MalcolmOwen

anonymouse said:

So, am I reading the article correctly, the heart rate data can only be sent to an iOS (or presumably Android) device — i.e., these don't work in tandem with an Apple Watch in cases where you are/do want to use both? That seems like a bit of a miss.

Or did you simply not test that scenario?

While you can connect the Powerbeats Pro 2 to an Apple Watch, there's no option within watchOS to disable the heart rate monitoring on just the Apple Watch while still using the data from the earbuds. 
However, this is relatively academic since it's presumed you'd be primarily using the Apple Watch for your fitness tracking needs. 

applebynature said:

I'm a bit confused as to why Apple would be so against this when they already have a ready-to-go service (that they voluntarily developed themselves) that would scan for such images while keeping end-to-end encryption intact.

I think the tsunami of criticism and complaints that Apple had after mentioning it the first time may have something to do with it...

welshdog said:

73º?

That is shockingly low. Do you always wear long pants and shirts? Our central air system is set between 79º-81º depending on humidity and we are always comfortable. I have checked room temps against the thermostat setting and they match up. I see people posting low thermostat numbers like this all the time I can only assume they are inaccurate.

[Converts 73F into C]
I'm lucky enough to have an aircon unit in the UK, a country where they are often used in places of business, but not that much at home. 
Our recent heatwave pushed temperatures above 30C, and while the aircon could go down to 16C, it struggled to go below 24C, and that was unbearable. 
At least where I live, 73F isn't considered shockingly low. Not by a long stretch. 

moiety said:

AppleInsider staff –

Can we please NOT show that video keyframe image

The video shows a similar incident of a child being dragged under, but getting out and walking away. The caption text has been adjusted to advise the child in the video survived the incident. 

melgross said:

Something/s not right. They were talking about software running up to 3.8 times faster, so how could performance be equal to a two core Air chip. I just watched it, and I didn’t get that it was equivalent. We’re all missing something.

it just occurred to me what they said. I also said this on Arstechnica. It’s the four efficiency cores that are equal to the MacBook Air x86 chip, not the entire M1

This is correct. First version of the article was done at speed, and has been updated with the clarification.