361–370 of 458 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not forgetting https://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/04/i-told-you-so-again/
wtf. Clicking your link brought me to http://i.imgur.com/rG0p0b2.gif somehow. jwz doing a referrer troll?? Anyone else see this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I use it all the time and in terms of simplicity it beats all other video calling products.
I'll take a stab at that, although I don't think it's stupid per-se. Everyone I talk to, I talk to via WhatsApp, LINE, or FB Messenger, and generally I only use that method to talk to them, whatever else they're on. All of those have easy one-press buttons to initiate video call. Using some kind of Apple-only technology? I mean I think most people I know are probably on an iPhone, but having to remember everyone's de…
It seems like if they generally are all on iPhone, FaceTime is the one thing you could reliably call them on, and it will even tell you right in the messages app if you can FaceTime them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's much more likely their code is a mess and it's not super obvious when stuff starts and ends and this is just an unintentional mistake.
You hear this excuse all the time, don't FAANG employ the world's very best developers? Maybe their code is a mess for orthogonal reasons - management, profit-motive? Aside: I thought I'd heard devs have automated analysers that step through and find all possible code paths, allowing complex code to be audited for security issues and such? Presumably that's how these sorts of bugs should be found in testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly a product owner trying out the latest build, receiving a call, accepting it, and then waiting for the call initiator to receive the message that the call has been accepted, and then start sending data and asking: "Why doesn't it take X seconds before I can start talking". To which the engineers possibly explained the reasons and the product owner saying: "But I want it instant, let's bypass all this extra st…
Ah yes, it’s always the product owners fault and engineering is always fault-less. A HN classic.
https://www.apple.com/business/resources/docs/iOS_Security_O...
This phrase is used several times on their current website:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22secure+by+design%22+site%...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's much more likely their code is a mess and it's not super obvious when stuff starts and ends and this is just an unintentional mistake.
You hear this excuse all the time, don't FAANG employ the world's very best developers? Maybe their code is a mess for orthogonal reasons - management, profit-motive? Aside: I thought I'd heard devs have automated analysers that step through and find all possible code paths, allowing complex code to be audited for security issues and such? Presumably that's how these sorts of bugs should be found in testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know. I didnt want to post his supposedly actual public email for fear of being accused of doxxing him.
I doubt he has his public email hooked up to his iPhone's iMessage/FaceTime, anyways.
This means even if you have his internal FaceTime/iMessage ID, you wouldn't be able to contact him because his account and yours exist in 2 realms.
Then again I guess he'd need an external-facing one for public VVIP to FaceTime him. Maybe he just carries 2 phones?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not forgetting https://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/04/i-told-you-so-again/
!WARNING! - This now redirects to an image of a hairy testicle. I think the site owner noticed the traffic and put in a redirect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
doesn’t help that their bug bounty program is invite-only ( at least the last time I checked )
Their bug bounty program seems to mostly be aimed at jailbreakers, rather than bugs like these.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's much more likely their code is a mess and it's not super obvious when stuff starts and ends and this is just an unintentional mistake.
You hear this excuse all the time, don't FAANG employ the world's very best developers? Maybe their code is a mess for orthogonal reasons - management, profit-motive? Aside: I thought I'd heard devs have automated analysers that step through and find all possible code paths, allowing complex code to be audited for security issues and such? Presumably that's how these sorts of bugs should be found in testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You hear this excuse all the time, don't FAANG employ the world's very best developers? Maybe their code is a mess for orthogonal reasons - management, profit-motive? Aside: I thought I'd heard devs have automated analysers that step through and find all possible code paths, allowing complex code to be audited for security issues and such? Presumably that's how these sorts of bugs should be found in testing.
Judging from their quality issues, I'm not so sure they're attracting the "world's very best developers" any more.