Rolandt

Wenn bei mir irgendetwas absolut narrensicher funktioniert, dann ist das Word. Ich verliere niemals auch nur einen Absatz, und ich kann von mehreren Rechnern aus am selben Text arbeiten, ohne ihn an irgendeinem Rechner zu sichern. Ich kann das sogar mit mehreren Autoren zur gleichen Zeit. Ich benutze das täglich und das ist noch nicht einmal schiefgegangen. Ich lege das Dokument in OneDrive und gut ist. Ich muss nicht auf irgendwelche Sync-Vorgänge warten, ich kann den Rechner einfach zuklappen oder booten oder den Word-Prozess abschießen. Ich halte mich schon für einen sehr einfallsreichen Narren, aber bisher war Word für mich narrensicher.

Natürlich gibt es viele weitere Möglichkeiten, sich in den Fuß zu schießen. Man könnte das AutoSave abschalten, das Word automatisch einschaltet, wenn man eine Datei in OneDrive legt. Dann können Replikationskonflikte entstehen, falls das gleiche Dokument an zwei Stellen bearbeitet wird, aber verschränkt geöffnet und gesichert wird. Das markiert OneDrive, in dem es dem Namen des Dokumentes den Namen des Rechners anhängt, von dem die beiden Versionen aus gespeichert wurden. Dann könnte man auch den Sync-Vorgang unterbrechen, in dem man den Rechner runterfährt, bevor die Änderung propagiert wurde.

Heute habe ich gelernt, dass es eine noch größere Narretei gibt. Man legt dazu die Datei nicht in OneDrive mit Autosave, nicht ins Laufwerk ohne Autosave, sondern in ein verschlüsseltes Filesystem. Und das legt man dann in OneDrive. Da muss mit jedem Butterbrot dann immer der ganze Kühllaster ausgeliefert werden. Und damit kann man das Sync-Problem gleich noch mal vervielfachen. OneDrive kann nämlich erst anfangen, den Kühllaster zu übertragen, wenn niemand mehr eine Hand dran hat. Und wirklich niemand, kein Hintergrundprozess, gar nichts.

Also bitte, wenn Ihr irgendwo lest, mit welchen tollen Tricks man sein System sicherer macht, dann tut das um Himmels Willen nicht. Ihr habt Eure Schuldigkeit getan, wenn Ihr die Zeitung bezahlt habt. Und wenn Ihr es dann doch unbedingt machen wollt, dann sucht in Zukunft die Schuld bei Eurer Bastelei. Am Dateisystem herumzuschrauben ist etwa so gefährlich wie die Gasheizung zu reparieren.

PS: Und wenn wir gerade dabei sind. Nehmt bitte unter macOS Safari und unter Windows Edge. Dahinter stehen zwei Unternehmen, die Euch was verkaufen und nicht Euren Kram verkaufen. Und installiert bitte keinerlei Plugins, die alles lesen können, was Ihr lesen könnt.

An analysis of how human beings engage with a given artefact likely draws from a fundamental premise: human creations demonstrate social-material consequences. This observation does not purport to indicate a probable condition, but rather an ineluctable one—and it holds relevance, always and everywhere, for all types of artefacts. This is true of artefacts demonstrating utilitarian salience—like a spear, scythe, wrench, pencil, microwave, motor vehicle, computer, etc.—and those ostensibly centring on more aesthetic functions—like a painting, sonnet, concert, novel, play or even a television programme.

For the following argument, I discuss how a particular television series, Doctor Who, demonstrates social-material consequences for a community of fans, the Whovians. Following the recent premier of Season Eleven, many excited Whovians took to Twitter in collective celebration of Jodie Whittaker, the first woman to play the show’s leading character, The Doctor.  After 55 years of men in the role, Whittaker’ casting had clear symbolic importance. But it had social-material significance, too. One Twitter comment comes to my mind as an exemplary indication of such significance.

A father tweets, “My daughter (6) told me they were playing  #DoctorWho… in the playground today and she was the Doctor – that’s why last night was brilliant.” Recognizing that the child’s pretending to be the Doctor is to envision herself as the hero, we may acknowledge that she not only enacted a role of social importance, but also felt it was appropriate and desirable to do so. In other words, we confront the affective (and thereby material) implications of her having a woman role model to serve as fodder for her imagined (and real life) ambitions. Pretending to be the Doctor, this child may envision herself as not only competent, but exceptional. While playing, she perhaps recited that now iconic line from The Woman Who Fell to Earth, “When people need help, I never refuse!”  

This tweet, for many, is a heart-warming indication of how parents derive joy from their children’s glee. Though it also reveals how an ostensibly silly television show about aliens, time-travel and companionship holds the power to provoke social change—i.e., to empower young girls (as well as boys) to regard themselves as capable (as potential heroes) as well as to inform a normative order about who gets to be exceptional and deserves celebration. To acknowledge this, though, is to give credence to another ineluctable implication of engaging artefacts—i.e., that such engagement is not independent of the dynamics of power and thereby holds political relevance. Media representation, after all, is an operation and reflection of power—performing and indicating a politic with respect to who has power and for whom power is denied.

The Doctor Who Universe

Doctor Who is a BBC produced science-fiction programme. It demonstrates prominent fandom the world over, but particularly so within British society. The show began in 1963 and aired until 1989. The BBC attempted to relaunch the programme in 1996 with a made-for-television Doctor Who film; however, a rebooted series did not begin airing until 2005. From that time onwards, the show has remained on the air and is still in production presently.

The unfolding story of Doctor Who centres on “the Doctor,” a humanoid time traveling alien from the fictional planet Gallifrey. The character typically travels with human companions to diverse worlds as well as into the past and future. These traveling feats occur by means of the iconic TARDIS: a sentient, time and space traversing vehicle that is paradoxically “bigger on the inside than the outside.” To all outside observers, the TARDIS appears as a police kiosk—an edifice that was normative to Britain’s public infrastructure at the time of the show’s inception. TARDIS travel is often imprecise. Consequently, the Doctor and companions may find themselves in unanticipated times or places. Also, they typically find themselves amongst and aiding peoples or persons enduring a crisis from some despotic foe (e.g., daleks, cybermen, weeping angels, etc.).

Reading this description, one may note the lack of gender pronouns. Though I recognize the political significance of gender neutral prose, I employ the practice here for another reason—which pertains to the present and historical context of Doctor Who. The show has maintained a tradition of continually recasting The Doctor after a specified segment of time. From 1963 to the present, thirteen separate lead actors have officially undertaken the role. The narrative unfolding of Doctor Who accounts for the change by enacting the Doctor’s ability to regenerate (and thereby endure a prolonged life).

With every regeneration the doctor takes on a new humanoid form as well as a new persona. (Yes! I know! Except for that time David Tennant’s Doctor regenerated in a way that maintained his form and persona. Please stop quibbling!). With respect to the enduring mythology of the show, however, the Doctor (in substantial respects) remains the same person—i.e., the doctor retains many if not most memories of past “lives” and the show intends for the audience to regard the present and “new” Doctor as “the same” Doctor(s) from past seasons. Now prior to the eleventh season, I could simply stipulate, “The Doctor and his companions….”  But the current Doctor (or rather the Doctor’s current form)—as we now know—is a woman and portrayed by Jodie Whittaker.

The Whovian Response

Many, including myself, regard the character’s gender change as profound and exciting. The enthusiasm for and celebration of the Season Eleven premiere has much to do with the fact that the first woman Doctor follows 55 concurrent years of Doctors who were men. Whereby, the weeks and months preceding Jodie’s debut enjoyed widespread anticipation from old and new fans alike. Yet the love and enthusiasm did not span the whole of the Whovian community.

Many fans expressed derision at what they perceived to be an interpolation of trendy political sentiments in the show’s narrative and casting decisions. Such fans regarded the revelation of Jodie’s casting as the tipping point upon which the show enacted a metamorphic shift from episodic interjections of feminist sentiments to a full-on critical-feminist project (e.g., see The Cullen Show). For a contingent of fans, this perceived shift in the show’s narrative corresponded to a relational one in which said Whovians’ perpetual annoyance with the show gave way to a complete break in their fan-allegiance.

These fans then took to the internet to declare their intentions to abstain from further viewership of the programme. Subsequently, an enduring internet battle unfolded across an array of platforms with some Whovians supporting the show’s narrative and casting choices, others wholly denouncing said choices and still others occupying a plethora of ambiguous, ambivalent and approximating positions between the two extremes. In Part Two 2 I illustrate the precise nature of these debates and offer a corresponding analysis of their differential logics and implications. Presently, though, I clarify why these debates matter.

What Is at Stake?

Debates among Whovians about Whittaker’s casting centre on a few broad questions:  Is the Doctor Who universe an appropriate space to address gender inequities?  Is it inappropriate to imbue those cultural spaces intended to be fun (or possibly inconsequential with regard to real-world commitments) with politicized sentiments? These are indictments masquerading as inquiries and to many onlookers they are ostensibly reasonable. However, closer inspection reveals that such inquires fail to grasp a fundamental premise about cultural artefacts. They fail to demonstrate what the present text stipulates at its outset—i.e., that all cultural artefacts hold politics. We have already addressed how a given artefact’s politics are fundamentally entangled with social-material consequences and relations of power. Yet we may further explore how artefacts are also ineluctably subject to political readings.

To understand how this occurs, we must acknowledge that this particular concern implicates both authors and audiences. Most readers will readily acknowledge that authors have and will intentionally incorporate their political leanings into a text and do so in a manifest way—resolutely undermining all opportunities for ambiguous and ambivalent readings. Those who indict as well as those who champion Doctor Who as a political project assume said project to be a consequence of author intentionality. Whereby, they accept as apparent within the story’s unfolding a deliberate, unambiguous message about gender representation. I am not, here, arguing for or against the veracity of this claim; rather I give recognition to the relevance of intentional design so that I may better frame a discussion of how political readings can and will demonstrate independence from authorial aims.

