Every Apple operating system, MacOS, iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and tvOS were seriously vulnerable (and Apple wasn't who found it, yet again - it never ends)

[Arlen Holder]

Yet again, (a) Apple never tests sufficiently, such that (b) someone else
tells Apple about the astoundingly huge vulnerabilities in _all_ the code!

Dateline 1 June 2020

"Oddly, Security Update 2020-03 for macOS 10.14 Mojave was not mentioned
in the macOS security notes. It seems strange that the bug could affect
High Sierra and Catalina, but not the intervening Mojave. Perhaps a
Mojave update is still coming, or maybe a fix that Apple put in place
in Mojave was somehow reverted."

"Apple just pushed out macOS Catalina Supplemental Update (1.2 GB),
iOS 13.5.1 (77.7 MB) and iPadOS 13.5.1 (284.8 MB), watchOS 6.2.6
(48 MB), and tvOS 13.4.6, along with what we presume is an updated
version of Security Update 2020-03 for High Sierra. "

o *Kernel Vulnerability Causes Apple to Update All Operating Systems*
<https://tidbits.com/2020/06/01/kernel-vulnerability-causes-apple-to-update-all-operating-systems/>
"We suspect this vulnerability is an ugly one. Anything that could give
apps the capability to execute code with kernel privileges is
concerning - it could do anything it wanted on the device from
installing a keylogger to surreptitiously recording the user to
erasing all local storage. It's also possible that the vulnerability
is fairly easily exploited, which would put hundreds of millions of
Apple users at risk."

"If you've ever wondered if all of Apple's operating systems—macOS,
iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and tvOS—are really based on the same code,
today's updates should show just how true that is."

See also:
o Apple confirms iOS 13.5.1 security update patches vulnerability, breaking unc0ver jailbreak
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/01/apple-confirms-ios-13-5-1-security-update-patches-vulnerability-breaking-unc0ver-jailbreak/>
--
Why bother testing the OS if people believe MARKETING's claims it's safe!

[Ant]

Does anyone even test sufficiently these days? :(

In comp.sys.mac.apps Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:
> Yet again, (a) Apple never tests sufficiently, such that (b) someone else
> tells Apple about the astoundingly huge vulnerabilities in _all_ the code!

...
--
..!.. *isms, sins, devil, illness (e.g., COVID-19/2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2), etc.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:11:55 -0500, Ant wrote:

> Does anyone even test sufficiently these days? :(

Hi Ant,

Since you're not an apologist, an adult conversation can ensue.

Notice you bring up "anyone", which is _always_ what Apple lovers do
whenever it's found out that Apple is just like everyone else.

Yet, you must be aware I'm on the other OS newsgroups, namely Windows,
Linux, and Android, who _never_ bring up Apple when I report OS issues.

It's _critical_ for you to notice this, since it's _key_ to how Apple
people are bamboozled, without even knowing that they're bamboozled.

It's a rather deep doublethink, which, you probably won't even recognize
since you're "inside" the cocoon by being an Apple lover, almost certainly
unduly swayed by marketing.

You can't have it both ways though, and that's why Apple lovers are
_different_ than Android, Linux, or Windows users.

Apple lovers want to have it both ways:
1. They want to believe the MARKETING that Apple is, somehow, different.
2. And yet, _every_ time they are forced, themselves, to realize they're
the same.

Literally you said it yourself.
o You just don't realize it.

It's classic doublethink by people who are bamboozled, unknowingly, by
MARKETING.

Bear in mind, NOBODY blames Apple when Microsoft, Linux, or Android has a
flaw (of which there are many indeed, no doubt about it).

But _those_ users aren't bamboozled to think they're different.
o Only the Apple users are bamboozled.

Rest assured I'm not chastising you since you're simply exhibiting what
_all_ the people on this newsgroup exhibit; I'm just asking you to think
about _why_ you bring up everyone else, when _nobody_ brings up Apple when
the flaws are shown on the other newsgroups.

As you know, I've studied Apple users ever since they cruelly sent me on
fruitless wild-goose chases, and they claimed, incessantly, that
functionality existed which simply didn't exist.

For years I've been trying to figure out the Apple user...
o And I think I finally have figured all of you out.

You're not malicious, Ant.
o But think about why you bring up the other OS's when they don't do it
about Apple.

What's different?
o Hint: You actually _believed_ Apple marketing (who bamboozled you).
--
This is a deep and thoughtful discussion which I hope you think about, Ant.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-02 11:20 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:11:55 -0500, Ant wrote:
>
>> Does anyone even test sufficiently these days? :(
>
> Hi Ant,
>
> Since you're not an apologist, an adult conversation can ensue.
>
> Notice you bring up "anyone", which is _always_ what Apple lovers do
> whenever it's found out that Apple is just like everyone else.

Notice how you don't actually answer her question?

[Snit]

Your black and white thinking is flawed.

Yes, ALL OSs have security flaws. Yes, including the ones Apple makes.
No, the fact that there is THIS in common does not mean ALL other things
are the same among OSs. Each has pros and cons.

I can talk about some of the things I like -- and some I dislike --
about macOS and iOS, but frankly you have shown you are here just to
bash Apple. You have no interest -- and perhaps no capacity -- to learn.
Remember when I showed you what I could do TRIVIALLY in recording iOS
and macOS? You harped and whined about it for months.... maybe years...
all because you could not replicate it on Android (and any desktop OS).
Whatever. You suffer from sour grapes. Enjoy.

