Apple’s Repair Program Creates ‘Excruciating Gauntlet of Hurdles’, iFixit Says

On Monday, Apple expanded its DIY repair program to include MacBook Air and MacBook Pro laptops equipped with M1 chips (including the Pro and Max). At least, in theory. The repairability experts at iFixit, who regularly dissect Apple’s gadgets, have taken a look at the new program, and their outlook is…mixed. iFixit’s Sam Goldheart writes that the new MacBook Pro guides “threw us for a loop.” The issue: the documentation “makes MacBook Pros seem less repairable” than they have been in the past. From a report: The repair manual for replacing the 14-inch MacBook Pro’s battery, for example, is a whole 162 pages long. (One of the first steps, of course, is “Read the entire manual first.”) The reason the guide is so long, it turns out, is that replacing these batteries isn’t just a matter of popping the battery out. A user needs to replace the entire top case and keyboard in order to replace the battery. Needless to say, it is unusual for a laptop battery replacement to require a full-computer teardown.

And then, as Goldheart points out, there’s the matter of the money. The “top case with battery” part that you’ll need to purchase for the 2020 and 2021 MacBook Pro models is not cheap — after rooting around Apple’s store, Verge editor Sean Hollister found that you can expect to pay well upwards of $400 for the top case with battery after the repair credit. “Apple is presenting DIY repairers with a excruciating gauntlet of hurdles: read 162 pages of documentation without getting intimidated and decide to do the repair anyway, pay an exorbitant amount of money for an overkill replacement part, decide whether you want to drop another 50 bucks on the tools they recommend, and do the repair yourself within 14 days, including completing the System Configuration to pair your part with your device,” Goldheart writes in summary. “Which makes us wonder, does Apple even want better repairability?”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Devs Make Progress Getting MacOS Venture Running On Unsupported, Decade-Old Macs

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Skirting the official macOS system requirements to run new versions of the software on old, unsupported Macs has a rich history. Tools like XPostFacto and LeopardAssist could help old PowerPC Macs run newer versions of Mac OS X, a tradition kept alive in the modern era by dosdude1’s patchers for Sierra, High Sierra, Mojave, and Catalina. For Big Sur and Monterey, the OpenCore Legacy Patcher (OCLP for short) is the best way to get new macOS versions running on old Macs. It’s an offshoot of the OpenCore Hackintosh bootloader, and it’s updated fairly frequently with new features and fixes and compatibility for newer macOS versions. The OCLP developers have admitted that macOS Ventura support will be tough, but they’ve made progress in some crucial areas that should keep some older Macs kicking for a little bit longer.

[…] First, while macOS doesn’t technically include system files for pre-AVX2 Intel CPUs, Apple’s Rosetta 2 software does still include those files, since Rosetta 2 emulates the capabilities of a pre-AVX2 x86 CPU. By extracting and installing those files in Ventura, you can re-enable support on Ivy Bridge and older CPUs without AVX2 instructions. And this week, Grymalyuk showed off another breakthrough: working graphics support on old Metal-capable Macs, including machines as old as the 2014 5K iMac, the 2012 Mac mini, and even the 2008 cheese grater-style Mac Pro tower. The OCLP team still has other challenges to surmount, not least of which will involve automating all of these hacks so that users without a deep technical understanding of macOS’s underpinnings can continue to set up and use the bootloader. Grymalyuk still won’t speculate about a timeframe for official Ventura support in OCLP. But given the progress that has been made so far, it seems likely that people with 2012-and-newer Macs should still be able to run Ventura on their Macs without giving up graphics acceleration or other important features.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

China Punishes 27 People Over ‘Tragically Ugly’ Illustrations In Maths Textbook

Chinese authorities have punished 27 people over the publication of a maths textbook that went viral over its “tragically ugly” illustrations. The Guardian reports: A months-long investigation by a ministry of education working group found the books were “not beautiful,” and some illustrations were “quite ugly” and did not “properly reflect the sunny image of China’s children.” The mathematics books were published by the People’s Education Press almost 10 years ago, and were reportedly used in elementary schools across the country. But they went viral in May after a teacher published photos of the illustrations inside, including people with distorted faces and bulging pants, boys pictures grabbing girls’ skirts and at least one child with an apparent leg tattoo.

Social media users were largely amused by the illustrations, but many also criticized them as bringing disrepute and “cultural annihilation” to China, speculating they were the deliberate work of western infiltrators in the education sector. Related hashtags were viewed billions of times, embarrassing the Communist party and education authorities who announced a review of all textbooks “to ensure that the textbooks adhere to the correct political direction and value orientation.”