With that said, we may also confront the circumstance in which authors fancy themselves as being persons without ideological objectives. They might reflect, “I’m not political. I simply enjoy making-up cool stories with interesting characters.” Such a disposition, perhaps, is one which many disappointed Whovians believe is appropriate and necessary for the creators of Doctor Who. These fans may reason, “Look, we just want to see time travel and aliens and all the fun stuff related to these things. I don’t want my favourite sci-fi stories to burden me with the ideological hang-ups of the real world.” However, even if the producers and writers heed such a call, the resulting television show will still demonstrate political relevance.

For example, a hypothetical author may attempt to resolutely position the narrative in opposition to partisan readings by crafting the text in a manner that is decisively banal, innocuous or unremarkable—i.e., in a manner that does not lay claim to political, divisive rhetoric. Yet to proffer a series of bromides and seemingly benign characterizations still demonstrates a politic in its default positioning. While such a posture refuses to state moral or ethical suppositions, it continues to imply them. An author who neglects to critically assess the world, after all, negates the importance of such evaluations (and thereby makes a claim about what should be or should remain so).

Our present conflation of neglect with negation is appropriate here, because such epistemic negligence holds real world consequences. By not questioning and challenging the everyday violence that occurs in one context or another, one permits as well as complies with said violence. The discourses articulating systemic racism and sexism illustrate this point. These prejudices are built into the fabric of everyday life. To ignore them as consequential for the life-chances of others is to remain complicit in the harms such forces engender. In short, political neutrality is an unviable position—even when engaging fun, fantastical stories (like Doctor Who) to experientially escape the real harms and concerns of lived experience.

Furthermore, authors who deliberately construct narratives to facilitate highly precise or exact readings (political, apolitical or otherwise) will witness the undermining of their efforts as an agentic audience demonstrates the generative power of construal—of actively observing meaning into an artefact. In other words, the audience in question “prosumes”  cultural artefacts, which implies that the act of watching (and consuming) holds productive potential. For example, Whovians consume Doctor Who in a manner that produces a diverse array of experiences and political inclinations.

While some fans regard the eleventh Doctor’s relationship to long-time companion Amelia Pond as constituting an implied romance other fans regard their mutual affections—though immensely loving—as decidedly platonic. The situation is not merely one of differential or (mis)interpretation. Fans, after all, do not passively view the unfolding events of a series arc; rather, they actively will the story to take a specific form. Furthermore, prosuming Doctor Who generates fodder for fandom unity and debate—e.g., fans who celebrate the romance and those who argue about the nature of the relationship. Thus, the fans’ prosumption of the beloved artefact occurs with and through their prosumption of the community itself.

We must now consider some clarifying remarks on the point of viewer agency. Some readers might assume that the practice lends an absolute (or limitless) efficacy to viewer-consumers. One may, then, surmise that since viewers may create and curate their own meanings for a programme’s on-goings, the show’s actual decisions hold little political relevance for or influence over said viewers. Such a position, however, is fundamentally mistaken.

The extant arrangements of a story (as well as a surrounding social world) imposes limits on the generative potential of fan viewing.  After all, if we accept that human perceptions of the world largely operate in and through shared social constructions, then, we must recognize that social artefacts—like televisions shows— are informative of how persons (or fans) understand and engage the world. Furthermore, a fan’s generative-viewing potential likely suffers increasing enfeeblement the more said fan credulously acquiesces to the putative logics of various dialogues and scenes. Even if we accept this hypothesis as irrefutable, however, we still must recognize that the most discerning viewers and subversive viewings inexorably draw from and make-sense of the world through the symbolic register of a larger, normative order.

With that said, we should acknowledge that a reoccurring male Doctor—typically with adoring female companions—communicates and inculcates cultural expectations about what type of persons can and should be protagonists, leaders, saviours, special and exceptional as well as what types of persons should admire, follow, acquiesce and accept the deliberations and pronouncements of others. Such expectations, then, are thoroughly shot-through with the dynamics of systemic power. Fan opposition to Whittaker as Doctor is thus an inherently political act—even among those who claim political neutrality and wish for their pop-culture to remain free from political meddling.

Of course, we would be remiss not to recognize that the history of Doctor Who does offer us strong, agentic and admirable women companions time and again—such as Sarah Jane, Martha Jones, Donna Noble and Bill Potts (among others). But admiring these characters—especially in the sense that they often have and do reflect progressive-feminist ideals—does not negate the legitimacy of observations recognizing past inequities and calls for rectification.

Sexism and gender egalitarianism as well as hegemonic standards and progressive ideals are multifaceted variables—each of which exist on a continuum. Whereby the presence of a variable on one end of the continuum does not necessitate a mutually exclusive relationship with a variable on the other end. Consequently, one may observe both sexist and gender egalitarian features within the same artefact. The history of Doctor Who, then, may have been “relatively” progressive in some respects, but not others. Keeping in mind, however, that all such observations demonstrate a contextual contingency with respect to the cultural moments in which they emerge.

With a concern for the present cultural moment, we should come to understand the multifaceted political readings among Whovians as a representative microcosm of larger debates highlighting the intersections of politics, power, and gender—e.g., the #MeToo campaign and other recent instantiations of progressivism. Wherefore, we readily acknowledge that political participation takes many forms. Disrupting hearings for a predatory SCOTUS nominee is one such example. So too, however, is a fan’s support for story arcs that position women as heroes—especially when those stories take shape through cultural artefacts as widely treasured as Doctor Who. Such an understanding becomes apparent when reflecting on the initial anecdote about a young girl pretending to be The Doctor. Re-enacting the Season Eleven premiere and the episodes to come, this little girl and others like her believe they just might save the universe.

James Chouinard (@jamesbc81) is a Lecturer in the School of Sociology at The Australian National University

Headline pic via: Source

CleanMyMac X by MacPaw is your complete Mac maintenance solution. Redesigned with a beautiful new interface that makes it a pleasure to use, CleanMyMac X frees up wasted storage space, protects against malware, optimizes your Mac’s performance, and more.

It all starts with Smart Scan, the all-in-one center for analyzing, optimizing, and protecting your Mac. Here you’ll find sections to clean up unwanted and unnecessary files that are cluttering up your Mac’s drive. CleanMyMac also scans for malware, protecting your Mac against malicious third-party code and vulnerabilities. There’s an optimization section that can free up RAM and manage login items, launch agents, and memory-hungry apps too.

At each step of the process, you’ll have CleanMyMac Assistant at your side. It’s an intelligent advisor providing explanations of everything CleanMyMac does and recommending courses of action. CleanMyMac X is faster too. MacPaw tests show that it’s up to three times faster than version 3 of the app.

CleanMyMac X has added an app update module that scans your installed apps for available updates too. It's a fantastic, centralized way to see all the apps on your Mac that have updates whether or not you bought them on the Mac App Store.

Whether you’re prepping your Mac to install Mojave, or want to optimize it after updating, you owe it to yourself to make sure your Mac is running smoothly and safely with enough storage to get your work done. So, don’t wait. Go check out CleanMyMac X today. There’s a free trial waiting to help you get make your Mac as good as new.

Our thanks to CleanMyMac X for sponsoring MacStories this week.

Support MacStories Directly

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it's also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it's made in Italy.

A few months back, Microsoft released a comprehensive dataset that included the estimated footprints of all of the buildings in the United States. The New York Times mapped all of it.

The footnote says a lot about their attention to detail:

In some cases, the building shapes generated by Microsoft’s automated process do not match the existing building footprints exactly. We manually corrected as many of these mistakes as we found, or, where available, replaced the shapes using more precise local data sets. Data was unavailable for much of Alaska.

Tags: buildings, New York Times

Earlier this year Adobe confirmed that it was working on a full-featured version of Photoshop for the iPad, but no real details on the product were given. Today that changed, however, as the app's official announcement arrived alongside the kickoff of Adobe's MAX conference.

Photoshop for iPad won't arrive until some time in 2019, but when it does launch it will differ drastically from Adobe's current lineup of Photoshop-related iOS apps. Rather than focusing on an individual subset of desktop features, like Adobe's existing Photoshop Fix, Express, and Mix do, the aim with this forthcoming app is to provide the full desktop Photoshop experience on an iPad.

As part of its iPad efforts, Adobe has brought the same underlying codebase of Photoshop for desktop to iOS, and it has also worked to modernize PSD files for the cloud. These new Cloud PSDs will be the default file format on the new iPad app, offering a seamless file experience across multiple devices. Adobe's chief product officer, Scott Belsky, told The Verge:

"Cloud PSDs, when we ship Photoshop on the iPad, will also run and automatically show up on your desktop...Suddenly, you’ll have this cloud-powered roundtrip experience akin to a Google Docs experience, where literally the source of truth of your Photoshop creation is in the cloud."

Cloud PSDs will eliminate the need for importing or exporting files, removing a major friction point that currently stands in the way of working with Adobe's apps on the iPad. With Creative Cloud's automatic syncing of all files, you should be able to pick up editing on any device at any time without needing to do a thing.

When manual importing or exporting does make sense to your workflow, those options will still be available in Photoshop for iPad. The app will support file providers like iCloud Drive, Dropbox, and more. Based on the preview version of the app, it appears to support Files.app's document providers, and I'm hopeful that iOS 11's drag and drop features will be supported as another option for importing and exporting.