Meanwhile I will use macOS, Windows, and Linux as they serve me best.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 06:20:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Yet, you must be aware I'm on the other OS newsgroups, namely Windows,
> Linux, and Android, who _never_ bring up Apple when I report OS issues.

Hi Ant,

This is an important, adult, deep, & salient observation of Apple owners.

I've studied Apple owners for quite some time, where I ask, for example
while waiting in lines, _why_ people own their iPhone, and I almost always
ascertain from their answers that they're completely bamboozled, saying...
o "it just works"
o "it's stylish"
o "who wants viruses?"
etc.

Notice the facts show they are completely bamboozled, as shown when I ask
them even the _simplest_ of facts (just as I do here), they draw a blank.

All they know is the MARKETING...
o Nothing else.

MARKETING is _that_ powerful.

It's not just Apple owners, by the way, as I ask everyone at Costco buying
a case of Techron why, and those buying Octane Boosters in the auto parts
stores why, and those buying Premium Gasoline at the pump, why, etc.

Almost always, I ascertain that most people are bamboozled by MARKETING.
o They wouldn't know an iso octane from 2,2,4,tri-methyl pentane.
o They wouldn't know a Tier I polyetheramine from Chevron's Techron.

They're completely bamboozled by Marketing.
o Which is _why_ you Apple people always blame everyone else (IMHO).

Notice on the Windows newsgroup nobody is bamboozled by Microsoft!
o We all know what Microsoft is.

Notice on the Android newsgroup, nobody is bamboozled by Google!
o We all know what Google is.

Notice on the Linux newsgroup, nobody blames Apple for Linux flaws!
o We all know what Linux is.

It's only on the Apple newsgroups that people don't know what Apple is.
o So they blame everyone else whenever Apple turns out to be what it is.
--
This is an important, adult, deep, & salient observation of Apple owners.

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <hjp2rk...@mid.individual.net>,

Reason doesn't work on trolls, just nuke them and move on. :-)


--
ftp> get |fortune
377 I/O error: smart remark generator failed

Bogonics: the primary language inside the Beltway

Lasik/PRK theme music:
"In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt"
(read act 2, scene 6 of the play if that doesn't make sense)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <rb8oak$4ab$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> writes:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 06:20:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>
>> Yet, you must be aware I'm on the other OS newsgroups, namely Windows,
>> Linux, and Android, who _never_ bring up Apple when I report OS issues.
>
> Hi Ant,
>
> This is an important, adult, deep, & salient observation of Apple owners.
>
> I've studied Apple owners for quite some time, where I ask, for example
> while waiting in lines, _why_ people own their iPhone, and I almost always
> ascertain from their answers that they're completely bamboozled, saying...
> o "it just works"
> o "it's stylish"
> o "who wants viruses?"
> etc.
>
> Notice the facts show they are completely bamboozled, as shown when I ask
> them even the _simplest_ of facts (just as I do here), they draw a blank.
>
> All they know is the MARKETING...
> o Nothing else.
>
> MARKETING is _that_ powerful.
>
> It's not just Apple owners, by the way, as I ask everyone at Costco buying
> a case of Techron why, and those buying Octane Boosters in the auto parts
> stores why, and those buying Premium Gasoline at the pump, why, etc.

A modern engine will adjust its timing to run on cheap regular without knocking.

But some will give better performance (not necessarily better mileage or lifespan)
on premium.

And some people have money to burn; it's not your holy mission to persuade them
not to.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-06 2:13 a.m., Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> In article <rb8oak$4ab$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
> Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> writes:
>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 06:20:34 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:
>>
>>> Yet, you must be aware I'm on the other OS newsgroups, namely Windows,
>>> Linux, and Android, who _never_ bring up Apple when I report OS issues.
>>
>> Hi Ant,
>>
>> This is an important, adult, deep, & salient observation of Apple owners.
>>
>> I've studied Apple owners for quite some time, where I ask, for example
>> while waiting in lines, _why_ people own their iPhone, and I almost always
>> ascertain from their answers that they're completely bamboozled, saying...
>> o "it just works"
>> o "it's stylish"
>> o "who wants viruses?"
>> etc.
>>
>> Notice the facts show they are completely bamboozled, as shown when I ask
>> them even the _simplest_ of facts (just as I do here), they draw a blank.
>>
>> All they know is the MARKETING...
>> o Nothing else.
>>
>> MARKETING is _that_ powerful.
>>
>> It's not just Apple owners, by the way, as I ask everyone at Costco buying
>> a case of Techron why, and those buying Octane Boosters in the auto parts
>> stores why, and those buying Premium Gasoline at the pump, why, etc.
>
> A modern engine will adjust its timing to run on cheap regular without knocking.

Caveat: MOST modern engines designed for higher octane gasoline will
adjust their timing to a certain extent...

...that extent not necessarily sufficient to allow the safe use of any fuel.

I have a twin-turbocharged 3.5 liter BMW 135i, so I know something of this.

:-)

>
> But some will give better performance (not necessarily better mileage or lifespan)
> on premium.

Actually, it is a case of better thermodynamic efficiency being achieved
with higher compression ratios.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 09:13:40 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> A modern engine will adjust its timing to run on cheap regular without knocking.

Hi Richard L. Hamilton,

Are you related to Bruce Hamilton, who wrote the canonical FAQ on gasoline?
o <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/>

I certainly hope not, because what you wrote reeked of utter ignorance.
o Please stop falling for MARKETING bamboozling on "cheap regular".

