacturers
-drive to arbitrary locations (even offroad in your Corvette)
-use nearly arbitrary accessories
-use a universal port to get error codes (OBD-II)
-make modifications and keep your warranty on unrelated parts
Ask yourself, would MacOs have all of the restrictions an iPhone has? If not even Macbooks block installation of 3rd party applications, why does it change when you add a cell radio?
Honestly,if someone were being paid to change public opinion around the case, this is what i would expect to read. Don't fall for Apple's marketing
Just like I can put cases from arbitrary manufacturers on my iPhone.
> -use oil from arbitrary manufacturers
Just like I can use chargers from arbitrary manufacturers.
> -drive to arbitrary locations
Visit arbitrary websites...
> -use a universal port to get error codes (OBD-II)
OBD-II is actually a good analogy because it exposes only a small set of standardized data, but the more interesting data (and ability to run diagnostics) is sometimes behind a manufacturer proprietary protocol and requires something more than just the standard OBD-II interface. Similarly Apple can choose what standard interfaces and protocols to implement and which proprietary ones they would like to create.
> why does it change when you add a cell radio?
Because that's what Apple chose to build and sell. You're free to build your own phone with your own feature set and sell that.
> Don't fall for Apple's marketing
Fortunately I'm capable of my own rational thought.
Nobody uses iMessage outside the US, by choice, even in iPhone-dominated markets. So clearly it's possible to avoid it. US iPhone users have the same choice.
Do you have an example of a place that has a similar rate of usage for iPhones but primarily uses WhatsApp for texting? In the US the rate is 87% for teenagers, I'm surprised it's that high elsewhere.
iPhone has 51% market share in Japan across all age group[1] (and even as high as 84.8% in some demographic[2]). From my 5 years of living here, I’ve never seen anyone use iMessage even once. The dominant messaging app is LINE.
Seems like LINE became the predominant app way back in 2012 (it released even before iMessage did in 2011), so my guess is that it took hold before iMessage ever had a chance, unlike in the US where texting was always the main way to communicate on phones up until iMessage integrated texting to absorb all those users.
I think the point is that it's kind not entirely accurate to say that Apple doesn't allow messaging interoperability with Android. They in-fact do through dozens of available third party apps. They don't allow non-apple devices to implement the iMessage protocol, which could be argued to be anti-consumer but it's not really evidence of apple being a monopoly.
Edit: Just realized that you I misread your comment and you and I agree
I guess there’s WhatsApp etc, but it’s not a great experience. And that’s in part due to the ecosystem. I can swipe 200 photos and send them to my wife - it shares them on my iCloud behind the scenes, and sends a link. Messages makes it seem like I’ve sent 200 full quality photos in an instant.
That’s hard to do without the vertical integration.
That argument would make sense of iPhone couldn't send any messages at all to Android or call Android phones.
There's a reason Apple hasn't taken their garden wall that far, lmao. Same as being able to use "non Apple WiFi and Bluetooth devices".
Half the replies in this thread make me think they'd be happy if Apple restricted iPhone WiFi to only connecting to Apple APs becuz muh security, muh feature ecosystem
I doubt it. How can you image an organ at home when you're not even 100% sure exactly where that organ is? Or what it looks like on an ultrasound? And that's not even getting into knowing whether you're looking at them from the right angle for the images to be diagnostically useful.
Yeah - my experience of watching baby ultrasounds was that I had no idea what I was looking at until the technician told me. Maybe there's an occasional clear image of a head or nose or something, but the rest of the time it's just wobbling grey shapes. I can't imagine trying to do that myself - let alone looking at my own organs which are mostly just amorphous blobs, and trying to diagnose something.
I suspect the main cost in running a diagnostic scan is labour rather than capital - and these low cost ultrasound devices will only have an impact in the developed world if they go hand in hand with AI.
Obviously they'll make a huge difference in developing countries where labour is relatively cheap compared to equipment - but even then it'll still require trained professionals to operate.
I think comparing it to metal is just a quick shorthand to say "it's heavy music."
> dissonance, instrumental virtuosity, and overdriven amps
I'm probably just splitting hairs here, but although those elements are common, metal is a really diverse genre (I think the only one more diverse is jazz). Really the only two things music needs to fall under the "metal" umbrella are 1) being heavy and 2) having double bass drum. Sacred Harp seems to meet the former.
I hadn’t heard of it either but it does seem like there are some studies. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-55920-5_... Cardiac valvulopathy is likely not an adverse effect to consider when psychedelics are used occasionally but this may be different for “microdosing” which involves low doses of psychedelics taken daily or multiple times per week.
> Appealing to management does not work. After all, the management in business environments is usually non-technical, and the worst kind are the best performers. Who should the management listen to if not to the best performers?
> One largely unappreciated aspect of Scrum is the interchangeable nature of team members.
I'm not trying to argue that encouraging this kind of programmer will result in better software, but if a programmer goes from "difficult to replace" to "easy to replace" by following these best practices, then maybe the problem runs much deeper than these kinds of individual programmers. Apparently following best practices is bad for job security.
