daring-rss

Jason Snell, “Apple’s Permissions Features Are Out of Balance”:

Some users will make bad decisions. That’s just reality. The wrong
reaction is to take the decision out of every user’s hands to
protect the ones who might do something stupid. Apple needs to
find that balance, that protects people but gives users freedom to
do what they want, however dangerous it might be.

Apple’s recent feature changes suggest a value system that’s
wildly out of balance, preferring to warn (and control) users no
matter how damaging it is to the overall user experience. Maybe
the people in charge should be forced to sit down and watch that
Apple ad that mocks Windows Vista. Vista’s security prompts
existed for good reasons — but they were a user disaster. The
Apple of that era knew it. I’d guess a lot of people inside
today’s Apple know it, too — but they clearly are unable to win
the arguments when it matters.

Never would have guessed I’d still find use for the “Windows Vista” tag in my CMS in 2024, but here we are.

 ★ 

Jason Snell, “Apple’s Permissions Features Are Out of Balance”:

Some users will make bad decisions. That’s just reality. The wrong
reaction is to take the decision out of every user’s hands to
protect the ones who might do something stupid. Apple needs to
find that balance, that protects people but gives users freedom to
do what they want, however dangerous it might be.

Apple’s recent feature changes suggest a value system that’s
wildly out of balance, preferring to warn (and control) users no
matter how damaging it is to the overall user experience. Maybe
the people in charge should be forced to sit down and watch that
Apple ad that mocks Windows Vista. Vista’s security prompts
existed for good reasons — but they were a user disaster. The
Apple of that era knew it. I’d guess a lot of people inside
today’s Apple know it, too — but they clearly are unable to win
the arguments when it matters.

Never would have guessed I’d still find use for the “Windows Vista” tag in my CMS in 2024, but here we are.

Read More 

Developer Thomas Tempelmann just released version 2.5 of Find Any File, his file search utility for the Mac. Find Any File (FAF) has long been my go-to tool for file search. Why use FAF instead of Spotlight? Some feature highlights:

FAF can find files that Spotlight doesn’t , e.g. on network
(NAS) and other external volumes, hidden ones inside bundles and
packages, and those in folders that are usually excluded from
Spotlight search, such as the System and Library folders. It can
even search in other user’s folders if you use FAF’s unique
root search mode.
FAF lets you search precisely for many file properties such
as name, extension, date range, size, kind etc. […]
FAF can also find textual content in plain text, in zip
(including Word and Excel files) and even in most binary files.
And with the option to include Spotlight results, it can also
find text in PDF documents as long as they were indexed by
Spotlight.

Amongst other features, FAF supports regular expressions, and you can save frequently-used searches to easily re-run them. There are several other good file search utilities for MacOS — and Tempelmann himself kindly offers a list of them — but FAF is my favorite. Free to download and try, and $6 shareware if you keep it. (Or buy it for $8 from the Mac App Store.)

 ★ 

Developer Thomas Tempelmann just released version 2.5 of Find Any File, his file search utility for the Mac. Find Any File (FAF) has long been my go-to tool for file search. Why use FAF instead of Spotlight? Some feature highlights:

FAF can find files that Spotlight doesn’t , e.g. on network
(NAS) and other external volumes, hidden ones inside bundles and
packages, and those in folders that are usually excluded from
Spotlight search, such as the System and Library folders. It can
even search in other user’s folders if you use FAF’s unique
root search mode.
FAF lets you search precisely for many file properties such
as name, extension, date range, size, kind etc. […]
FAF can also find textual content in plain text, in zip
(including Word and Excel files) and even in most binary files.
And with the option to include Spotlight results, it can also
find text in PDF documents as long as they were indexed by
Spotlight.

Amongst other features, FAF supports regular expressions, and you can save frequently-used searches to easily re-run them. There are several other good file search utilities for MacOS — and Tempelmann himself kindly offers a list of them — but FAF is my favorite. Free to download and try, and $6 shareware if you keep it. (Or buy it for $8 from the Mac App Store.)

Read More 

Here’s a developer note from Apple confirming another change in MacOS 15 that many of us were hoping was a bug or glitch in the developer betas:

In macOS Sequoia, users will no longer be able to Control-click to
override Gatekeeper when opening software that isn’t signed
correctly or notarized. They’ll need to visit System Settings >
Privacy & Security to review security information for software
before allowing it to run.

Why? Is there any evidence that the Control-clicking shortcut was insufficient? If so, what is that evidence? It seems to me that the sort of technically unsophisticated non-expert users whom these features are meant to protect are the same users who have no idea the Control-click shortcut to launch non-notarized apps even exists.

I mean, if there are exploits running wild because unsophisticated Mac users are Control-clicking malware apps they’ve somehow downloaded, where are they?