Anyone who calls it "cheap regular" is already proven to be an idiot.
o Simply because the price itself, is utterly meaningless to the point.

Rest assured, I'm well versed in organic chemistry.
o If you don't know what 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane is, you're clearly not.

In some (very nice ways), regular gas is far _better_ than so-called
"Premium" gas as they're quite different but the differences matter
depending on the engine (and not on the piezoelectric knock sensors).

> But some will give better performance (not necessarily better mileage or lifespan)
> on premium.

While that's a generally held platitude, _everything_ you write reeks of
sheer ignorance of the real problem set involved.

Bruce Hamilton would be unhappy were he related to you.
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/>

6. What do Fuel Octane ratings really indicate?
6.1 Who invented Octane Ratings?
6.2 Why do we need Octane Ratings?
6.3 What fuel property does the Octane Rating measure?
6.4 Why are two ratings used to obtain the pump rating?
6.5 What does the Motor Octane rating measure?
6.6 What does the Research Octane rating measure?
6.7 Why is the difference called "sensitivity"?
6.8 What sort of engine is used to rate fuels?
6.9 How is the Octane rating determined?
6.10 What is the Octane Distribution of the fuel?
6.11 What is a "delta Research Octane number"?
6.12 How do other fuel properties affect octane?
6.13 Can higher octane fuels give me more power?
6.14 Does low octane fuel increase engine wear?
6.15 Can I mix different octane fuel grades?
6.16 What happens if I use the wrong octane fuel?
6.17 Can I tune the engine to use another octane fuel?
6.18 How can I increase the fuel octane?
6.19 Are aviation gasoline octane numbers comparable?
6.20 Can mothballs increase octane?
7. What parameters determine octane requirement?
7.1 What is the Octane Number Requirement of a Vehicle?
7.2 What is the effect of Compression ratio?
7.3 What is the effect of changing the air-fuel ratio?
7.4 What is the effect of changing the ignition timing
7.5 What is the effect of engine management systems?
7.6 What is the effect of temperature and Load?
7.7 What is the effect of engine speed?
7.8 What is the effect of engine deposits?
7.9 What is the Road Octane Number of a Fuel?
7.10 What is the effect of air temperature?.
7.11 What is the effect of altitude?.
7.12 What is the effect of humidity?.
7.13 What does water injection achieve?.

> And some people have money to burn; it's not your holy mission to persuade them
> not to.

I don't mind people wasting their money if they actually _realize_ that
they're simply throwing their money away on a marketing gimmick.

What I mind is that MARKETING leads the ignorant sheep to slaughter.

As I've said many times, for decades I've been casually asking the person
next to me why they are putting so-called "Premium" fuel in a Honda Civic,
and, almost invariably, some sort of MARKETING-induced bullshit ensues.
--
What I don't like is innocent people being robbed by MARKETING bullshit.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 06.06.20 um 12:03 schrieb Alan Baker:

> On 2020-06-06 2:13 a.m., Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>> A modern engine will adjust its timing to run on cheap regular without knocking.
>
> Caveat: MOST modern engines designed for higher octane gasoline will
> adjust their timing to a certain extent...
>

> ....that extent not necessarily sufficient to allow the safe use of any fuel.

>
> I have a twin-turbocharged 3.5 liter BMW 135i, so I know something of this.
>
> :-)
>
>>
>> But some will give better performance (not necessarily better mileage or lifespan)
>> on premium.
>
> Actually, it is a case of better thermodynamic efficiency being achieved
> with higher compression ratios.
>
>>
>> And some people have money to burn; it's not your holy mission to persuade them
>> not to.
>>

It is ridiculous to talk about thermodynamic efficiency using a
turbocharged gasoline engine.

A BMW with a comparable Diesel-engine gets 50% more miles per gallon and
has a much higher torque at half the revs per minute.

Your BMW is a dinosaur and bragging here is absolutely borderline.

CU

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-06 3:24 a.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 06.06.20 um 12:03 schrieb Alan Baker:
>> On 2020-06-06 2:13 a.m., Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>> A modern engine will adjust its timing to run on cheap regular without knocking.
>>
>> Caveat: MOST modern engines designed for higher octane gasoline will
>> adjust their timing to a certain extent...
>>
>> ....that extent not necessarily sufficient to allow the safe use of any fuel.
>>
>> I have a twin-turbocharged 3.5 liter BMW 135i, so I know something of this.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>>
>>> But some will give better performance (not necessarily better mileage or lifespan)
>>> on premium.
>>
>> Actually, it is a case of better thermodynamic efficiency being achieved
>> with higher compression ratios.
>>
>>>
>>> And some people have money to burn; it's not your holy mission to persuade them
>>> not to.
>>>
>
> It is ridiculous to talk about thermodynamic efficiency using a
> turbocharged gasoline engine.

I explained what kind of car I drive only because it makes the subject
of higher octane gasolines relevant to me.

>
> A BMW with a comparable Diesel-engine gets 50% more miles per gallon and
> has a much higher torque at half the revs per minute.
>
> Your BMW is a dinosaur and bragging here is absolutely borderline.

Have a happy life.

I do!