The Verge was granted a week of hands-on time with Photoshop for iPad, and has a great video that demonstrates the app in action. It appears very similar to Photoshop on desktop, with some adaptations made for OS differences like iOS's lack of a menu bar. There are sure to be touch-optimized improvements offered too though, such as a gesture the video highlights where you can tap with two fingers on the screen to undo.

Though Adobe's goal is full feature parity between desktop and iPad versions of Photoshop, the 1.0 release of Photoshop on iPad will lack certain features that will be added over time with future updates. That full list of missing features is unavailable at this time, but we're sure to learn more as the launch approaches.

Photoshop for iPad will be available free to all Creative Cloud subscribers, but there's no word currently on whether a standalone purchase or iPad-only subscription will be possible. It would be a strong vote of confidence in iPad-first users to make the app available for non-CC subscribers, but based on Adobe's history that appears unlikely.

Today's announcement highlights what an exciting time it is to be an iPad user. With new iPad Pro models expected to be announced in the coming weeks, and a reported focus on significant iPad features coming in iOS 13, there's no time like the present for the full power of Photoshop to make its way to Apple's tablet.

Support MacStories Directly

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it's also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it's made in Italy.

Samuel Axon of Ars Technica published an article over the weekend about the state of gaming on Apple TV, inspired by the recent demise of Minecraft on the platform. In it he shares quotes from notable iOS and tvOS game developers about Apple's problems with the Apple TV as a gaming platform.

On the subject of Minecraft, Team Alto developer Ryan Cash said:

"If I were in charge of the game...I think I'd really try to stay there. While the platform certainly isn't the biggest, it continues to grow, and it's a great way for certain types of audiences to experience gaming, often for their first time."

Strange Flavour's CEO Aaron Fothergill expressed similar sentiments, highlighting how easy it is to port a game from iOS to tvOS. He did, however, share one common request for the platform:

"I...like the idea of game controllers (ideally Apple ones) being bundled with the Apple TV as an actual Apple option. So there's an Apple TV being sold specifically for games."

Finally, developer Patrick Hogan shared three things he believes Apple should do:

• Include an Apple-branded, full-featured controller with every Apple TV.
• Market the Apple TV as a gaming platform.
• "Spend a lot of money on funding platform exclusives, ports, and presence at every major gaming expo and conference to break the chicken-egg problem of getting customers to make it viable to devs."

Gaming is clearly an area where Apple could have more success if it wanted to. Producing a controller to bundle with the Apple TV, even if it were just included with certain SKUs of the device, wouldn't be that difficult for the company. Clearly it's just something that the execs in Cupertino don't want to pursue at this time.

It could be challenging bridging the gap between the touch-first games of iOS and potential controller-first titles on the Apple TV, but if Nintendo can walk that line successfully with the Switch, I don't doubt that Apple could do the same. Until such a strategy shift takes place though, Apple TV gaming is likely to remain stuck in mediocrity.

→ Source: arstechnica.com

Along with details about the forthcoming Photoshop for iPad, Adobe has announced another brand new iPad app coming soon, dubbed Project Gemini:

Today we announced Project Gemini—a focused new app focused specifically on drawing and painting. Building on Photoshop’s powerful brush engine, this new app combines powerful Photoshop brushes, precise and scalable vector brushes, and an entirely new category of groundbreaking Live oil and watercolor brushes – you’ve never seen anything like them. In addition, layers, selections, and masks enable the most modern non-destructive drawing and editing workflows.

Most importantly, though, we’ve built Project Gemini with the illustration community.

Kyle Webster, of KyleBrush.com, joined Adobe in 2017 to help build Gemini and act as an ambassador and advocate for the illustration community. Along with Kyle, a group of illustrators with diverse styles and backgrounds have been working closely with us to help Gemini achieve its potential.

According to the announcement post, the genesis of this new app was advancements in hardware that enabled Adobe's team to build more powerful tools than were previously possible. They highlight "selection and masking tools, combined raster and vector drawing capabilities" as some examples.

I'm not in the target market for this app, but I'm excited to see Adobe continue to rethink how modern iPads can enable more powerful, yet accessible app experiences than before.

If you'd like to join the Gemini beta when it begins, Adobe has a short survey available for interested testers.

→ Source: theblog.adobe.com

I've spent the past two weeks updating my iPhone's home screen setup for the XS Max and, as I shared in the latest episode of AppStories, part of the process involved gaining easier access to some of the shortcuts I use on a regular basis. While I'm not a fan of the shortcuts-only home screen approach described by CGP Grey in episode 75 of the Cortex podcast (at some point, I believe you just end up swapping app folders for shortcuts), I do like the idea of adding a couple of frequently used custom shortcuts to the home screen. And as I detailed on AppStories, I also like to use "shortcut launchers" – effectively, shortcuts to launch other shortcuts.

For context, here's what my current widget and home screen look like, with one of my shortcut launchers on the right:

You may notice that I was able to add shortcuts to the home screen without displaying their names. This is possible by using an invisible Unicode character as the name of a shortcut (a tip that was shared on the Cortex subreddit); while the Shortcuts app doesn't let you name your shortcuts with spaces, you can use the character linked above to create shortcut icons that look like they don't have a text label. The four grey shortcut separators I'm using in the widget are based on the same technique: they only contain an 'Exit Shortcut' action (so they do nothing if they're accidentally pressed) and I used the invisible character to create their blank names.

Because the Shortcuts app doesn't let you assign the same name to multiple shortcuts, you'll have to paste the invisible character multiple times for each shortcut you want to have an invisible label on the home screen. Of course, I had to create a shortcut that simplifies this process and asks you how many times you'd like to repeat the invisible character in a text string. You can find the shortcut below; you should also listen to episode 83 of AppStories for a special link to a Shortcuts-related project I've been working on.

Copy Blank Characters

Generate a string of invisible characters based on the Braille Pattern Blank Unicode character (U+2800). This is a workaround to create shortcuts with invisible names on the iOS home screen. The shortcut lets you choose how many times you'd like to repeat the blank character to avoid issues with multiple shortcuts having the same name.

Get the shortcut here.

Support MacStories Directly

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it's also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it's made in Italy.

I’m super excited to be joining Pivotal on Monday, October 22nd as Open Source Software Strategy Lead within the R&D group here in their London office!

This has been in the works for quite a while, but my UK work visa finally arrived, which makes it official. I also learned that my PhD dissertation corrections were approved, so I’ve had a lot to celebrate in the past week!

My first day at Pivotal will be at the Linux Foundation’s Open Source Summit in Edinburgh, which is odd timing because of some visa delays, but I’m excited to get started! While I won’t be speaking about anything related to my new job at Pivotal, I will be talking about my Linux kernel research.

And we’re hiring if you want to come work with me

Eugen Rochko, Mastodon, Oct 31, 2018

There have been numerous predictions that Mastodon won't last through the end of the year but as it passes its second anniversary it continues to grow, currently sitting at 1,627,557 registered users on 3,460 servers. That's still a tiny fraction of Facebook or even Twitter users, but it's still significant. Where Mastodon has been successful has been in making the interface user-friendly. But the greatest hurdle will be to reach mainstream acceptance despite being a poor platform for celebrities and advertisers to exploit. I view this as a strength, but it's really hard to scale without these.

Martin Sustrik, LessWrong, Oct 31, 2018

I wish this study had been replicated in North America. It is nonetheless a fascinating study of cooperative behaviours, albeit under highly artificial conditions. The gist is that while punishing free-riders usually increases cooperation, in some cases the punishment actually reduces cooperation. In cases where the benefit of cooperation are minimized (for example, where corruption empties the common pool before people can benefit) people actively oppose efforts to make them cooperate. The author suggests that the motivation is psychological (" You've punished me for free-riding so now I'll punish you just that you know how it feels!") but I think the response is a much more pragmatic push-back against ineffective forms of cooperation. Via Doug Belshaw.

Ton Zijlstra, Interdependent Thoughts, Oct 31, 2018

"Social connectedness is a necessary context for discourse," writes Ton Zijlstra, "either stemming from personal connections, or from the setting of the place/event it takes place in. Online discourse often lacks both, discourse crumbles, entropy ensues." As a result, two features are essential for online discourse: our platforms needs to create "a tapestry of overlapping and distinct groups and contexts," and our platforms need to be smaller than the group, meaning that "a group can deploy, alter, maintain, administrate a platform for their specific context." See also, Laura Kalbag, What is Mastodon and why should I use it?

Once upon a time I intended to do a project about the ways that black folks experienced how they were perceived in America. It would document those times when something happens and you say to yourself, “Wow, in the eyes of some folks, I’m still just a black person.” Every black person I’ve ever met has had at least one of these moments, and often several, even after they became “successful.” My title for the project was “Still a Negro.”

The idea was partly inspired by the years when I taught at a university in Detroit in a summer outreach program for kids, mainly from the city’s middle and high schools who were considering an engineering career. Normally I taught in the liberal arts building, but the outreach program was in the slightly less broken-down engineering building across campus. Often I would go over early to use the faculty copier there, and every year I taught in the program — eight years total — someone from the engineering faculty would reprimand me for using the copier. I knew it would happen, and yet each time I was surprised.

Reprimand is probably not a strong enough word to cover the variety of glares, stares, and accusations I elicited. I guess it’s possible that they didn’t recognize me as one of their colleagues, but what pissed me off was that their reactions suggested that they didn’t believe I could be: They gaped at me, accused me of lying, demanded proof that I really was faculty, or announced that they’re not going to argue with a student. Simple courtesy should have prevented such behavior. Since my own behavior was not out of place, it could only mean that I looked out of place. And then, for the ten millionth time, I would say to myself, “Oh my god! I forgot that I’m still a Negro.”

