• Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_Don=e2=80=99t_Feed_The_Trolls?=

    From nospam@21:1/5 to spam@nospam.com on Wed Aug 31 14:57:03 2022
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    In article <teo6nn$529$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
    <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

    At this point, his document is about 90% correct

    no, it's about 90% *incorrect*. likely more.

    his claims are incredibly trivial to refute, *with* cites, contrary to
    his (yet another) bogus claim that others don't provide anything to
    back it up. many of them don't even pass the sniff-test, without even
    the need for cites, such as the infamous one of face id not working in
    the dark (although there are cites for that).

    there are a few things that are indeed true, but that's the rare
    exception. as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day (although with digital clocks, that's no longer true).

    he deliberately ignores *substantial* ios functionality to further his narrative, roughly 100 items by my count, many of which no other device
    can do at this time.

    some of it is stupid stuff, such as screen-body ratio. who decides
    which phone to get solely based on its screen-body ratio?

    he constantly lies about key ios functionality that android does not
    have, such as face id, falsely claiming that it doesn't work in the
    dark, when in fact, that's where face id works best. even a grade
    school child could explain why, in addition to actual documentation
    from apple and others.

    he is intentionally deceptive, such as comparing generic 2d facial
    recognition, which apple does *not* use (but android does) versus
    fingerprint sensors to 'prove' that apple's face id isn't any good. he deliberately ignores how apple's face id actually works, namely an
    infrared dot projector (which is how it can work in the dark) to
    generate a 3d map of a person's face and then use multiple machine
    learning models to analyze it.

    I wonder if you realize yourself that every time Apple is found to have a flaw, you desperately google to find that same flaw in other companies?

    that's to prove the sheer hypocrisy of the trolls.

    to a troll, if apple does something, it's automatically bad, but when
    google, microsoft, etc., do the *same* thing, it's no big deal, or even
    a feature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)