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-06 9:45 a.m., Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2020-06-06, Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> On 2020-06-06 2:13 a.m., Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> A modern engine will adjust its timing to run on cheap regular
>>> without knocking.
>>
>> Caveat: MOST modern engines designed for higher octane gasoline will
>> adjust their timing to a certain extent...
>>
>> ...that extent not necessarily sufficient to allow the safe use of any
>> fuel.
>>
>> I have a twin-turbocharged 3.5 liter BMW 135i, so I know something of
>> this.
>>
>> :-)
>

> Meh. BMWs seem to handle lower grades just fine IME. My 2008 twin turbo
> 335i has been fine with 87-89 octane (unleaded & unleaded plus) for
> years - despite BMW's direction to use premium only. I've observed no
> knocking, no loss of power, no noticeable loss in mileage, no detectable
> fuel issues in the oil tests I've had done over the years (not counting
> unrelated issues with the fuel injectors and fuel pump in this
> particular model which were covered by BMW warranty / recalls), and my
> mechanic hasn't noticed any issues.
>

Which may be a result of how and where you drive it.

If you rarely place the engine under full load when it is particularly
hot out, and/or if you live at higher altitudes, you may be able to get
away with 87-89 octane.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 06.06.20 um 19:02 schrieb Alan Baker:

Enjoy while you can. ;-)

[Alan Baker]

> Uh huh. How did I know you'd argue with me about this? And now you want
> to claim you somehow know I "rarely place the engine under full load
> when it is particularly hot out" and I must "live at higher
> altitudes"... #NoSale
>

Nope. Those conditions would be ORed.


Detonation only occurs when the conditions are right.

One of those conditions that always applies is that the engine is run
quite close to maximum load at an RPM that is approximately the torque
peak. The torque peak coincides with the the speed at which the
cylinders can be filled with the most air/fuel mixture.

So when you are running close to wide open throttle at the torque peak,
the charge will be greatest and hence the heating of the charge due to
compression will be greatest. And that is when you can exceed the
threshold for detonation if the engines ability to retard the timing to
prevent it is exceeded.

However.

If you are at a higher altitude, the density of the air will be less, so
it becomes harder to charge the cylinder with enough air/fuel mixture to
create conditions for detonation.


So there are a few possibilities, any one of which might mean you can
get away with lower octane gasoline than recommended:

The antiknock system can retard ignition far enough (which will lose you
power and fuel efficiency).

The atmospheric conditions have air which is insufficiently dense.

The driver takes it easy with his right foot.


You don't need all of them to avoid it.

[Alan Baker]

> Yep. You just can't admit you're wrong. Pity.

I'm not wrong.

You just can't admit that you don't actually understand what I said...

>
> We're done here. Have a little Last Word party in my honor, if you want.
>


...which is why you snipped it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-07 9:11 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:

> You cannot admit that for many people, their cars handle lower grades
> without issue. You're *that* invested. Pathetic.

I never said that some cars can't handle lower grades without issue.

What a pity you can't read what I actually said.

>
> This time, I'm killing the thread. The rest of your Last Word party is
> all by yourself. Cheers.

Funny....

...didn't you say that last reply?

Maybe that's why you snipped that.

:-)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <rbfqjq$6su$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> writes:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 09:13:40 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> A modern engine will adjust its timing to run on cheap regular without knocking.
>
> Hi Richard L. Hamilton,
>
> Are you related to Bruce Hamilton, who wrote the canonical FAQ on gasoline?
> o <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/>

No. Never heard of him or of that FAQ before. Don't care, although I
read most of it now. Seems to me he says it does sometimes matter or
have an advantage, but is quite useless to exceed what's recommended -
and may or may not matter even then depending on conditions, driving
style, etc. Since the recommendations are conservative, most people
could probably get away with less. I'm not a conservative driver all
the time. :-)

>
> I certainly hope not, because what you wrote reeked of utter ignorance.
> o Please stop falling for MARKETING bamboozling on "cheap regular".
>
> Anyone who calls it "cheap regular" is already proven to be an idiot.
> o Simply because the price itself, is utterly meaningless to the point.
>

Fine, price irrelevant regular vs price irrelevant higher octane.

> Rest assured, I'm well versed in organic chemistry.
> o If you don't know what 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane is, you're clearly not.
>
> In some (very nice ways), regular gas is far _better_ than so-called
> "Premium" gas as they're quite different but the differences matter
> depending on the engine (and not on the piezoelectric knock sensors).
>
>> But some will give better performance (not necessarily better mileage or lifespan)
>> on premium.
>
> While that's a generally held platitude, _everything_ you write reeks of
> sheer ignorance of the real problem set involved.

If the owners manual for the car says premium is recommended, then I'm inclined
to believe they know what they're talking about. I wouldn't use it in a car
where that wasn't stated, since that would be a waste.

Yes, I'm oversimplifying the heck out of it, but I don't need the chemistry
and backstory. I'm neither a chemist, mechanic, nor professional race driver,
so I don't have to give a bleep. If I cared to know more, I could, but I don't.

> As I've said many times, for decades I've been casually asking the person
> next to me why they are putting so-called "Premium" fuel in a Honda Civic,
> and, almost invariably, some sort of MARKETING-induced bullshit ensues.

Honda Civic. Hmm. A regular one recommends regular. But there are some that
have been heavily modified, so I wouldn't conclude that the make and model
told me all I needed to know to get all judgemental, and I don't happen to
know enough to spot relevant mods by looking at the outside and listening.
So I'd keep my yap shut rather than sound like an arrogant jerk.

