Trying to attach a file to an email, but not sure it's the right one? QuickLook allows you to view the document in the Open dialog. Once you use it, it is something you will just accept as natural and only notice it not being available on other OSes.
Portmaster by Safing https://safing.io/portmaster/
Not only is it an application firewall, but also gives you DNS filtering (ie. Pi-Hole basics) and DNS-over-TLS.
Full Disclosure: I'm one of the founders.
Care to name any? Other times I’ve heard things like this on HN I’ve been able to locate them.
OK here's another, very related: the ability to have apps remember their open files when you quit and re-open them.
These are significant productivity boosters, and I will miss them. It's definitely a trade-off, but now Apple has tipped the scales too much in favour of Linux...for me.
From their ad copy -
"Every MacBook Pro is equipped with the Apple T2 Security Chip — our second‑generation custom Mac silicon designed to make everything you do even more secure. It includes a Secure Enclave coprocessor that powers Touch ID and provides the foundation for secure boot and encrypted storage capabilities. It also consolidates many discrete controllers, including the system management controller, audio controller, and SSD controller, into one."
Under many jurisdictions' consumer laws, advertised features or promises by the manufacturer are not everything that they are legally held to. There is also statutory warranty, and other parts of consumer law, which can include rules on basic expectations of how that category of consumer item is expected to perform (I'm not talking CPU speeds, but major issues like a keyboard fundamentally not working at a reasonable success rate), how long it's reasonably expected to work without failing (for that category of item), and so on.
Very broad principles, but with some clear examples provided by consumer bodies to consumers, and it's reviewed on a case by case basis. You can bring it to the proverbial small claims court (or consumer complaint body), and they can review the claim.
I suppose I just won't bring up this matter to HN before. It's too alien to the US consumer situation and mustn't apply to most readers here.
You can "restore" "reasonable" security to your Mac even in the almost unthinkable light of a possible actually available exploit, that can be reasonably be expected to affect you personally, by using a strong filevault password. Maybe you want to add a tripwire (file integrity) check at boot time, or a manual check when you mount any drive.
No, the precedent you ask for does not exist. In fact, the opposite is true.
This is probably partially why I'm getting downvoted. Cultural differences. Americans are not aware of what's possible when things are actually fair for the consumer. They're used to 'tough luck' culture.
Upon further reading, I'm concluding this might not be a massive problem with other precautions in place, but the valid discussion point still remains. If a manufacturer designs a product which turns out to have a problem caused to the consumer which breaches reasonable expectations of its usability, and either needs repairing / recalling / replacing / refunding, many countries offer resource to the consumer. Under this principle, I wonder about unpatchable hardware security defects which cause a major problem...it needs to be explored more.
If I'm a lawyer, CEO, or a human rights journalist (or just anyone) who professionally needs a reasonably secure device as the normal expectation, how can it be reasonable to be required to have your laptop with you at all times in order to maintain its security?
Is there precedent in consumer law that if security integrity of hardware is a normal feature of that product category and a computer model is fundamentally unfixable in this aspect, then you have the right to demand a refund or a replacement with a model not containing the same defect? (I know that this depends on your country. My country has strong consumer law.)
It's interesting to think about where the line is there. If someone really wants to compromise your device, then they could open it up and plant a bug anyway. But this feels over the line and grounds for being a manufacturer hardware fault, because attacking it would not require to physically modify the device but to merely use the device in the manner that it already came from the manufacturer.
The headline is about them getting locked on, because that's funny, but the buried lead is actually this:
> The security researchers said they discovered a way to fool the server into disclosing the registered name of each device owner, among other personal details, as well as the co-ordinates of every location from where the app had been used.
That's some really sensitive info, with the potential to destroy some lives, or be used as blackmail material.
(I think this is a bigger problem in America than Europe.)
In either case, indeed, we need privacy (because other countries have terrible persecution around matters of mere sexuality) and as much maturity as we can muster when discussing it. I'm so proud of how mature this comment section is. Not a single giggling sexual joke in sight - at least here up at the top. Other sites would be riddled with it, with nothing serious discussed.