Comment by SilasX
7 years ago
Bricking your iPhone for a week-plus is not the equivalent of popping a party balloon or a short dose of UV light!
And yes, I get it, the sensor exists to detect for threats to life, not threats to iphones. But that's the point: this is a threat we're not set up to watch for at all -- hence why it took so much investigation to root-cause it!
Are you still going to make it your hill-to-die-on that it's "not disturbing"?
Come to think of it, did that "lack of faith" scene in Star Wars (1977) also seem confusing to you?
> Bricking your iPhone for a week-plus is not the equivalent of popping a party balloon or a short dose of UV light!
You totally misunderstood my comment.
I mentioned popping a party balloon because it could also disable your phone. And UV light because it can also destroy certain electronics. But sensors that can pick up little bits of UV are normally not set to warn about it, and that's perfectly reasonable and not "disturbing".
We can use a different word if you want. You think it's a [significant] problem and I don't think it's a problem. Is that better?
I'm not here to die on the hill of word choice. I disagree with your underlying opinion.
Sorry -- do you have a citation on that? If popping party balloons could disable iphones, I think we'd hear about it more often. (I can't find anything about it on a quick search, and I hope I can be excused for missing an analogy that depended on an invalid premise!)
What made it unnoticed for so long was that it required the much larger MRI He release to trigger. What (I claim) makes it disturbing is that an expensive incident can happen (bricking a hospital's iphones for weeks) at levels that no one currently calibrates sensors to check for, because no one expects that level to have a negative effect of such magnitude.
Regardless of your preferred terminology, it seems odd to take an attitude of "oh, it only deleted everyone's second-brain for week, in a way that was hard to root-cause, no one died, no big deal" and therefore balk at the use of "disturbing".
I mean, do you consider undetectable, inexpensive phone-bricking techniques to be generally "non-disturbing", or just this one?
> Sorry -- do you have a citation on that? If popping party balloons could disable iphones, I think we'd hear about it more often. (I can't find anything about it on a quick search, and I hope I can be excused for missing an analogy that depended on an invalid premise!)
Some of the tests were just plastic bags with tiny amounts of helium in them. Unless you're asserting some exceptionally strange gas physics here, you can break an iphone with some balloons.
> Regardless of your preferred terminology, it seems odd to take an attitude of "oh, it only deleted everyone's second-brain for week, in a way that was hard to root-cause, no one died, no big deal" and therefore balk at the use of "disturbing".
> I mean, do you consider undetectable, inexpensive phone-bricking techniques to be generally "non-disturbing", or just this one?
Hang on. You were calling the calibration of the air quality sensors disturbing. That's what I objected to. I wasn't making any claims about the iphone bug itself.