 ★ 

Here’s a developer note from Apple confirming another change in MacOS 15 that many of us were hoping was a bug or glitch in the developer betas:

In macOS Sequoia, users will no longer be able to Control-click to
override Gatekeeper when opening software that isn’t signed
correctly or notarized. They’ll need to visit System Settings >
Privacy & Security to review security information for software
before allowing it to run.

Why? Is there any evidence that the Control-clicking shortcut was insufficient? If so, what is that evidence? It seems to me that the sort of technically unsophisticated non-expert users whom these features are meant to protect are the same users who have no idea the Control-click shortcut to launch non-notarized apps even exists.

I mean, if there are exploits running wild because unsophisticated Mac users are Control-clicking malware apps they’ve somehow downloaded, where are they?

Read More 

Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac:

With macOS Sequoia this fall, using apps that need access to
screen recording permissions will become a little bit more
tedious. Apple is rolling out a change that will require you to
give explicit permission on a weekly basis to these types of apps,
and every time you reboot your Mac. […] In the current macOS
Sequoia beta, this prompt says:

“[App name] can access this computer’s screen and audio. Do you
want to continue to allow access? This application may be able to
collect information from any open applications on your desktop
while the app is running.”

Users can then choose to “Continue To Allow” that app to have
screen recording access, or they can click “Open System Settings”
and immediately be taken to the preferences pane for screen
recording permissions.

This prompt is designed to appear on a weekly basis. The first
time you attempt to use the app each week, you’ll see this prompt
and have to decide whether to “Continue To Allow” or change the
permission settings. The prompt will also appear each time (for
each app) when you use that app for the first time after rebooting
your Mac.

I think it shows just how much care and thoughtfulness went into turning up the dial on these nags that the button label incorrectly capitalizes the “to” in “Continue To Allow”. You can say, well, that’s a little thing. But that’s exactly the sort of little thing that almost never shipped from Apple, even in beta, until the last few years.

Having to click through these confirmation nags every week, for every such utility you use, is not a little thing at all. It’s the sort of thing companies do when decisions like this are made by people looking to cover their asses, not make insanely great products.

 ★ 

Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac:

With macOS Sequoia this fall, using apps that need access to
screen recording permissions will become a little bit more
tedious. Apple is rolling out a change that will require you to
give explicit permission on a weekly basis to these types of apps,
and every time you reboot your Mac. […] In the current macOS
Sequoia beta, this prompt says:

“[App name] can access this computer’s screen and audio. Do you
want to continue to allow access? This application may be able to
collect information from any open applications on your desktop
while the app is running.”

Users can then choose to “Continue To Allow” that app to have
screen recording access, or they can click “Open System Settings”
and immediately be taken to the preferences pane for screen
recording permissions.

This prompt is designed to appear on a weekly basis. The first
time you attempt to use the app each week, you’ll see this prompt
and have to decide whether to “Continue To Allow” or change the
permission settings. The prompt will also appear each time (for
each app) when you use that app for the first time after rebooting
your Mac.

I think it shows just how much care and thoughtfulness went into turning up the dial on these nags that the button label incorrectly capitalizes the “to” in “Continue To Allow”. You can say, well, that’s a little thing. But that’s exactly the sort of little thing that almost never shipped from Apple, even in beta, until the last few years.

Having to click through these confirmation nags every week, for every such utility you use, is not a little thing at all. It’s the sort of thing companies do when decisions like this are made by people looking to cover their asses, not make insanely great products.

Read More 

Kylie Robison, reporting for The Verge:

Between May and August, more AI Pins were returned than purchased,
according to internal sales data obtained by The Verge. By June,
only around 8,000 units hadn’t been returned, a source with
direct knowledge of sales and return data told me. As of today,
the number of units still in customer hands had fallen closer to
7,000, a source with direct knowledge said. […]

Once a Humane Pin is returned, the company has no way to refurbish
it, sources with knowledge of the return process confirmed. The
Pin becomes e-waste, and Humane doesn’t have the opportunity to
reclaim the revenue by selling it again. The core issue is that
there is a T-Mobile limitation that makes it impossible (for now)
for Humane to reassign a Pin to a new user once it’s been assigned
to someone. One source said they don’t believe Humane has disposed
of the old Pins because “they’re still hopeful they can solve this
problem eventually.”

Starting to think maybe Humane is in trouble.

 ★ 

Kylie Robison, reporting for The Verge:

Between May and August, more AI Pins were returned than purchased,
according to internal sales data obtained by The Verge. By June,
only around 8,000 units hadn’t been returned, a source with
direct knowledge of sales and return data told me. As of today,
the number of units still in customer hands had fallen closer to
7,000, a source with direct knowledge said. […]

Once a Humane Pin is returned, the company has no way to refurbish
it, sources with knowledge of the return process confirmed. The
Pin becomes e-waste, and Humane doesn’t have the opportunity to
reclaim the revenue by selling it again. The core issue is that
there is a T-Mobile limitation that makes it impossible (for now)
for Humane to reassign a Pin to a new user once it’s been assigned
to someone. One source said they don’t believe Humane has disposed
of the old Pins because “they’re still hopeful they can solve this
problem eventually.”