My cars are a turbo PT GT, and an '02 Trans Am (LS-1 engine). Both
recommend premium. (I _do_ read owner's manuals, assembly
instructions, installation instructions, and ingredients for
everything, although most of 'em contain few surprises). I gather that
the manuals mean premium of the usual (94 octane) generally available
in the era when those were new, so hunting down a Sunoco with 100
octane would be a waste of both time and definitely $$ (that sh_t's
pricey if you can even find it!).

But $0.60 or so a gallon difference really doesn't even amount to a
couple days mad money a year for me, and I'm not going to donate it to
YOUR favorite cause, and I like to offend ecofreaks just because. So I
don't have a reason to try and optimize and find the lowest octane
that works for me. However from observation how you try to act like
you're smarter than anyone who has a favorite product or whatever, I
also don't have a reason to listen to @-holes. If the shoe fits, pull
it out of yours and maybe STFU for awhile. Thanks...

[Alan Baker]

This is actually quite simple.

Internal combustion engines can extract more useful work from the fuel
they use at higher compression ratios. But to use a higher compression
ratio, you need to use a fuel that has a greater resistance to detonation.

Higher octane fuels have greater resistance to detonation, so you can
use a higher compression ratio and extract more work from the fuel.

Putting higher octane fuel into an engine that doesn't require it will
do nothing for you. Putting lower octane fuel into an engine that
requires higher octane will at best decrease its performance (as the
engine's managing processor detunes itself on the fly) and at worst,
cause damage to the engine.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 08:12:43 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> No. Never heard of him or of that FAQ before. Don't care, although I
> read most of it now. Seems to me he says it does sometimes matter or
> have an advantage, but is quite useless to exceed what's recommended -
> and may or may not matter even then depending on conditions, driving
> style, etc. Since the recommendations are conservative, most people
> could probably get away with less. I'm not a conservative driver all
> the time. :-)

Hi Richard L. Hamilton,

On Usenet, I let bygones be bygones, where people _can_ redeem themselves.
o When you act like an adult, I respond as if you're an adult.

You acted like an adult.

Your assessment, above, much to your credit, is not bad, where about the
only thing I'd clarify is that if your engine is running properly (and
being used properly), and yet if it was _designed_ for the lower octane
rated fuels (i.e., if it is one of the vast majority of engines out there),
then the "conservative" part doesn't apply (as you won't ever need it
(unless conditions become extreme, which we can ignore).

The rest of what you said applies quite well, which is a credit to you that
you understood what Bruce Hamilton wrote in that Gasoline FAQ.

> Fine, price irrelevant regular vs price irrelevant higher octane.

Exactly.
o What you see now, is not the MARKETING but the reality!

If your engine was designed for the higher-octane-rated fuels, then,
generally under "spirited" conditions, if the fuel begins to knock, in most
engines, the piezoelectric knock sensors will retard the timing.
o And if your engine is designed for Regular, then premium is wasted.

My shtick is that MARKETING drives a _lot_ of people to do stupid things.
o You can clearly see that on these Apple newsgroups (in spades).

Apple MARKETING is, IMHO, brilliant at getting people to waste money.
o *What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU>

> If the owners manual for the car says premium is recommended, then I'm inclined
> to believe they know what they're talking about. I wouldn't use it in a car
> where that wasn't stated, since that would be a waste.

Exactly.

Even though it could be 20 cents more per gallon, for example, it's not
untrue for me to claim that the Premium fuel is actually "worse" fuel than
"Regular" for an engine that isn't designed for it; and yet, _most_ people
seem to think that they're doing their engine a "favor" by, often once a
month or so, "giving it premium".
o All they're really doing, is wasting their money.

The fuel isn't better; it's different.
o What determines the fuel in your engine... is the engine itself.

Yet, a _lot_ of people put Premium in an engine that doesn't benefit.
o Do you see what I mean about how MARKETING drives these people?

> Yes, I'm oversimplifying the heck out of it, but I don't need the chemistry
> and backstory. I'm neither a chemist, mechanic, nor professional race driver,
> so I don't have to give a bleep. If I cared to know more, I could, but I don't.

You don't know this, but for decades, ever since I learned (in high school
Chemistry class, actually), about octane ratings, I've been asking people
at the pump why they're putting Premium in a Honda Civic (or whatever).

I do a similar question whenever I'm in the automotive aisle at Costco and
I see someone buy a box of "Techron"; and I do it in the checkout line
whenever someone is in front of me reading their iPhone.

Each time, almost invariably, they "parrot" MARKETING bullshit.
o They waste their money exactly as MARKETING tells them to.

THAT is what I rebel against, Mr. Hamilton.
o It bothers me that people actually _believe_ MARKETING bullshit.

You may not know this, but one of my purposes of being on this newsgroup,
and one of the reasons I own Apple products, is to separate the vast Apple
MARKETING bullshit from the reality.

If you don't know how bamboozled the average Apple poster here is, then you
just haven't been on this newsgroup long enough, as the only person not
bamboozled by Apple MARKETING is David Empson - all the rest - even the non
apologists - spew Apple MARKETING bullshit.

However, the three classes of apologists ALWAYS spew Apple MARKETING
bullshit, namely
o Type I apologists, e.g., nospam, are Apple MARKETING parrots.
o Type II apologists, e.g., Alan Browne, are simply strongly influenced.
o Type III apologists, e.g., Jolly Roger, actually _believe_ the MARKETING!
Note: Type I apologists don't actually believe it; they simply parrot it.

