I've been using iOS 10 beta since Public Beta 1. Like others have said: mostly stable, with terrible battery life.
One thing particularly annoying for me is HTTP Proxy: it seems that as of Public Beta 2 setting it will cause the device flood the server with many requests. I'm using GlimmerBlocker and on the server side it'd get 1k+ threads almost instantly after I turned on the proxy setting on the iOS side.
Other annoying bug is WebKit View would lose width setting randomly in 3rd party apps (e.g., Reeder).
They will. It's not been seen to be a problem before, so they went with the simplest solution. In rockets, every ounce counts. Now they know it happens (at least sometimes) in this very novel flight regime, they'll do something about it--the linked post even says so explicitly.
Moore's law is that the density of discrete components (transistors, storage cells) increases. Cost and speed are knock-on effects. It just so happens that density does drive CPUs to be faster for the same production cost and storage to be either more capacious or physically smaller. But some aspects of computing performance don't benefit from density, like memory response time for example.
That's much less clear if someone isn't aware of how negative exponents are defined. That's why I chose this notation, and why I put into words "cut in half 12 times."
> That's much less clear if someone isn't aware of how negative exponents are defined.
Yes, I've noticed that in other contexts. It's too bad because it makes the representation less clear, more complex than necessary. I first became aware of this when I tried to say that gravitational force declines as r^-2, to numerous protests.
"A new paper published Monday by the New America Foundation... closely examines the 225 cases... the controversial bulk collection of American telephone metadata... appears to have played an identifiable role in initiating, at most, 1.8 percent of these cases."
4 cases against 4 people involved in one actual attempt by a cab driver to send $8500 home to Somalia. So allowing a figure as high as 1.8 percent is really, really generous.
I really don't appreciate the media's blood thirst - the slayer of this and the killer of that. Why can't we just have something that contributes in a non-zero-sum game?
You never had journalistic training. Journalists frame stories to satisfy criteria of "newsworthiness," a combined measure of the story's importance, urgency, and entertainment value. Just like a good novel has a dramatic conflict, journalists are taught to report on stories with conflict (which are often more interesting to read than dull, peaceful hum-drum). And if the story doesn't have conflict built-in, they make conflict by framing the story to include a conflict narrative. Journalists refer to the way they frame a story as their "angle." Anything can be news with the right angle.
Real life example: in the 90s, journalists reported on the "Great Hacker War," a "virtual gang war" between two competing hacker groups, LOD & MOD. In reality, the event was a scuffle between some hackers in a chat room, which resulted in some minor hacking, name calling, and prank phone calls. But that didn't make for a great headline.
"Specifically, mothers who used more "deflections", such as "Tell me more" and "What happened?" tended to have children who subsequently recalled more details of their earlier memories."
It's interesting it specifies mothers - this suggests that there was a difference with the effect with fathers. Or that they only looked at children who never chat with their fathers?
>Another important finding was that the style mothers used when chatting with their 3-year-olds was associated with the level of remembering by those children later on. Specifically, mothers who used more "deflections", such as "Tell me more" and "What happened?" tended to have children who subsequently recalled more details of their earlier memories. //
It only mentions mothers. Suggesting either fathers were scientifically accounted for - the only way would appear to be by using subjects without contact with their father [or similar figure]. Or, that children chatting with fathers doesn't elicit the same response in recall and this was measured as insignificant and hence discounted.
The assumption that [all] children only chat over memories with mothers would be a rather massive flaw in a scientific analysis. [Yes there are of course other influences, primarily siblings I imagine, that are also unaccounted for].
Even if we assume that father's are absent during the events that are later recalled then interactions with father's could be more important. In that assumed environment mothers [or other carers] being present don't have to have details recalled to them; but I'm heading off-piste there.
The specification of it being "mothers" not "parents" or "primary care-givers" - assuming scientific rigour - must be important.
The specification of it being "mothers" not "parents" or "primary care-givers" - assuming scientific rigour - must be important.
I am disinclined to assume such scientific rigor as the explanation for that wording. I am much more inclined to assume unquestioned bias on the part of the people who wrote and administered the study. We have peer reviewed journals et al to help account for the fact that humans are pretty darn bad about being human, no matter their job title. But, ultimately, it is essentially impossible to weed out bias entirely.
I hope you are right and I am not but I see no reason at this time to think so.
>They recorded mothers talking to their 3-year-olds about six past events, such as zoo visits or first day at pre-school. The researchers then re-established contact with the same families at different points in the future. Some of the children were quizzed again by a researcher when aged 5, others at age 6 or 7, 8 or 9. This way the researchers were able to chart differences in amounts of forgetting through childhood. //
They did, but why?
In order to isolate the mothers influence and make the study capable of providing scientific results one would need to rule out the major external factors - the primary one in my view is paternal interactions.
If they chose only mothers to assess - and the presence of only mothers in the other studies suggests they did - then this seems notable. Why? Did they already have a result showing paternal interactions had no effect? Are they trying to demonstrate a theory in which only maternal interactions are valid for stimulating recall? Or what? Just seems like a big old hole that would warrant a mention somewhere in such an article.
One thing particularly annoying for me is HTTP Proxy: it seems that as of Public Beta 2 setting it will cause the device flood the server with many requests. I'm using GlimmerBlocker and on the server side it'd get 1k+ threads almost instantly after I turned on the proxy setting on the iOS side.
Other annoying bug is WebKit View would lose width setting randomly in 3rd party apps (e.g., Reeder).