Starting to think maybe Humane is in trouble.

Read More 

Big new update to the amazing flight-tracking app, with a particular focus on flight delays — both predicting them, and explaining them. I’ve was using Flighty 4 in beta over the weekend, when my wife and I were in Montreal for a wedding. Our flight home Sunday was delayed by thunderstorms — both in Montreal and Philadelphia — and the information from American Airlines at the airport was all over the place. The information from Flighty was consistent, and spot-on. Wound up being about a 40-minute delay, no big deal — exactly as Flighty presented.

Flighty costs $48/year for an annual subscription, but has a super clever $4/week option for infrequent travellers. And if you don’t like subscriptions, Flighty offers fairly-priced lifetime purchases.

 ★ 

Big new update to the amazing flight-tracking app, with a particular focus on flight delays — both predicting them, and explaining them. I’ve was using Flighty 4 in beta over the weekend, when my wife and I were in Montreal for a wedding. Our flight home Sunday was delayed by thunderstorms — both in Montreal and Philadelphia — and the information from American Airlines at the airport was all over the place. The information from Flighty was consistent, and spot-on. Wound up being about a 40-minute delay, no big deal — exactly as Flighty presented.

Flighty costs $48/year for an annual subscription, but has a super clever $4/week option for infrequent travellers. And if you don’t like subscriptions, Flighty offers fairly-priced lifetime purchases.

Read More 

On the whole I continue to think it’s a tremendous advantage for Kamala Harris to drop into the race as a fresh candidate just three months ahead of the election, but I think this branding effort is one area that shows signs of being rushed. It’s not horrible but it’s not good. It’s just meh, and in no way memorable or distinctive. I don’t see how the two typefaces pair together at all. It’s has nothing like the cohesiveness of the Biden-Harris brand from 2020 (and the first half of 2024).

 ★ 

On the whole I continue to think it’s a tremendous advantage for Kamala Harris to drop into the race as a fresh candidate just three months ahead of the election, but I think this branding effort is one area that shows signs of being rushed. It’s not horrible but it’s not good. It’s just meh, and in no way memorable or distinctive. I don’t see how the two typefaces pair together at all. It’s has nothing like the cohesiveness of the Biden-Harris brand from 2020 (and the first half of 2024).

Read More 

Taegan Goddard, writing at Political Wire:

In many ways, Tim Walz is the person J.D. Vance pretends to be.
He’s an authentic, decent and normal guy.

 ★ 

Taegan Goddard, writing at Political Wire:

In many ways, Tim Walz is the person J.D. Vance pretends to be.
He’s an authentic, decent and normal guy.

Read More 

Nate Silver:

This was a choice designed to maintain the social fabric of the
Democratic Party, and avoid news cycles about a disappointed left
and Democrats’ internal squabbling over the War in Gaza. Or at
least, that’s what I think it was: we’ll need to learn more about
Harris’s deliberation process. I’m not inclined to be too
deferential to any political candidate, but it’s plausible that
there were vetting issues with the runner-up, Gov. Josh Shapiro of
Pennsylvania. Harris certainly has more information about the
internal feeling within the Democratic caucus than I do, or she
may just have thought the chemistry of a Harris-Shapiro ticket
wouldn’t work.

It’s a nice pick: Walz, a two-term governor and six-term U.S.
Representative, is from the family of Tim Kaine-style VP choices:
inoffensive, unlikely to cause any harm, “safe”. Although maybe
that’s unfair: Walz is likely to be better on the stump than
Kaine. If you surveyed Democratic members of Congress, he’d
probably be who they’d choose. But I believe he’s
probably the wrong choice, a step back toward the
Democratic Party’s instincts to triangulate instead of the
boldness the Harris campaign has displayed so far. […]

On Saturday, I made the case that Harris should pick
Shapiro. And nothing has really changed since then — although
you could argue that Harris’s increasingly strong position in the
polls compels greater risk-aversion than when she’d
initially appeared to be an underdog against Donald Trump. The
basic reasons for picking Shapiro are that he increases the
likelihood you win Pennsylvania, he has a demonstrated
track record of popularity in the most important swing state, he’s
obviously an extremely talented politician and perhaps a future
standard-bearer for the party himself. And also, the reasons for
not picking Shapiro aren’t great. Democrats in the political
bubble overstate the salience of the Gaza issue and
understate the benefits of moderation, and that’s before getting
into the issue of Shapiro’s Jewishness.