The fact that this happened in the engineering department was not lost on me. Questions about the inclusivity of engineering and computer science departments have been going on for quite some time. Several current “innovations” coming out of these fields, many rooted in facial recognition, are indicative of how scientific racism has long been embedded in apparently neutral attempts to measure people — a “new” spin on age-old notions of phrenology and biological determinism, updated with digital capabilities.

Only the most mundane uses of biometrics and facial recognition are concerned with only identifying a specific person, matching a name to a face or using a face to unlock a phone. Typically these systems are invested in taking the extra steps of assigning a subject to an identity category in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and matching those categories with guesses about emotions, intentions, relationships, and character to shore up forms of discrimination, both judicial and economic.

Certainly the practice of coding difference onto bodies is not new; determining who belongs in what categories — think about battles over citizenship, the “one drop” rule of blackness, or discussions about how to categorize trans people — are longstanding historical, legal, and social projects made more real and “effective” by whatever technologies are available at the time. As Simone Browne catalogs in Dark Matters, her groundbreaking work on the historical and present-day surveillance of blackness, anthropometry

was introduced in 1883 by Alphonse Bertillon as a system of measuring and then cataloguing the human body by distinguishing one individual from another for the purposes of identification, classification, and criminal forensics. This early biometric information technology was put to work as a ‘scientific method’ alongside the pseudo-sciences of craniotometry (the measurement of the skull to assign criminality and intelligence to race and gender) and phrenology (attributing mental abilities to the shape of the skull, as the skull was believed to hold a brain made up of the individual organs).

A key to Browne’s book is her detailed look at the way that black bodies have consistently been surveilled in America: The technologies change, but the process remains the same. Browne identifies contemporary practices like facial recognition as digital epidermalization: “the exercise of power cast by the disembodied gaze of certain surveillance technologies (for example, identity card and e-passport verification machines) that can be employed to do the work of alienating the subject by producing a ‘truth’ about the body and one’s identity (or identities) despite the subject’s claims.”

Iterations of these technologies are already being used in airports, at borders, in stadiums, and in shopping malls — not just in countries like China but in the United States. A number of new companies, including Faception, NTechLab, and BIOPAC systems, are advancing the centuries-old project of phrenology, making the claim that machine learning can detect discrete physical features and make data-driven predictions about the race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, emotional state, propensity for violence, or character of those who possess them.

Many current digital platforms proceed according to the same process of writing difference onto bodies through a process of data extraction and then using “code” to define who is what.  Such acts of biometric determinism fit with what has been called surveillance capitalism, defined by Shoshanna Zuboff as “the monetization of free behavioral data acquired through surveillance and sold to entities with interest in your future behavior.” Facebook’s use of “ethnic affinity” as a proxy for race is a prime example. The platform’s interface does not offer users a way to self-identify according to race, but advertisers can nonetheless target people based on Facebook’s ascription of an “affinity” along racial lines. In other words, race is deployed as an externally assigned category for purposes of commercial exploitation and social control, not part of self-generated identity for reasons of personal expression. The ability to define one’s self and tell one’s own stories is central to being human and how one relates to others; platforms’ ascribing identity through data undermines both.

These code-derived identities in turn complement Silicon Valley’s pursuit of “friction-free” interactions, interfaces, and applications in which a user doesn’t have to talk to people, listen to them, engage with them, or even see them. From this point of view, personal interactions are not vital but inherently messy, and presupposed difference (in terms of race, class, and ethnicity) is held responsible. Platforms then promise to manage the “messiness” of relationships by reducing them to transactions. The apps and interfaces create an environment where interactions can happen without people having to make any effort to understand or know each other. This is a guiding principle of services ranging from Uber, to Amazon Go grocery stores, to touchscreen-ordering kiosks at fast-food joints. At the same time racism and othering are rendered at the level of code, so certain users can feel innocent and not complicit in it.

In an essay for the engineering bulletin IEEE Technology and Society, anthropologist Sally Applin discusses how Uber “streamlined” the traditional taxi ride:

They did this in part by disrupting dispatch labor (replacing the people who are not critical to the actual job of driving the car with a software service and the labor of the passenger), removing the language and cultural barriers of communicating directly with drivers (often from other countries and cultures), and shifting traditional taxi radio communications to the internet. [Emphasis added]

In other words, interacting with the driver is perceived as a main source of “friction,” and Uber is experienced as “seamless” because it effaces those interactions.

But this expectation of seamlessness can intensify the way users interpret difference as a pretext for a discount or a bad rating. As the authors of “Discriminating Tastes: Uber’s Customer Ratings as Vehicles for Workplace Discrimination” point out:

Because the Uber system is designed and marketed as a seamless experience (Uber Newsroom, 2015), and coupled with confusion over what driver ratings are for, any friction during a ride can cause passengers to channel their frustrations

In online markets, consumer behavior often exhibits bias based on the perceived race of another party to the exchange. This bias often manifests via lower offer prices and decreased response rates … More recently, a study of Airbnb … found that guests with African–American names were about 16 percent less likely to be accepted as rentees than guests with characteristically white names.

“Ghettotracker,” which purported to identify neighborhoods to avoid, and other apps like it ( SafeRoute, Road Buddy) are further extensions of the same data-coding and “friction”-eliminating logic. These apps allow for discrimination against marginalized communities by encoding racist articulations of what constitutes danger and criminality. In effect, they extend the logic of policies like “broken windows” and layer a cute interface on top of it.

Given the primacy of Google Maps and the push for smart cities, what happens when these technologies are combined in or across large platforms? Even the Netflix algorithm has been critiqued for primarily only offering “Black” films to certain groups of people. What happens when the stakes are higher? Once products and, more important, people are coded as having certain preferences and tendencies, the feedback loops of algorithmic systems will work to reinforce these often flawed and discriminatory assumptions. The presupposed problem of difference will become even more entrenched, the chasms between people will widen.

At its root then, surveillance capitalism and its efficiencies ease “friction” through dehumanization on the basis of race, class, and gender identity. Its implementation in platforms might be categorized as what, in Racial Formation in the United States, Michael Omi and Howard Winant describe as “racial projects”: “simultaneously an interpretation, representation, or explanation of racial dynamics and an effort to reorganize and redistribute resources along particular racial lines.”

The impulse to find mathematical models that will not only accurately represent reality but also predict the future forces us all into a paradox. It should be obvious that no degree of measurement, whether done by calipers or facial recognition, can accurately determine an individual’s identity independent of the social, historical, and cultural elements that have informed identity. Identification technologies are rooted in the history of how our society codes difference, and they have proved a profitable means of sustaining the regimes grounded in the resulting hierarchies. Because companies and governments are so heavily invested in these tools, critics are often left to call for better representation and more heavily regulated tools (rather than their abolishment) to at least “eliminate bias” to the extent that fewer innocent people will be tagged, detained, arrested, scrutinized, or even killed.

Frank Pasquale, in “When Machine Learning Is Facially Invalid,” articulates this well: The vision of better “facial inference projects” through more complete datasets “rests on a naively scientistic perspective on social affairs,” but “reflexivity (the effect of social science on the social reality it purports to merely understand) compromises any effort (however well intended) to straightforwardly apply natural science methods to human beings.”

There is no complete map of difference, and there can never be. That said, I want to indulge proponents of these kinds of tech for a moment. What would it look like to be constantly coded as different in a hyper-surveilled society — one where there was large-scale deployment of surveillant technologies with persistent “digital epidermalization” writing identity on to every body within the scope of its gaze? I’m thinking of a not too distant future where not only businesses and law enforcement constantly deploy this technology, as with recent developments in China, but also where citizens going about their day use it as well, wearing some version of Google Glass or Snapchat Spectacles to avoid interpersonal “friction” and identify the “others” who do or don’t belong in a space at a glance. What if Permit Patty or Pool Patrol Paul had immediate, real-time access to technologies that “legitimized” black bodies in a particular space?

I don’t ask this question lightly. Proponents of persistent surveillance articulate some form of this question often and conclude that a more surveillant society is a safer one. My answer is quite different. We have seen on many occasions that more and better surveillance doesn’t equal more equitable or just outcomes, and often results in the discrimination being blamed on the algorithm. Further, these technological solutions can render the bias invisible. While not based on biometrics, think about the difference between determining “old-fashioned” housing discrimination vs. how Facebook can be used to digitally redline users by making ads for housing visible only to white users.

But I’d like to take it a step further. What would it mean for those “still a negro” moments to become primarily digital — invisible to the surveilled yet visible to the people performing the surveillance? Would those being watched and identified become safer? Would interactions become more seamless? Would I no longer be rudely confronted while making copies?

The answer, on all counts, is no — and not just because these technologies cannot form some complete map of a person, their character, and their intent. While it would be inaccurate to say that I as a Black man embrace the “still a negro” moments, my experiencing them gives me important information about how I’m perceived in a particular space and even to what degree I’m safe in that space. The end game of a surveillance society, from the perspective of those being watched, is to be subjected to whims of black-boxed code extended to the navigation of spaces, which are systematically stripped of important social and cultural clues. The personalized surveillance tech, meanwhile, will not make people less racist; it will make them more comfortable and protected in their racism.

After 15 hours researching nine transcription services and testing seven, we found that Temi is the best option for people who need audio transcribed quickly and inexpensively. The artificial-intelligence service can turn your recorded interviews or audio notes into readable transcripts more quickly and easily than the competition.

NPR: U.S. And Russian Astronauts Safe Following Rocket Malfunction After Launch. “NPR’s Ailsa Chang talks with retired Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield about Thursday’s failed launch of a Russian Soyuz rocket carrying a U.S.-Russian crew to the International Space Station.”