> Honda Civic. Hmm. A regular one recommends regular. But there are some that
> have been heavily modified, so I wouldn't conclude that the make and model
> told me all I needed to know to get all judgemental, and I don't happen to
> know enough to spot relevant mods by looking at the outside and listening.
> So I'd keep my yap shut rather than sound like an arrogant jerk.

Let's not play silly games around the facts.
o If you understand octane ratings, you'll understand which cars need what.

Yes, if you _change_ the engine, then the engine dictates the fuel (mostly
the compression, but heat and load and barometric pressure matter also).

Also, if the engine is being used differently (e.g., towing in the Sierra
Nevada) or if the engine is in disrepair (e.g., the EGR isn't working, or
if the timing is incorrect, or if there is a quarter inch of carbon on top
of the piston heads, etc.,), then it's "octane needs" will differ.

But the person I'm talking to at the pump isn't modding their engine or
using it for rough service.
o In most cases, they put the Premium in 'cuz they're told "it's better".

Who tells them "it's better"?
o MARKETING

Why?
o Because MARKETING gets fools to waste their money.

Just like with the Type I apologists, MARKETING is very clever at its
wording, where the "implication" is always that "it's better", even as the
reality is that it's simply different in terms of knocking resistance.

Hell, diesel, were it rated for octane (they use a different rating) would
be "better" if the MARKETING implicates were correct.

My shtick is always that MARKETING gets people to do stupid things.
o I'm simply here to tell people the truth.
--
Bringing TRUTH to the Apple newsgroups, one simple fact at a time.

[nospam]

In article <rc5ogc$3k5$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@newmachine.com> wrote:

>
> My shtick is that MARKETING drives a _lot_ of people to do stupid things.

in your case, you do it as a matter of course...

> o You can clearly see that on these Apple newsgroups (in spades).

...like trying to hijack the thread into yet another mindless rant.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 09:10:46 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> Reason doesn't work on trolls, just nuke them and move on. :-)

Hi Richard L. Hamilton,

You proved that you are an adult by how you responded to the octane rating
issue (i.e., you clicked on the link, read, and comprehended what it said).

You have to realize that there are a _lot_ of people on this Apple
newsgroup who can't do any of those three things, e.g.,

Type III apologists like Alan Baker won't even _click_ on the link
o Before brazenly claiming that all facts in the link are "lies by liars".

Type II apologists, like Steve Scharf, won't _comprehend_ what in the link
o For example, he _still_ believes Qualcomm royalties went down per phone!

Type I apologists will click, read, and comprehend what's in the links...
o But they will brazenly deny all that goes against Apple MARKETING mantra.
For example, nospam claims the iPhone X didn't have throttling software

In terms of "trolls", what I find interesting is that the Type I apologist
(there's only nospam in that class) call anything they can't refute to be a
troll - but - in general - they avoid calling people trolls simply because
Type I apologists actually know the truth (they just won't say it as they
only parrot Apple MARKETING mantra).

Quite different are the Type II apologists (e.g., Savageduck, Steve Scharf,
Alan Browne, Andreas Rutishauser, et al.) who can't stand hearing facts
that differ from what MARKETING told them, so, to avoid those facts, they
simply filter them out. These people are not malicious, they just consider
facts a danger to their belief systems, so they filter them out on purpose
(which is why it's so easy to prove them wrong, as, for example, when Steve
Scharf claims Apple CPUs are "the fastest" and yet, he filters out the fact
that they're throttled to half speed almost invariably after "about a
year").

Yet far more different, are the TYPE III apologists (e.g., Alan Baker,
Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK at Onramp, Wade Garrett, Chris, Davoud, Joerg
Lorenz, Your Name Elfin (aka Lloyd Parsons), roctb, Tim Streater, John
McWilliama, Snit, Hawk, Hemidactylus, Rescuba, Panthera Tigris Altaica,
Sandman, et al.).

These are literally a combination of Quadrant 1 Dunning Kruger and fifth
grade bully, who are so highly influenced by Apple MARKETING that they
can't fathom even a single fact that strays against what they _believe_
about Apple MARKETING - hence - these are the ones calling all facts "lies
by liars" and all people who convey facts the call "trolls".

Years ago I went to the trouble of seeing which poster called others
"trolls" the most, and it was Jolly Roger, by far, who himself, vies with
Alan Baker for the lowest IQ of this group (probably around 50 I would
guess).

To give you an example of how these people are Dunning Kruger quadrant I,
they actually _believe_ they understand Octane, for example, and yet, they
can't even figure out the difference between knock, detonation, and
pre-ignition.

Based on what you wrote, I think you, Richard Hamilton, _could_ figure out
the difference of something that simple (were you to care); but my point is
that these people clearly cannot.

The main _reason_ they can't figure out things even _that_ simple, is that
they are Dunning Kruger Quadrant I - and they're the ones calling all facts
"lies by liars" and that all bearers of facts must be "trolls".
--
You can _never_ communicate with Type III apologists in DK Quadrant I.
o They're literally too stupid to even realize how stupid they are.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:27:21 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> My shtick is that MARKETING drives a _lot_ of people to do stupid things.
>
> in your case, you do it as a matter of course...
>
>> o You can clearly see that on these Apple newsgroups (in spades).
>
> ...like trying to hijack the thread into yet another mindless rant.

Hi nospam,

For Type I apologists like you, facts about MARKETING are dangerous.
o Hence that's why you try to belittle the _analogy_ I drew above.

