Funny that something similar swore me off another brand’s headphones. The noise cancelling would amplify mechanical vibrations of the headphones, so much so that even eating with them on would cause a deafening bass. Walking with them on was also incredibly loud.
I sent them to support with a very good description of the problem, came back the same, “cannot reproduce”.
It seems support workers for both companies just connect them to an audio source and check if sound comes out relatively alright.
Prior to the third time going to Genius Bar, I was able to reach a senior manager for Apple repairs in a phone call to Apple Support. And even after asking him to take down a note on my incident to have the repair tech physically open the right ear can, they still came back with "cannot reproduce". There was either a screw loose in my brain or the headphones. Guess we'll never know which.
Servicing is not done by Apple, it's 3rd party contractors. They have a rubric of possible issues from Apple and their profit margins are thin. I suspect contacting Apple support about Apple support issues would have resulted in a swift replacement of the item.
Especially since a very similar, if not exactly the same, panel from the XDR will be in monitors from other brands for a fraction of the price (like the LG 27GM950B).
As someone who uses Linux, macOS and Windows interchangeably, I'm curious to know what you're using.
I learned to live with macOS, but I also like and use Gnome, which many Linux-only people hate. I tried most WMs on Linux, like Hyprland, Sway, i3, but none ever felt worth the config hassle when compared to the sane defaults of Gnome.
I know what you mean, but Gnome was the DE that clicked the most for me (after I gave it a real try). I liked Gnome 2 and then 3 made me switch to KDE, then switched back. So I was actually completely wrong and, while writing this comment, I remembered what a pain it was to learn Gnome back then lol
It made me cringe at how boot-licking the author, and apparently a lot of people at the CIA, are (like defending the “petty thief” not getting the job).
People will work for one of the most evil organizations in the world and expect pity for being interrogated, while that same organization has torture sites.
Fond memories of planning the assassination of a politician in South America and creating popular unrest through a disinformation campaign in China :,)
ISO defines standards for much more than bolts and plugs. A few examples include: the C++ ISO standard, IT security standards and workplace safety standards, and that’s a small subset of what they do.
They develop a well defined standard, not the technologies mentioned in the standard. So yes, they’re qualified.
It is certainly an example of why SC22 is a bad idea
The "C++ Standards Committee" is Working Group #21 of Sub Committee #22, of the Joint Technical Committee #1 between ISO and the IEC.
It is completely the wrong shape of organization for this work, a large unwieldy bureaucracy created so that sovereign entities could somehow agree things, this works pretty well for ISO 216 (the A-series paper sizes) and while it isn't very productive for something like ISO 26262 (safety) it can't do much harm. For the deeply technical work of a programming language it's hopeless.
The IETF shows a much better way to develop standards for technology.
The fact that the C++ committee is technically a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup is among the least of the issues of ISO for standardization.
The main problem is that ISO is a net negative value-add for standardization. At one point, the ISO editor came back and said "you need to change the standard because you used periods instead of commas for the decimal point, a violation of ISO rules." Small wonder there's muttering about taking C and C++ out of ISO.
I would argue that the structural problem is an underlying cause. So it won't be the proximate cause, but when you dig deeper, when you keep asking like a five year old, "But why?" the answer is ultimately ISO's structure and nothing to do with Bjarne's language in particular.
Hence the concern for the non-language but still deeply technical RISC-V standardization.
Titanic is not an example of why building ships has to be avoided. C++ is a great example, yes, of the damage ambitious and egotistical personas can inflict when cooperation is necessary.
Apple for some reason hasn’t implemented that feature, and it boggles the mind. Say I’m playing music on my iPhone and I try playing a track on my mac, it doesn’t ask me on which device to play, hell, it doesn’t even stop playing on my iPhone to start on my mac, it just puts an ugly warning in the middle of the screen saying something like “stop playing on your iPhone to listen to the song on this device”.
They have this feature, it is called Hand-off I think. It works between iPhones and HomePods. Additionally there’s “control other devices”, which allows controlling the music played on other devices. That is between most Apple device categories, although I’m unsure about Mac support for it.
I have used AM since launch and don’t understand what you’re complaining about exactly. I have never, not once, seen a message telling me to stop playing on one device to play on another with AM. Spotify otoh is super strict with licensing and does that. Why wouldn’t you want to be able to play 2 different streams in 2 different places?
I have my AM on my Sonos, my phone, my ATV, and my dad’s Sonos and have never seen a message that it’s playing elsewhere. With Spotify my setup absolutely would be impossible using the same account.
I personally don’t want the Spotify style playback features; keep them out of my AM please.
Edit: I forgot you can also now share a queue via Apple Music using airplay, even if others at the party don’t have an account.
I sent them to support with a very good description of the problem, came back the same, “cannot reproduce”.
It seems support workers for both companies just connect them to an audio source and check if sound comes out relatively alright.
reply