After researching 19 top webcams and testing six, we think that if you need a webcam for video calls, streaming, or recording, you should get the Logitech HD Pro Webcam C920. It takes better pictures and video than any of the other models we tested, beating even newer and more-expensive models. It has sharp, 1080p video at 30 frames per second with fast autofocus and quick, accurate auto white balance; it’s simple to install and use; and at around $60 it doesn’t cost much more than lesser budget webcams.

After attending about a half-dozen candidate forums (I think I could do some of the candidate’s stump speeches for them), I collected a few common tropes and promises worthy of analysis (and a little ridicule).

Biggest bullshit line used by every candidate: The problem with City Hall is its failure to consult. It doesn’t listen to the people. The process is broken.

Every candidate goes into office promising more and better consultation – and then in many cases actually provides more opportunities (additional advisory committees, more surveys, more staff) to do so. And then, because some participants don’t like the conclusions or actions taken, they criticize the process. (We talked about that here.)

Advocates believe that if proper consultation was conducted, it would result in the conclusion they or ‘the community’ agreed with. If not, then clearly the consultation was inadequate.  Or else the politicians weren’t listening.  (“If they were, they’d support my position!”)

By the end of their term, the incumbents will hear exactly the same critique of them that they made when they first ran.

Oh, and be aware when wailing away at the size of civic government’s communications staff:  those are the people who do the consultation, as well as the analysis and recommendations.  

Worst metaphor: I’d run government like a business.

Usually the candidate means they would pay more attention to the budget and target conspicuous examples of ‘waste.’   (That does not mean they would cut cops, firefighters or most of engineering – which together make up almost all the budget. Hence the attractiveness of targeting bike lanes: a minor expenditure with major profile, but a rounding error in the overall scheme of things.)

Fundamentally, though, they miss the point: government is not a business. It can’t be, because it has to provide equitable services for everyone.  The mayor can’t just discontinue a service that doesn’t break even or make a profit.  Look at libraries: giving copyrighted material away for free!  Bad business model.  Same for community centres, schools, parks.  (Can’t cut them?  Okay, let’s kill off something minor and controversial like public art.  Or bike lanes.*)

What about taxpayers in arrears?  Could the city refuse to send out firefighters until they’ve paid up?  Or offer special service for those who pay more?  (Two firehalls for Shaughnessy!)

Thirdly, there’s really no competition, no other government down the street to take your business to.  ‘You don’t like our utilities? Sorry we disappointed you, but you can always go to the competing government across the street for your water and sewer services.’

Oh wait …

Fourthly, and ironically, civic government has to be managed more carefully than a business.  Under provincial legislation, it can’t run a deficit.  It has to go to the public for capital plan approvals.  It is continually audited.  And it operates in a way that would be unthinkable for most businesses: subject to freedom of information legislation, the daily scrutiny of media, effectively unable to sue when falsely charged, its board of directors and CEO subject to a vote by everyone regardless of their knowledge or stake in the company.

Maybe the line should be reversed: business should be run more like government.

Most unrealistic promise:  Freezing taxes, not increasing them above inflation, or cutting them, while at the same making commitments for massive new expenditures (housing!) or taking on new services and commitments, (homelessness!  Ask Gregor).

It’s not that governments haven’t made cuts before.  (We did it when I was on council, including cutting our councillor salaries by 10 percent as part of a thorough core review.  Hardly anyone noticed.)

One council  tried not raising property taxes at all for years (Surrey under Doug McCallum).  The result was, inevitably, disastrous, as it took decades for the City to catch up on services at greater cost, not to mention damage to reputation.

Some candidates are aware, of course, that when they promise huge new expenditures (housing!), there has to be a huge new source of money. That’s why they always add this little disclaimer: ‘In partnership with senior governments, we will … ‘  Oddly, candidates for senior governments are making huge new promises too, and don’t intend for a moment to fund local government without downloading something else on to them.

Hopelessly absurd policy proposal:  ‘There is $700 billion dollars worth of residential property in Vancouver on stolen land from indigenous people. It’s time to return it.’

It was just a matter of time before some enthusiastic candidates made the connection from “unceded” to “stolen” to “returning the land to its rightful owners.”  (What a gift to the alt-right.  Imagine their propaganda: ‘The City says they will send you, the hard-working homeowner, a decolonization notice.  Title will be given to tribal groups without accountability.  And they’ll be able to develop the land anyway they want.’)

Few would take that commitment seriously, but COPE seems not to have raised the slightest eyebrow when one of their candidates said it.

*Can’t end without another comment on bike lanes.  I noticed that the candidates on the right most apt to use the ‘run government like a business’ trope are also those who proposed that the separated lanes on arterials be ‘seasonal’.  I presume that means they’d remove the dividers  and open the lanes to general traffic when ‘no one’ is using them in the rain.

First of all, they probably have no data and no idea how much the lanes are being used in winter.  And they certainly have no idea how much it would cost to make the transition twice a year: the planning, the staff work, the signage, the storage, the maintenance – and above all, the confusion, resulting in accidents and ongoing conflicts.

The budgetary costs are easily in the six figures, but the political capital lost would be so much greater: protests and ridicule twice a year, every year until they saw how pointless and wasteful it all was.  Perhaps that’s what Wai Young means by ‘ideological bike lanes.’

Today was my final test. I had not tried walking with them. Usually I don't run around with headphones. But today I did. While I was walking I got two calls and I also called somebody. From my Apple Watch! And they worked quite well. The other party could hear my steps in the gravel, but they had no trouble understanding me. While I turn off the ANC at home, I found that feature to be benefitial while walking. It takes away the sounds you are making. With ANC off, you hear the headset moving on your face, you hear sound from inside your mouth, and all of that goes away when you have ANC on. Granted, I was in my own world. I would not have heard a bike coming from behind or a car approaching from the side. So I had to be extra careful.

I find the Beats to be very comfortable. I have worn them for hours on end while working, and they do get a bit warm. But they don't make you feel under water or inside an aircraft cabin. I have used them on the train, but not on a plane. Due to the W1 chip they easily switch over to my Apple Watch from my iPhone, when I get out of range. I open the music app on the Watch and it automatically plays on the Beats. Magic.

On my Surface I have always plugged them in. They don't support multipoint Bluetooth. So you cannot be connected to the iPhone and a computer at the same time. They are quite easy to move within the Apple ecosystem, but once you want to take them outside, you have to pair them. Same as with the AirPods. When connected to an Apple thing, they talk over the AAC codec. Fantastic.

One caveat: When you plug the Beats into a 3.5mm jack, they turn on! If you turn them off, you can't hear a thing. I suspect they won't work with dead batteries, at all. Good news: they charger over MicroUSB really fast. 10 minutes give you three hours of play time. I never ever ran out of juice though.

I don't particularly like the looks of them, but you are not making a mistake when you get them for your Apple things. They work best where you cannot use the AirPods. Unlike the equally fantastic AirPods, they are quite powerful and isolate you in noisy environments. Beats have a bad reputation for being too heavy on the bass, and I found that not to be true. For closed ANC headphones they are among the best.

Currently 260 € in matte black >

Paris, en regardant vers l’ouest

• Google verse des milliards à Apple pour imposer son moteur de recherche? Combien ? 9 milliards de $ en 2018, 12 milliards en 2019 !
• Voici les problèmes éthiques qui sont posés quand un assureur impose à ses clients de porter des capteurs d’activité (rappel : le leader américain du secteur, John Hancock, vient de déclarer son intention de le faire) ;
• À propos de Tim Berners-Lee et sa startup Inrupt, porteuse du projet Solid : Inventor of web offers chance to take back data control. Voir aussi son billet sur Medium ;
• Qwant, moteur de recherche par défaut sur tous les ordinateurs du ministère des Armées, annonce la ministre ;
• À partir du 5 Octobre, tous les ordinateurs de la ville d’Issy les Moulineaux utiliseront Qwant comme moteur de recherche par défaut et les écoles @QwantJunior, déclare André Santini ;
• Sommes-nous prêts à abandonner notre liberté au nom de la sécurité ? Peut-on réellement faire confiance à un algorithme pour trier les individus et déterminer aujourd’hui qu’ils deviendront des criminels demain ? Peut-on prédire les crimes ?, un documentaire Arte ;
• Ce podcast / interview de Jean-Marc Jancovici est une pure merveille, merci Damien Detcherry !
• Protection des données : le ministère des Armées préfère Qwant à Google ;
• Article rare de Claude Askolovitch, plein d’empathie, dans un moment où on en a bien besoin : Les fascistes se nourrissent de la souffrance de Patrick Jardin et d’autres ;
• Comment Google a asphyxié les comparateurs de prix européens ;
• Les (ultra)riches sont des psychopathes, avec quelques études et chiffres qui piquent un peu. Exemple : « Ils ont par exemple observé le comportement d’automobilistes à des intersections où il y avait quatre arrêts obligatoires. Les gens qui conduisaient des voitures de luxe étaient quatre fois plus enclins à couper les autres voitures que les gens conduisant des voitures bon marché. Même phénomène observé aux traversées piétonnes : les personnes dans des voitures économiques respectaient la priorité de passage aux piétons tandis que les gens dans les voitures de luxe ignoraient les piétons 46% du temps. »
• Rapport du Giec : la France n’est même pas au niveau des engagements de l’accord de Paris ;
• La sécurité informatique grand public est un échec. Non, ça n’est pas un échec, mais il est clair que l’on doit faire mieux. Le billet de DaScritch, malgré sont titre alarmiste, liste bien des points où on peut s’améliorer ;
• Facebook Announces a Camera for Your House. Didn’t They Just Get Hacked?. Juste après avoir fait preuve d’une incompétence répétée et acacdrabrantesque (dont la fuite de 50 millions de comptes), Facebook annonce un nouveau produit : une caméra à mettre chez soi, avec un micro allumé en permanence !
• Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?. Les informaticiens veulent savoir si leur travail sera utilisé à des fins contraires à leur éthique. Et c’est bien, d’autant que le marché du travail dans le secteur leur donne du pouvoir sur leur employeur. Qu’il s’en servent !
• Non, Apple ne bloque pas - encore - secrètement les réparations de Mac, mais ils pourraient bien s’y préparer, d’autant qu’ils travaillent d’arrache-pied à empêcher les gens de réparer eux-même leurs appareils ;
• Ces lunettes bloquent les images de tous les écrans que croisent votre regard ;
• Acrasie : l’intime désaccord ;
• Le mot Android n’a pas été prononcé de tout l’événement mobile Google. En gros, la marque Android disparaît. La technologie bien sûr, reste.
• Données personnelles, comment se protéger ? Qui arrêtera Google et Facebook ?, où j’étais invité ;
• Ces start-up qui rêvent d’aider leurs utilisateurs à adopter des comportements durables ;
• Juste énorme, la chanson parodique de Frédéric Fromet Donnez vos données. « Les cartes de fidélité, les objets connectés, / C’est rien que pour niquer votre vie privée / Fichés dès votre naissance et même après la mort / Ah si seulement les macchabées cliquaient encore ! »
• Google va fermer Google + après la découverte d’une faille de sécurité ayant affecté les données d’au moins 500 000 utilisateurs. C’est moins fréquent que Facebook (tant mieux !) mais il semblerait que Google ait tardé à communiquer cette information aux utilisateurs, envisageant pendant longtemps de ne pas le faire du tout ;
• Voilà une idée qui est difficile à entendre : Climat : « Freiner la croissance de la population est une nécessité absolue » ;
• Delete Your Account Now: A Conversation with Jaron Lanier ;