I realize why you hate facts, which is that you can only thrive on Apple
newsgroups, as you consistently get your head handed to you on the other OS
newsgroups, simply because all you _can_ do, is parrot Apple MARKETING
mantra.

I'm sure you understood, quite well, the analogy I made for how people are
unduly swayed by MARKETING to purchase premium fuels... to how people are
unduly influenced by Apple MARKETING... where sheer ignorance is the common
factor.

I'm likewise sure you understood the analogy to the Techron
polyetheramines, where, again, people are unduly influenced by MARKETING...
such that their belief system is based on exactly zero underlying facts.

In fact, I'm so sure you responded the way you just did to those analogies,
simply because you know them to hit home, and that's the LAST thing you
want, since all you ever do, nospam, is parrot Apple MARKETING mantra.
--
For Type I apologists like nospam, facts about MARKETING are dangerous.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-06-14 11:38 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:27:21 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>>> My shtick is that MARKETING drives a _lot_ of people to do stupid things.
>>
>> in your case, you do it as a matter of course...
>>
>>> o You can clearly see that on these Apple newsgroups (in spades).
>>
>> ...like trying to hijack the thread into yet another mindless rant.
>
> Hi nospam,

I can't help noticing that you seem to killfile quite...

...shall we say, "selectively"?

:-)

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <rc5qbf$88k$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> writes:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2020 09:10:46 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Reason doesn't work on trolls, just nuke them and move on. :-)

[TMI]

I really don't need a classification system for "apologists" that distantly
resembles the system for different types of multiverses.

How informed or ignorant or irrational despite being informed people
are is NOT your responsibility, unless you're a parent, teacher, or
supervisor, or maybe actuary or social scientist (but the latter two
only in the collective case, not with regard to correcting any
particular person or subset of persons). You're none of those to most
of us.

And if you're going to war against even the "apologist" category of
stupid, you're going to be wasting your time and everyone else's
bandwith forever, or until you croak or the zombie apocalypse finally
shuts down Usenet, whichever comes first. Your prerogative I suppose,
but I think it opens up a broader category of stupid: futile acts that
serve no purpose other than possibly providing perverse pleasure to
the one performing them.


I've worked with Unix and similar a heck of a lot more than with
Windows (although I can use or install or configure either, except I
don't know much about configuring enterprise level infrastructure for
Windows). Linux doesn't annoy me as much as Windows, but I wouldn't
want it for a desktop or laptop. If its desktop were better, I'd
choose Solaris as a desktop; but it's no better than Linux in that
regard, and Solaris 11 ditched the CDE environment that I once knew
inside and out, so no advantage there (still, Solaris is what I prefer
for a server, even @ home; T5240 off of eBay, what fun!).

I've also seen and tinkered with Unix source both kernel and userland
from v7, PC/IX, and a couple others up through OpenSolaris
(post-Solaris 10), and in some cases could even modify the running
kernel on the fly without creating havoc (mostly in the old days, when
the kernel was single-threaded and that was a LOT easier).

Given that background, since macOS (which only runs legitimately on
Mac hardware) is at least by definition (licensing the name and some
compliance tests) Unix underneath, and although it's one of the
stranger flavors, I can deal with that - and while the crown jewels
(the user-space frameworks, esp the GUI and other user interaction
bits) are closed-source, most of the XNU kernel is open source,
although Apple is slow about getting updates to that out. I definitely
know the Unix command line, and spend more time by far with Terminal
than with Finder. So it being mostly familiar at that level and below
is worth a lot to me.

Moreover, while most Macs are DEFINITELY overpriced for performance, and
not ALWAYS super strong on physical reliability due to occasional
design f-ups like the butterfly keyboard, for the most part one does,
even physically, get some of what one pays for; they're largely solid,
elegant in appearance, usable enough, and if they don't have a
convertible laptop/tablet, I'm fine with that because I was NEVER one
to touch my screen at ALL until tablets came along, and smacked anyone
that did, 'cause I'd have to get their nasty fingerprints off right
away.

So whatever you may think is a poor value about Macs, I DON'T CARE.
They do what I want for a desktop, laptop, or even iDevice, better
than anything else, and I used pretty much everything else on the
planet before I got my 1st Mac. Yes, that won't be true for everyone
if they similarly thought about it. Yes, Macs have their annoyances
too; darn near anything as complicated as that will, however much it
pretends to be super-friendly. And yes, IMO Apple could do a lot
better on the software support and maintenance end. But they STILL
suck less to me than other desktop/laptop alternatives, and if I'm
giving up $$$$ or some benefit of their competition for what pleases
me about them, that's fine with me; it's an informed decision.

Just maybe, other people, even if not THAT into the internals, are
also making decisions that they believe are in their own best
interests, rather than merely the product of marketing; and they don't
need someone to point out all the many ways in which their favorite
system is flawed.

So if Steve's "reality distortion field" persists even this long after
his death, why should I mind? It's entertaining, and people doing
things for reasons (if any) that I wouldn't is usually entertaining
too, so long as it's not actually hurting me somehow. It's amusing
that people think ANY designer, company, or whatever is God's favored
exemplar of their kind in this universe, it's not actually harmful
unless they're trying to spend MY $$ indulging their idolatry.

Lighten up a little...

[Richard L. Hamilton]

In article <rc5ogc$3k5$1...@news.mixmin.net>,

Arlen Holder <arlen...@newmachine.com> writes:
> THAT is what I rebel against, Mr. Hamilton.
> o It bothers me that people actually _believe_ MARKETING bullshit.

