An elaboration on how complicated call handling can be with hearing aids (and how I wanted AirPods-like behavior): I assisted someone with purchasing hearing aids a year ago, and we first had a pair of Philips and returned them within a few months because they only worked with iPhone for supporting phone calls with the microphone on the hearing aids themselves, for Android it didnt work. Even the next generation Philips 9050 that supported Auracast didnt support this.
We ended up with Phonaks rebranded as Sennheisers. The audio quality during calls may not be as clear as a separate mic (what i believe you refer to as oticon), but from a user experience its nice to not have to fish out your phone to answer a call or wonder why you can hear the other person but they cant hear you.
Note that my complaint here is specific to Android support.
Seems a bit sad/ironic that it sounds like the solution in OP's case would be to switch to Android for that exact behavior that your side didn't want. (And that switching to iPhone would bring that "feature" in)
I personally use iPhone and I do prefer to leave phone in pocket for my phone call. But it does seems like a massive oversight to not make this configurable.
In addition to the other comments, its worth noting macOS started adding developer documentation around energy efficiency, quality of service prioritization, etc. (along with support within its OS) around 2015-2016 when the first fanless usb-c macbook came out: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Pe...
Think I'm arguing its both things where the OS itself can optimize things for battery life along with instilling awareness and API support for it so developers can consider it too.
On top of this, they started encouraging adoption of multithreading and polished up the APIs to make doing so easier even in the early days of OS X, since they were selling PPC G4/G5 towers with dual and eventually quad CPUs.
This meant that by the time they started pushing devs to pay attention to QoS and such, good Mac apps had already been thoroughly multithreaded for years, making it relatively easy to toss things onto lower priority queues.
"On Thursday, a Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled that pictures taken by Flock cameras in the cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood qualify as public records, and therefore must be released as required by the state’s Public Records Act, court records show."
This video by Tom Lehto talks more about that court case that illustrates citizens can legally do FOIA requests for traffic cameras (e.g. Flock): https://youtu.be/1vQn4MWBln0
The example of Seattle Police dashcam and body camera footage may be interesting. When those things were relatively new, ten years ago or so, someone started filing daily public records requests for footage from all 911 dispatches (among other things). They wanted to build their own database of the theoretically public footage. The SPD complained that the overhead of redacting all that footage would be impossible. Eventually the legislature clarified the status and tightened the request rules, so now you have to request footage for a specific incident, and you may have to pay a redaction fee. [0]
ten years ago or so, someone started filing daily public records requests for footage from all 911 dispatches (among other things).
I know someone who until very recently worked for a major city's police department. He said there were people who would request every video they could think of, and it was his team's job to scrub through the video and blur/block out faces of children and things like that.
He said his team was absolutely overwhelmed with requests from randos all over the country requesting things in bulk. Even if his team (~10 people, full-time) didn't take the extra step to redact some images, they simply couldn't keep up with it. Essentially, a FOIA DDOS.
The stress was too much, and he left for a different career.
(Before anyone asks if the PD imposed a fee for video, I don't know. It's possible the fee wasn't high enough, or maybe there's a state law regulating the fee. But I'm not sure it matters since there are plenty of cranks in the world with very deep pockets.)
It is a very major city. The vast majority of people on the planet have heard of it.
I can only speculate that it wants to put more cops on the street, instead of paying civilians to do paperwork.
The real world isn't like TV. Like everyone else, police departments have to work within a budget. People don't just magically appear from off-screen to do more work.
I think someone even tried automating the redactions then posting to YouTube.
It’s an interesting case that pits privacy against transparency.
I absolutely want the cops to wear bodycams and I’d prefer they can’t even turn them off. But they also need to protect the privacy of victims, suspects, and witnesses. So they can’t just live stream to the Internet either.
How much is the redaction fee? How much would it cost to just pay it for everything?
Florida is a "sunshine state" [0] when it comes to public records which is why it's legal:
- to have mugshots and arrest records posted online
- which in turn leads to "attractive felon" style websites where mugshots are rated.
I'm generally for more privacy while at the same time getting why people push for transparency. Either way you get downstream and often unintended consequences.
Redactions are necessary to protect innocent members of the public. Going through all the footage from every officer every single day to perform these redactions would require a huge amount of manpower. That may change with new technology, but until it can be automated reliably, the WA legislature got this right.