In a lengthy statement released on Monday, the education authorities said 27 individuals were found to have “neglected their duties and responsibilities” and were punished, including the president of the publishing house, who was given formal demerits, which can affect a party member’s standing and future employment. The editor-in-chief and the head of the maths department editing office were also given demerits and dismissed from their roles. The statement said the illustrators and designers were “dealt with accordingly” but did not give details. They and their studios would no longer be engaged to work on textbook design or related work, it said. The highly critical statement found a litany of issues with the books, including critiquing the size, quantity and quality of illustrations, some of which had “scientific and normative problems.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Quest VR Owners Have New Meta Logins To Use Instead of Facebook

Meta will now allow users of its Quest VR headsets to log in with a new Meta account instead of a Facebook account, the company announced on Tuesday. The Verge reports: The company had said in July that this change would be rolling out in August, and it marks a shift from an unpopular policy announced in 2020 that required users to log in to their headsets with a Facebook account instead of a separate Oculus account. Users can create Meta accounts through the Meta mobile app using an email address, Facebook account, or Instagram account. Once you create a Meta account, you’ll need to set up a linked Meta Horizon social profile that will be used in VR. As with Facebook accounts before, you’ll need one of these accounts to use a Quest headset.

“Our new Meta account structure gives you more flexibility and control, letting you choose how you do and don’t show up — and whether Facebook and / or Instagram is part of your experience in VR and other surfaces where you use your Meta Horizon profile,” Meta says in its blog post. If you want to set up a Meta account, the company has instructions in the blog post and in a video. If you are still using an Oculus account, you’ll be able to do so until January 1st, 2023. After that date, you’ll need to make a Meta account. The company says the option to make a Meta account and a Meta Horizon profile is rolling out now, so if you aren’t able to just yet, you should be given the option soon.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Oracle’s ‘Surveillance Machine’ Targeted In US Privacy Class Action

A new privacy class action claim (PDF) in the U.S. alleges Oracle’s “worldwide surveillance machine” has amassed detailed dossiers on some five billion people, “accusing the company and its adtech and advertising subsidiaries of violating the privacy of the majority of the people on Earth,” reports TechCrunch. From the report: The suit has three class representatives: Dr Johnny Ryan, senior fellow of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL); Michael Katz-Lacabe, director of research at The Center for Human Rights and Privacy; and Dr Jennifer Golbeck, a professor of computer science at the University of Maryland — who say they are “acting on behalf of worldwide Internet users who have been subject to Oracle’s privacy violations.” The litigants are represented by the San Francisco-headquartered law firm, Lieff Cabraser, which they note has run significant privacy cases against Big Tech. The key point here is there is no comprehensive federal privacy law in the U.S. — so the litigation is certainly facing a hostile environment to make a privacy case — hence the complaint references multiple federal, constitutional, tort and state laws, alleging violations of the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Constitution of the State of California, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, as well as competition law, and the common law.

It remains to be seen whether this “patchwork” approach to a tricky legal environment will prevail — for an expert snap analysis of the complaint and some key challenges this whole thread is highly recommended. But the substance of the complaint hinges on allegations that Oracle collects vast amounts of data from unwitting Internet users, i.e. without their consent, and uses this surveillance intelligence to profile individuals, further enriching profiles via its data marketplace and threatening people’s privacy on a vast scale — including, per the allegations, by the use of proxies for sensitive data to circumvent privacy controls.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Elon Musk Interviewed by Tesla Owners, Hears from a Former Professor

In June a YouTube channel called “Tesla Owners Silicon Valley” ran an hour-long interview with Elon Musk. (Musk begins by sharing an example of the “comedically long” list of things that can disrupt a supply chain, remembering an incident where a drug gang shoot out led to the mistaken impounding of a nearby truck that was delivering parts for a Tesla Model S factory — ultimately shutting down Model S production for three days.)

There’s some candid discussions about the technology of electric cars – but also some surprisingly personal insights. Musk also reveals he’s been thinking about electric cars since high school, as “the way cars should be, if you could just solve range… People will look back on the internal combustion car era as a strange time. Quaint.” And then he remembers the moment in 1995 when he put his graduate studies at Stanford “on hold” to pursue a business career, reassuring Stanford professor William Nix that “I will probably fail” and predicting an eventual return to Stanford. Nix had responded that he did not think Musk would fail.

It turns out that 27 years later, now-emeritus professor William Nix heard the interview, and typed up a fond letter to Elon Musk at SpaceX’s headquarters in Texas. Nix complimented Musk on the interview, noting Musk’s remarks on the challenges in using silicon for the anodes of electric batteries. “About 10 years ago we at Stanford did research on the very issues you described. Indeed, it almost seemed like you had read all the papers.”

Musk’s hour-long interview with the group was followed by two more hour-long interviews, and since then the group has been sharing short excerpts that give candid glimpses of Musk’s thinking. (The overwhelming focus is solving full self-driving,” Musk says in one clip. “That’s essential. That’s really the difference between Tesla being worth a lot of money and being worth basically zero.”)

Read more of this story at Slashdot.