Enjoy stupidity that doesn't personally damage you. Heck, if your
ethics are flexible enough, even feel free to encourage it, pander to
it, and thereby profit from it. I wouldn't knowingly go that far, but
to each their own. Not my thing, but I know folks that like to observe
others in public places like restaurants. It's free entertainment,
like watching a 24/7 dysfunction sitcom, and in some, it even inspires
all sorts of stories, how some initially innocent stupidity might leed
to murder, mayhem, mystery, conspiracy, etc.


P.T. Barnum "there's a sucker born every minute" (even if he didn't
actually say that himself) sounds like a lot more fun than Auntie
Unsolicited Advice's "do it for your own good".

Yes, I'm arguing IN FAVOR of the value of ignorance or even willful
stupidity. It ensures that ecologically essential scavengers will
never starve, and it's wonderfully, beautifully capitalist to the core
to batten off of the corpses of the stupid, after having already
drained them as much as possible while they were alive. It's the
ultimate in profitable recycling. :-)

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:05:30 GMT, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

> Enjoy stupidity that doesn't personally damage you.

Hi Richard,

Thank you for being a rational, logical, adult.
o It feels _good_ to be able to converse with an actual adult on this ng.

I can learn from you.

I understand what you suggest; but I care too much about people.
o It bothers me that MARKETING has such sway over humans.

My environment, born of university professors, was that fact & reason and
logic prevail (I was forced, for example, by my parents, to take logic as
an undergraduate, where, interestingly, it was in the "Philosophy" area).

Working for decades at startups in the Silicon Valley again taught me the
value of solving problems by clever use of facts & reason.

What hurts me is that Apple MARKETING is so damn brilliant, that people
throw away all logic and reason (e.g., the batteries made them do it, or
the throttling won't be "as" necessary, etc.).

> Heck, if your
> ethics are flexible enough, even feel free to encourage it, pander to
> it, and thereby profit from it.

Sadly, my ethics are toward truth, fact, and reason.
o It hurts, for example, when the WHO brazenly lied to us last Monday.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sAcXqAUyZ_U/JQz1U8QNBwAJ>

I could never be a salesman, or politician, or scheister...
o Of which, growing up back east, I've known _plenty_

It hurts me when people are cheated by clever scheming shenanigans.

> I wouldn't knowingly go that far, but
> to each their own. Not my thing, but I know folks that like to observe
> others in public places like restaurants. It's free entertainment,
> like watching a 24/7 dysfunction sitcom, and in some, it even inspires
> all sorts of stories, how some initially innocent stupidity might leed
> to murder, mayhem, mystery, conspiracy, etc.

When I ask people what they think about Apple products, or Premium fuel, or
Techron soap for gas, I do it as a pseudo random study of how pervasive
MARKETING is on causing people to believe in the most stupid things.

I think most of these people who are unduly influenced simply don't know
chemistry (for the fuels and additives); whereas in Apple's case, they
cater to a person who is _desperate_ to believe in their message.

Android users, for example, aren't _desperate_ for the next release
o Android users, for example, aren't desperate to _feel_ safe.

Android users, in general, aren't _desperate_ for pre-packaged "simplicity"
o Apple users, as a whole, appear to be desperate for these things.

And MARKETING knows them better than they know themselves.
o Remember when Apple turned a dead Chinese lady into a MARKETING coup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/iUMbvDSxAwAJ>

> P.T. Barnum "there's a sucker born every minute" (even if he didn't
> actually say that himself) sounds like a lot more fun than Auntie
> Unsolicited Advice's "do it for your own good".

Yes. But it hurts me to realize how people are bamboozled by MARKETING.

One thing though, is I expect _integrity_ in EVERYONE I meet.
o Which is why the 3 types of Apologists frustrated me for years.

I didn't realize...
o Type I apologists, like nospam, don't believe what they themselves claim
(e.g., he claimed iPhone X didn't have throttling when he knew it did)
o Type II apologists, like Steve Scharf, filter out facts they won't like
(e.g., he _still_ believes Qualcomm royalties per phone went down)
o Type III apologists, like Lewis, literally _believe_ MARKETING claims!
(i.e., they're almost all Dunning-Kruger Quadrant 1 mentalities)

Until I figured them out, I didn't know how to deal with them
o As I had never met someone, in person, as immune to facts, as they are.

> Yes, I'm arguing IN FAVOR of the value of ignorance or even willful
> stupidity. It ensures that ecologically essential scavengers will
> never starve, and it's wonderfully, beautifully capitalist to the core
> to batten off of the corpses of the stupid, after having already
> drained them as much as possible while they were alive. It's the
> ultimate in profitable recycling. :-)

Yes. But it still hurts me.
o I'm an idealist.

You can tell that it bothers me that people are just plain stupid.
o Does a single person espousing the privacy sink covid trackers
even know what a cytokine storm is?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/sAcXqAUyZ_U>

It hurts me, a lot when people can't agree on the facts, e.g., when flat
earthers or Apple apologists simply throw away all facts they don't like.

I've always said, facts are so pure that every adult should agree on them.
o Once facts are set, then they can put different weights on assessments

For example, once you and I agree on the facts of octane ratings...
o Then you can reasonably put a different assessment on how to use fuels.

Thank you for being a rational, logical, adult.
o It feels _good_ to be able to converse with an actual adult on this ng.
--
Bringing TRUTH to Apple newsgroups via consistent application of fact.