Evgeny Cherpak’s iOS app, Remote Control for Mac, has been updated with Siri shortcut support, which opens up some interesting ways to control a Mac with shortcuts. I’ve been using the app’s new Siri shortcuts for about a week and, as I covered on AppStories today, the shortcuts I’ve created that incorporate Remote’s functionality are already ones that I use every day.

Remote works via a companion menu bar app that you install on your Mac, which allows your iOS device to send system events and other actions to your Mac while both are on the same network. Once the menu bar app is installed and running, everything else happens in Remote’s iOS app, which is divided into five tabs: Media, Input, Apps, Menu, and System.

Remote's companion Mac menu bar app.

The media tab is handy if you use a Mac as a media center. There are buttons for play/pause, skipping forward and back, volume up and down, and mute. There are also controls accessible from a toolbar at the top of the screen for system features like brightness, arrow key controls, and AirPlay, as well as specific media apps and sites like iTunes, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. I’ve tried the feature with my Mac, and they work well, but I don’t have a Mac hooked up to a media center, so they’ve only come in handy when I leave the room for some reason without pausing iTunes and am too lazy to head back to my desk to stop playback.

The Input section allows you to use the surface of your iOS device like a trackpad and keyboard, complete with buttons to replicate clicks. Along the top of the view is an option to mirror your Mac’s screen on your iOS device, which is handy if you’re using the keyboard to enter text on your Mac, for example. There are also buttons for moving the text insertion point one character at a time in either direction, triggering Mission Control and Launchpad, and opening Remote’s Input Settings.

The Apps and Menu tabs are interesting. You can launch, quit, and minimize any of your Mac apps, enter full-screen mode, bring an app to the front, make an app a Remote Control for Mac favorite, force quit an app, and launch or quit apps according to a schedule. If you have a lot of apps installed and only use a few with Remote, marking the ones you use as Favorites is a nice way to manage the list in Remote. The Menu tab lists all the menu commands for an active app, plus any Services that can be activated from that app using a keyboard shortcut. You don’t have the benefit of seeing what is happening with the app you control from Remote’s Menu tab, but it’s great for using your Mac without a keyboard if it’s connected to a TV or with an app like Screens on an iPad.

Controlling a headless Mac mini with Screens and Remote Control for Mac.

I’ve been experimenting with using Remote and Screens together on an iPad, and it’s a powerful combination. With Screens in trackpad mode, I can use my finger to control the pointer on my Mac. With Screens connected to a keyboard, I can make use of keyboard shortcuts on my Mac, but if I don’t have a keyboard handy Remote’s Menu tab is a better alternative to zooming in and out of my Mac’s screen to try to tap menu items. Remote also works well as an app launcher and window manager side-by-side or in Slide Over mode with Screens because it allows me to do things I take for granted with a pointing device, which is harder when using a Mac interface on iOS. The combination is sure to be useful as I set up more automation on my headless Mac mini.

The final tab of Remote allows users to control system events. You can log out, restart, shut down, lock, sleep, and wake your Mac as well as start and stop the screensaver and turn your display on and off. Each of these events can be scheduled in Remote to occur automatically at a particular time or added as a Siri shortcut.

Remote has Siri shortcut support for system actions and has custom conrols for popular media providers.

I’ve had issues with my Mac’s display failing to turn off as scheduled in System Preferences. As I described on AppStories, I’ll stop working for the day, go to bed, and then discover the next day that my display has been on all night. Using Remote’s new Siri shortcuts as actions, I’ve created custom shortcuts that include Siri commands to start and end my workday. In the morning I say ‘Hey Siri, start workday,’ and the lights come on and my Mac wakes up. In the evening, I do the opposite, telling Siri ‘I’m finished working,’ which turns off the lights and my Mac’s display.

Remote Control for Mac is another excellent example of an iOS utility that Siri shortcuts makes more useful. Instead of grabbing my iPhone, finding the app, and hunting for the command I want, I can take care of waking my Mac and turning on the lights with one Siri command. Remote also shows the power that is possible when iOS and macOS are used together, which is something I hope is part of Apple’s plans to bring iOS apps to the Mac.

It’s a testament to the utility of Remote’s Siri shortcuts that I want more. I’d especially like Siri shortcuts for launching a series of apps and opening websites on my Mac as I start my day. Remote’s widget would also benefit from including a customizable set of Mac functions. Currently, only media playback can be controlled from the widget. That said, Remote Control for Mac is off to a fantastic start with Siri shortcuts, and it’s an app I’d suggest trying, especially if you spend your day working on a Mac and iOS devices.

Remote Control for Mac is available on the App Store.

Start Workday

Start your workday by turning on a HomeKit switch, setting Hue lights to a focus mode, and waking up your Mac using the 'Remote for Mac' app.

Get the shortcut here.

Support MacStories Directly

Club MacStories offers exclusive access to extra MacStories content, delivered every week; it's also a way to support us directly.

Club MacStories will help you discover the best apps for your devices and get the most out of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Plus, it's made in Italy.

yesterdaysprint:

New York, 1954

It’s been over a year since Amazon announced plans to build a second headquarters in a major North America city.

With the online retail giant’s selection time frame in mind, the company should be announcing the official location of its next headquarters soon. 

There have been plenty of proposals, and the company narrowed its search down to 20 cities earlier in 2018. Of those 20 cities, the only remaining Canadian option is Toronto. 

There are numerous bets placed on the Washinton, D.C. area because it’s close to the company’s CEO Jeff Bezos’ home, according to Recode.

Recode has put together a list ranking the tech talent in each city. Toronto ranks number two in the ‘Tech Talent Rank,’ and number one in terms of affordable average wages for tech sector employees. The ranking comes from data gathered by CBRE, which is a commercial real estate service and investment firm.

There are many reasons for each city to become the home of Amazon’s HQ, such as proximity to a major airport as well s the cost of rent in the location. Certain cities are also offering Amazon various incentives like tax breaks and more.

There are even a few reasons for a city to not want to be the location of Amazon’s next HQ. The metropolis will need to be able to support an influx of around 40,000 employees and their families. Further, that many people in high-paying jobs will also likely raise the cost of living in the city.

Some Canadian critics even worry that having a U.S.-based company in Toronto might result in a brain drain of skilled workers away from growing Canadian tech companies. 

Source: Recode

The post Amazon to announce location of its second headquarters soon appeared first on MobileSyrup.

To say that an ocean of digital ink was spilled analyzing the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL long before Google shared any official information is an understatement. Certainly, I was among the many that made the mistake of judging the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL before I understood the vision behind them, and, worse yet, before I had the chance to spend time with them.

The funny thing is, after using both phones for several days, I feel the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL are a major achievement in smartphone user experience and interface design.

What they lack in bleeding edge hardware, they more than make up with thoughtful and considered features and software. Rather than packing its new smartphones with unnecessary additions, Google has honed them to a fine edge, prioritizing meaningful enhancements that make the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL easy, powerful and enjoyable to use. The result is two of the best smartphones of 2018.

Some preamble before we get into the heart of this review: to make this piece more concise and easier to read, moving forward I often refer to the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL using the singular ‘Pixel 3’. Where applicable, I note any differences between the two phones. Minor physical and internal differences asides, the two devices are nearly identical, and, as such, the experience of using them is, for the most part, the same.

The Pixel twins grow up

At first glance, the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL look nearly identical to their immediate predecessors; in fact, viewing them from behind, it’s easy to mistake the two pairs of smartphones for one another. Upon closer inspection though, subtle improvements abound.

The most notable difference between the Pixel 3 and the Pixel 2 is the former phone’s new finish. To facilitate wireless charging, Google has added what it describes as a “soft touch” back made of Corning Gorilla Glass 5. The new back gives the Pixel 3 an entirely different feel when compared to the original Pixel and the Pixel 2. The new device feels secure to hold without having that too sticky feel that’s common with glass smartphones.