My fear is that Walz is, as Silver also worries, another Tim Kaine. Tim Kaine didn’t lose the 2016 election but he didn’t help win it either. Kaine is a fine senator but a total milquetoast. Zero charisma. As soon as the 2016 election was over he completely disappeared from the national stage. It’s been 8 years and I’ve only seen Kaine in the news once in that entire stretch, and that was because he got stuck on I-95 for 27 hours because of a snowstorm. Bill Clinton picked a running mate who had the charisma and gravitas to run for and win the presidency on his own. (Gore lost by like 600 votes in Florida, of course, but clearly he could have won.) Barack Obama picked a running mate who went on to run for president and beat Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton picked a running mate with the personality of a wet towel.

I’m thinking Walz is more like Biden in 2008 though. Reassuring in-his-60s white guy with a solid career, thorough knowledge of the issues, and with good zip on his political-barbs fastball.

 ★ 

Nate Silver:

This was a choice designed to maintain the social fabric of the
Democratic Party, and avoid news cycles about a disappointed left
and Democrats’ internal squabbling over the War in Gaza. Or at
least, that’s what I think it was: we’ll need to learn more about
Harris’s deliberation process. I’m not inclined to be too
deferential to any political candidate, but it’s plausible that
there were vetting issues with the runner-up, Gov. Josh Shapiro of
Pennsylvania. Harris certainly has more information about the
internal feeling within the Democratic caucus than I do, or she
may just have thought the chemistry of a Harris-Shapiro ticket
wouldn’t work.

It’s a nice pick: Walz, a two-term governor and six-term U.S.
Representative, is from the family of Tim Kaine-style VP choices:
inoffensive, unlikely to cause any harm, “safe”. Although maybe
that’s unfair: Walz is likely to be better on the stump than
Kaine. If you surveyed Democratic members of Congress, he’d
probably be who they’d choose. But I believe he’s
probably the wrong choice, a step back toward the
Democratic Party’s instincts to triangulate instead of the
boldness the Harris campaign has displayed so far. […]

On Saturday, I made the case that Harris should pick
Shapiro. And nothing has really changed since then — although
you could argue that Harris’s increasingly strong position in the
polls compels greater risk-aversion than when she’d
initially appeared to be an underdog against Donald Trump. The
basic reasons for picking Shapiro are that he increases the
likelihood you win Pennsylvania, he has a demonstrated
track record of popularity in the most important swing state, he’s
obviously an extremely talented politician and perhaps a future
standard-bearer for the party himself. And also, the reasons for
not picking Shapiro aren’t great. Democrats in the political
bubble overstate the salience of the Gaza issue and
understate the benefits of moderation, and that’s before getting
into the issue of Shapiro’s Jewishness.

My fear is that Walz is, as Silver also worries, another Tim Kaine. Tim Kaine didn’t lose the 2016 election but he didn’t help win it either. Kaine is a fine senator but a total milquetoast. Zero charisma. As soon as the 2016 election was over he completely disappeared from the national stage. It’s been 8 years and I’ve only seen Kaine in the news once in that entire stretch, and that was because he got stuck on I-95 for 27 hours because of a snowstorm. Bill Clinton picked a running mate who had the charisma and gravitas to run for and win the presidency on his own. (Gore lost by like 600 votes in Florida, of course, but clearly he could have won.) Barack Obama picked a running mate who went on to run for president and beat Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton picked a running mate with the personality of a wet towel.

I’m thinking Walz is more like Biden in 2008 though. Reassuring in-his-60s white guy with a solid career, thorough knowledge of the issues, and with good zip on his political-barbs fastball.

Read More 

CNN:

During recent remarks at a “White Dudes for Harris” fundraiser,
Walz made a rough-and-ready case for the vice president before
would-be small-dollar donors.

“How often in 100 days do you get to change the trajectory of the
world? How often in 100 days do you get to do something that’s
going to impact generations to come?” Walz asked. “And how often
in the world do you make that bastard wake up afterwards and know
that a Black woman kicked his ass, sent him on the road?”

I was hoping for Buttigieg or Shapiro, but that quote alone makes me like the cut of Walz’s jib. Also, Walz is the guy who got the whole “they’re weird” thing going.

 ★ 

CNN:

During recent remarks at a “White Dudes for Harris” fundraiser,
Walz made a rough-and-ready case for the vice president before
would-be small-dollar donors.

“How often in 100 days do you get to change the trajectory of the
world? How often in 100 days do you get to do something that’s
going to impact generations to come?” Walz asked. “And how often
in the world do you make that bastard wake up afterwards and know
that a Black woman kicked his ass, sent him on the road?”

I was hoping for Buttigieg or Shapiro, but that quote alone makes me like the cut of Walz’s jib. Also, Walz is the guy who got the whole “they’re weird” thing going.

Read More