With shit like traffic cameras, I don't think redactions are necessary, although it would be nice if all license plates were automatically redacted and only accessible with a warrant. Turning the cameras off is an even better idea.
So cops need a warrant to even be present at a crime scene to ask the witness / victim what happened? Obviously not. And since not, why would they need a warrant to record their conversation with the witness / victim?
I think it would generally be a good thing for cops kicking down doors to have working body cameras; the state's monopoly on violence is easily abused, and should be carefully monitored.
But if the cops get the wrong address for their no-knock warrant, kick down my door, and find me jerking off in my bedroom - I would prefer the footage not be made public.
They the controls do exist, just not at the capacity required to do it for literally every single hour of footage recorded by body cameras. Hence why they do respond to requests for specific incidents but not blanket or bulk requests.
If they had to do this for all footage then the police department would likely respond by decreasing field officer counts to reduce footage, as well as shift resources away from law enforcement activities and towards redacting the massive volume of footage.
Are you saying that a child in the car with their DUI parent deserves to be on a YouTube bodycam channel because cops have to appear uncensored in the same video? I genuinely don't understand how you could mean anything else, and that makes me think I misunderstood. I sure hope I did.
NO, the fact that you are hitting scalability problems to do a whole bunch of redacting is a solid indicator that this is going too far on surveillance data.
The only indicator that it was done right, is that the redactions are happening in real time at the camera, only the list of license plates that have full warrant cleared authority for should be leaving the camera itself. (or full car description: color, make, model, scratches, time of day)
Otherwise there is a private company with a bunch of extra-legal tracking information they will monetize utterly illegally
The scaling problem of redacting video only applies to body cameras and I think they definitely aren't "going too far". Body cameras have greatly benefited society. The processes effectively restricting the rate at which you can file FOIA requests are entirely reasonable given the need to redact things to protect innocent people.
Someone should use AI to request such a large amount of data that it DDoSes the whole system. Unfortunately I feel like that would result in traffic camera data just being removed from FOIA rather than removed from use.
If I recall, the FOIA allows government agencies to charge you for the work of processing your request if you're requesting more than N pages or it takes more than a couple hours of work to fulfill the request. I'd be careful about a maliciously compliant response to such a thing. That said, we live in a boring world where they'd probably just respond by threatening you with a felony hacking prosecution for attempting to take down their system.
Washington State Public Records Act has no fee if you simply want to "inspect" the records (bodycams are the named exception); they can charge "actual" costs for storage, but presumably Flock stores the data, so... They cannot charge for salaries, etc.
You can make your own copy of records for free; if you want them to make copies, they can charge actual costs.
I don't think that would be legal... you'd have to get a judge to reverse the previous decision that established the cameras are public record. They would probably just turn them off instead.
Much higher than a few decades back, but still effectively zero. Even after putting up X thousands of satellites up into orbit, they still physically cover a tiny total surface area. And the same goes for planes. So two of these colliding would be a monumental freak accident, which is why I'm still assuming it's not space debris until more information shows up.
I was experimenting with a Twiddler 3 for keyboard shortcuts on a Surface running Illustrator for a while. Started getting decent speed with my custom layout designed around my most used shortcuts. Ultimately I went back to a Mac laptop plus a drawing tablet, but this was because of issues with the Surface consistently dropping the first half a second of most of my stylus strokes, not because of the Twiddler.
The Mozilla article does reference the Hyperties system Ben Schneiderman worked on, linking to https://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/ with the following comment:
" This may be an ancestor of our blue hyperlink we know and love today, but I do not believe that this is the first instance of the blue hyperlink since this color is cyan, and not dark blue."
She clarified that in her subsequent article. It was the result of Ben Shneiderman's and his students' controlled empirical studies, not whimsy or arbitrary "creative" design (which we suffer from so much these days).
"It has also been reported that Trevor Milton gave $920,000 to Mr. Trump’s political campaign (or $1.8 million combined with his wife) and was represented in this case by Pam Bondi’s brother."
We ended up with Phonaks rebranded as Sennheisers. The audio quality during calls may not be as clear as a separate mic (what i believe you refer to as oticon), but from a user experience its nice to not have to fish out your phone to answer a call or wonder why you can hear the other person but they cant hear you.
Note that my complaint here is specific to Android support.
reply