Google has also updated the Pixel’s signature two-tone design by rounding the corners where different elements of the design meet. It’s a small change, to be sure, but for the first time, the Pixel lineup looks like a mature consumer electronic rather than a nerdy gadget.

Additionally, Google has moved the SIM tray — previously located on the right side of the device — to the bottom of the phone, next to the USB-C port. The result is that the right side of Pixel 3 is now completely seamless.

Together, these small changes lead to a device that’s more refined than Google’s past efforts. Not only does the Pixel 3 feel better to hold and use than past Pixel smartphones, it feels premium in a way that even some other high-end smartphones do not.

That said, despite its new, more mature design language, the Pixel 3 retains the same sense of playfulness that has defined the lineup since its inception. That’s thanks to the phone’s new colour lineup.

Both phones are available in three colours: ‘Just Black,’ ‘Clearly White’ and ‘Not Pink’. Just Black aside, which looks a bit too prosaic without the splash of colour offered by the accented power button on the other models, Clearly White and Not Pink look equal parts fun and sophisticated.

The Pixel 3’s new and improved haptics are another major positive change that influence the feel of Google’s latest smartphone.

Except for the iPhone, there’s likely no smartphone currently on the market that has better haptics than the Pixel 3.

Everything on the Pixel 3 — from typing, to unlocking the phone, to using Android 9 Pie’s gesture-based navigation — feels incredibly satisfying.

If there’s only one area other Android manufacturers draw inspiration from the Pixel 3 lineup, I hope they copy the smartphone’s haptics. This is one category where Android phones continue to lag in comparison to the iPhone.

All told, in terms of fit, finish and aesthetics, the new Pixel is a significant improvement over Google’s previous efforts, and in combination with the phone’s software, which we’ll get to in a moment, it’s an absolute joy to use.

Hardware that works

By the standards of 2018’s other high-end smartphones, the Pixel 3’s internals are a no-frills affair. Like every other Android flagship released this year, the Pixel 3 comes with a Snapdragon 845 processor. Beyond that, there aren’t many features that jump out.

That’s not to say, however, that the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL don’t have new hardware features.

The phone’s marquee hardware addition is its new Titan M security module. The new chip helps further secure the Pixel 3 against malicious hackers by storing passwords and other sensitive material away from the phone’s more easily accessible RAM.

Moreover, like with the Pixel Visual Core before it, Google plans to enhance the functionality of the Titan M security module. For example, one feature the company plans to add will allow Pixel 3 owners to use their smartphone in place of a hardware security key to authenticate their identity on websites and apps.

Between the new Titan M security module and the Pixel Visual Core, which makes a return with the Pixel 3, Google believes the two phones have more than enough computing power to keep them running smoothly for years to come.

Even after opening almost every app I’ve ever owned on the Pixel 3, I wasn’t able to get the phone to slow down. I do wonder how well the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL will age with only 4GB of RAM. For the moment, however, both devices offer a smooth and snappy experience.

The Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL are available in 64GB and 128GB storage variants. As with the Pixel 2, Google is offering free unlimited Google Photos storage at full size. For Pixel 3 owners, this promotion is available until January 31st, 2022.

Other enhancements include IP68-certified water and dust resistance, instead of IP67 like with the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL, front-facing stereo speakers that are 40 percent louder and support for Qi wireless charging.

On the subject of wireless charging, if you don’t already own an inductive charging mat, Google’s new Pixel Stand, which the company announced alongside the Pixel 3, is excellent.

Priced at $109 CAD (it’s also available for free if you pre-order the Pixel 3 or Pixel 3 XL through Google’s online store or any of Canada’s major carriers), the best part of Pixel Stand is that it’s more than a simple charging mat. Placing the Pixel 3 upon it unlocks several nifty features. For instance, should you own a Nest Hello smart doorbell, anytime someone is at the door, the Pixel Stand will route the doorbell’s footage through to the Pixel 3’s screen.

However, one of the Pixel Stand’s best features is the ability to act as a digital picture frame. Pulling images from Google Photos, the Pixel 3 will display photos of your friends, family, pets and recent trips. The software that powers this functionality is smart enough to display only the best images from each category. So you won’t, for example, see a picture of a receipt or photos that are blurry.

The Pixel Stand helped make wireless charging click for me. When I wasn’t endurance testing the phone’s battery, I almost always had the Pixel 3 on the Pixel Stand. That way, I didn’t have to worry about the phone’s battery if I went out for a night out with friends. I also enjoyed that the Pixel Stand opened up new functionality, which isn’t something we’ve seen with other first-party charging mats.

On the battery front, the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL feature 2,915 mAh and 3,430 mAh capacity batteries, respectively. In my experience, battery life on the Pixel 3 was excellent. With both phones, I’ve been able to get all-day battery life with six to seven hours of on-screen time.

Improved displays

Between the Pixel 2’s ample bezels and the well-documented issues with the Pixel 2 XL’s POLED screen, if there was one area where the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL were a disappointment, it was with their displays.

Like with their other hardware components, the displays on the Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 won’t win a spec sheet battle. That said, what’s here is a major improvement over what Google shipped last year.

The Pixel 3 features a 5.5-inch display with 2160 x 1080 pixel resolution and 18:9 aspect ratio, while the Pixel 3 XL is equipped with a 6.3-inch display with 2960 x 1440 pixel resolution and 18.5:9 aspect ratio.

This time around, Google’s smartphones feature flexible plastic organic light emitting diode displays (POLED). Moreover, both displays support HDR — though not HDR10 and Dolby Vision — and colour gamut support is limited to sRGB, which means they’re capable of displaying fewer colours than DCI-P3 capable smartphones like the iPhone XS and Samsung Galaxy S9.

As I mentioned, from a technical perspective, neither phone features the most capable display.

That said, they’re still excellent screens. Text and icons are sharp on the screens of both phones, and colour reproduction is accurate. Additionally, MobileSyrup‘s two review units haven’t exhibited any of the issues that were a hallmark of the Pixel 2 XL’s OLED display.

However, I can’t talk about the Pixel 3’s screen without also addressing the XL’s display cutout.

Typically, I don’t mind notches, but the Pixel 3 XL’s notch feels especially intrusive and inelegant.

It’s particularly noticeable when watching videos on YouTube or Netflix. Using YouTube’s zoom-to-fill functionality to make a video fill the entirety of the Pixel 3 XL’s screen, the phone’s notch cuts so deeply into the side of the frame it’s impossible not to notice.

The notch would be fine if Google included a sensible way to hide it. Instead, with the Pixel 3 XL’s current software, hiding the display cut out involves enabling Android Pie’s developer settings — which is not a simple toggle — and then finding the relevant toggle — which is buried among a variety of other options.

If you choose to hide the Pixel 3 XL’s notch, be prepared then to lose a not insignificant amount of usable screen real-estate. The developer option that hides the display cutout pushes Android’s status bar below the notch.

Big picture, the Pixel 3 XL’s notch is a relatively minor issue. The fact the Pixel 3 XL has both front-facing speakers and two selfie cameras is well worth the unsightly notch. Google is also likely to address the issues I mention above in short order, but it does feel like a blemish on an otherwise great phone.

2018’s best small phone

As a quick aside, the Pixel 3 deserves special praise. For those who love smaller phones, the Pixel 3, with its 5.5-inch screen and 68.2mm x 145.6mm x 7.9mm body, feels perfect.

If you prefer the look and feel of the Pixel 3, don’t feel like you’re missing out going for the XL’s smaller sibling. A smaller screen and battery notwithstanding, the Pixel 3 is every bit as capable as the Pixel 3 XL.

This is a departure from the Pixel 2, which, between its inferior haptics and older display technology, was the lesser of the two Pixel 2s.

The camera king returns

Like the Pixel 2, the Pixel 3 features a single rear-facing camera with a 12.2-megapixel sensor and f/1.8 aperture lens. What’s new here is an additional front-facing camera with an 8-megapixel sensor and f/2.2 aperture and wide-angle lens, as well as a variety of new software tricks.

There are almost too many new camera-related software enhancements to count, so instead I’ll mention the ones that have been personal highlights.

From a photography perspective, what Google has been able to do with the Pixel 3’s wide-angle lens is an impressive technical achievement. Typically with lenses as wide as the one on the Pixel 3’s secondary camera, image distortion is a foregone conclusion. It’s this distortion that makes wide-angle less than ideal for portraiture since it exaggerates human features like ears, eyes and noses, making them look unattractive.

That’s not an issue with the Pixel 3’s wide-angle selfie camera. It’s almost magical to watch as the Pixel 3 eliminates that distortion in real-time when you go to preview an image shot with the wide-angle camera. The result is that not only is the wide-angle lens on the Pixel 3 useable for selfies, it actually takes pretty great shots.

Another highlight is Google’s new ‘Super Res Zoom’ functionality. Neither the Pixel 3 nor the Pixel 3 XL feature a telephoto lens like the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max, and yet you almost wouldn’t know that with Super Res Zoom.

The sharpness of shots I’ve been able to achieve with Super Res Zoom is something I haven’t seen with other digital zoom solutions. Blown up, the results aren’t as great as what you would be able to achieve with a telephoto lens, but when viewing shots on the Pixel 3’s screen, as well as social media, it’s difficult to notice any notable differences.

Yet another great addition is ‘Motion Auto Focus.’ This feature allows you to tell the camera to track a moving subject. It’s especially great when shooting animals and other skittish subjects such as small children, as it will ensure that the Pixel 3’s camera keeps autofocus locked.

The one camera feature I wasn’t able to test, because it’s coming in an over-the-air update post-launch, is called ‘Night Sight.’ When speaking to the capabilities of the feature, Google said Pixel 3 owners won’t ever again need to use their phone’s LED flash to take night time photos. It’s a bold claim, but if Night Sight lives up to its promise, it has the potential to make an already great camera even better.

As with last year’s Pixel 2, image quality on the Pixel 3’s camera is fantastic. Thanks to Google’s HDR+ software, dynamic range — the camera’s ability to record both the darkest shadows and brightest highlights in a single image — is among the best I’ve seen on a smartphone. Backlighting situations, in which the source of light is behind the subject, are a non-issue with the Pixel 3, as the camera will always manage to pull detail out of a shot.

The Pixel 3’s ability to accurately reproduce colours, particularly skin tones, is similarly excellent. At the camera’s native ISO sensitivity, there’s a very life-like and pleasing quality to colours.

All in all, the Pixel 3 captures beautiful photos. Moreover, with the software features Google has built into the camera, some of which I haven’t mentioned in this review, it’s easier than ever to ensure you capture the shots you want.

Android at its best

By my estimation, Android 9 Pie is the most polished version of Android Google has shipped in recent memory. New features like Digital Wellbeing help round out an already mature mobile operating system and make it better. As I mentioned earlier, Android on the Pixel 3 is smooth and snappy, and the addition of improved haptics help make Google’s new gesture-based navigation click for me in a way that it hadn’t before.

Post-launch, the Pixel 3 is set to get two features that, at least in the immediate future, will be exclusive to the Pixel lineup.

The first of these is Duplex. Google showcased Duplex to a lot of fanfare and criticism at I/O 2018. The feature is an extension of Assistant. It allows Google’s voice-activated digital assistant to place calls on behalf of the user in order to make restaurant reservations and the like. At launch, Duplex will only be available in select U.S. cities.

The Pixel 3’s other exclusive feature is called ‘Call Screen.’ This feature allows Assistant to answer incoming phone calls to help screen for spam. When activated, Call Screen will transcribe conversations in real-time, allowing Pixel 3 owners to jump in at any time in case it turns out they want to talk to the person on the other side of the line. Call Screen is launching first in the U.S. as well.

Neither of these features were available for me to test, so I can’t comment on how well they work.

With the Pixel 3, Google is once again promising two years of software updates and three years of security updates. Despite the company’s best efforts, different Android OEMs have widely disparate policies related to software support.

As with the Pixel and Pixel 2, one of the most compelling reasons to get the Pixel 3 is the fact that it will be among the first Android smartphones to get all the company’s latest and greatest software.

The post Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL Review: All the small things appeared first on MobileSyrup.

That nifty translation feature on the Google Pixel Buds is now available on all Assistant-enabled headphones.

The news comes via the Pixel Buds support page, which now states any Assistant-enabled headphones can use the real-time Google Translate feature.

Furthermore, the feature works with any Android device running 6.0 Marshmallow or newer.

To use the feature, just hold down the Assistant button on your headphones and say “Help me interpret” followed by any of the 40 supported languages.

That command will launch the Google Translate conversation pairing on your phone. You can communicate with the headphones while holding out your device for the other person to listen and speak to.

Overall, it’s great to see this feature coming to other headphones. With something like translation, it works better the more compatible devices there are. There are plenty of Assistant-enabled headphones and Android devices that now support real-time Google Translate, making it even more helpful than before.

Source: Pixel Buds support page Via: DroidLife, 9to5 Google

The post All Assistant-enabled headphones now support real-time Google Translate appeared first on MobileSyrup.

Apple’s vision over the past decade has been to make their products more powerful while making them smaller. This is great for portability and aesthetics, but it comes at the cost of nifty features you would normally expect from a laptop, such as USB ports.

Apple customers are forced to buy adapters to connect their USB devices, which Apple charges a hefty premium for. If you’re in need of a sleek, affordable USB adapter that will compliment your power adapter, look no further than the $42.91 CAD M2 Cube.

Whereas most USB expansion solutions take up space on the side of your MacBook, the M2 Cube attaches directly to the USB-C port on your Mac’s charger. The M2’s dimensions fit the USB-C end of the power adapter, so it won’t stick out like a sore thumb either. With the M2 Cube, you can charge up to 4 devices via USB-C, QC3.0, and USB 3.0 ports.

You can buy the M2 Cube from MobileSyrup Deals for $42.91 CAD [$32.99 USD], or 25% off.

 

M2 Cube USB-C Expansion for Apple USB-C Power Adapter – $32.99

See Deal

The post This Adapter Brings More Ports to Your MacBook Pro’s Charger appeared first on MobileSyrup.

Google’s senior vice president of hardware Rick Osterloh shared on Twitter that over 75 percent of Pixel users are using Android 9 Pie.

This is pretty good considering that Android Pie usage isn’t as high outside of the Pixel line of devices. Google hasn’t shared a full set of Android 9 statistics, but it did share the numbers for Android 8 Oreo.

Pixel users upgrade to new Android releases very quickly; >75% of Pixel users are on the terrific Android Pie release, and more are updating every day. #madebygoogle https://t.co/LPej2BUtHX

— Rick Osterloh (@rosterloh) October 12, 2018

On September 28th, 19.2 percent of Android phones were running Android Oreo, which was the latest update at the time and it had been available for 403 days, according to The Verge. 

The Verge also mentions that Google only shares full statistics on a version of Android once it reaches over 0.01 percent market share. So far, Android Pie hasn’t made it to the chart, so we can infer that it’s still running on less than 0.01 of devices.

It took Android Oreo a little over two months to reach 0.02 percent market influence.

Source: The Verge

The post Over 75 percent of Pixel users are running Android Pie appeared first on MobileSyrup.

While Apple’s iPad, particularly the iPad Pro, are impressively capable tablets, one issue has plagued the device line for years — the lack of full Photoshop Creative Cloud (Photoshop CC) support.

During the software company’s Adobe Max keynote presentation, Adobe previewed Photoshop CC on iPad, as well as Project Aero, a new tool that aims to help creators make augmented reality experiences. Adobe also showed off Project Gemini, a drawing app designed for the iPad Pro, and Premiere Rush, a simplified version of the company’s video editing software.

Adobe says Photoshop CC for the iPad has been redesigned with a modern touch experience in mind. Further, the app will allow users to edit native PSD files using the full version of Photoshop CC, which, of course, includes the platform’s familiar layer panel.

Edits will also seamlessly transfer between desktop and the iPad via Adobe’s Creative Cloud. Adobe says that this new app version of Photoshop CC will release in 2019 and then eventually hit iOS and Android at a later date.

Project Aero, on the other hand, is described by Adobe as a cross-device augmented reality creation tool aimed at designers and artists. Adobe also showed off Project Gemini, a new iPad Pro app that aims to accelerate and improve drawing and painting workflows across various devices. Project Gemini is launching on iPad in 2019, according to Adobe.

Finally, Adobe showed off an app called Premiere Rush CC, a simplified version of Premiere Pro CC aimed at YouTube creators. Premiere Rush allows users to edit, colour correct and add motion graphics more quickly and easily when compared to the standard version of Premiere, according to Adobe.

Premiere Rush is available now on Mac, Windows and iOS, with an Android launch date coming soon.

Source: Apple

The post Adobe plans to launch full Photoshop CC for iPad in 2019 appeared first on MobileSyrup.

Chrome has delayed its autoplay-blocking feature again before the release of version 70 of the browser.

The feature, which Google added in Chrome 66, was temporarily removed to give developers more time to update their websites. The feature was supposed to return in Chrome 70. Instead, it’ll return in Chrome 71.

Google’s communications manager Ivy Choi told The Verge that the browser will start learning which sites users typically play audio on so it can tailor its settings to their preferences. Furthermore, Choi says the blocking will begin in version 71.

Despite the intention of the autoplay-blocking feature — which is to save users from annoying ads that autoplay with sound — plenty of users are against the change. However, most have given up the fight.

Specifically, web developers and game makers who tried to work with Google regarding the policy change are now resigned to losing their work.

The problem is Google’s change to Chrome messes with the long-standing Web Audio API. Online games and interactive web art and all kinds of other experiments relied on the API to play audio. Under the new Chrome changes, those web pages won’t play sound anymore. Worse, there’s no way for users to disable or block the feature.

Other developers feel Google hasn’t documented the new policy well enough for them to do anything about it. Even if they had the time to update their old work, they don’t know how to conform to the new policies.

Ultimately, most users won’t notice the change. Some will love it — autoplaying media can be annoying, afterall.

But for many others, Chrome 71 will mark the end of a frustrating battle with Google. The company used to listen to developers when making changes to the web — it didn’t this time.

Source: The Verge

The post Chrome delays autoplay-blocking feature until version 71 appeared first on MobileSyrup.

The Montblanc Summit 2, the first smartwatch to be powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Wear 3100 processor, is now available.

The Summit 2 features a 1.2-inch circular AMOLED display with a 390 x 390 pixel resolution and a 42mm casing. The wearable also includes a heart rate sensor and GPS functionality that works even when the device isn’t connected to a smartphone.

Additionally, the watch includes an NFC chip that is compatible with Google Pay, along with 5 ATM water resistance.

Regarding other technical specs, the Montblanc Summit 2 also features 1GB of RAM, 8GB of storage and runs Wear OS 2.1. Montblanc says the device’s battery life is improved over the previous version of the smartwatch thanks to a 340mAh power source.

The Summit 2 starts at $1,290 CAD and is priced up to $1,425 for the titanium sports version. Montblanc is also selling 11 other watch bands for the Summit 2.

The post Montblanc Summit 2 is the first Snapdragon Wear 3100 device appeared first on MobileSyrup.