There isn't much to fear here. Web Bluetooth has been around nearly ten years now and nothing monumental has sprung forth from it. It is wonderfully convenient to have at your fingertips, especially in the ChromeOS world, but it's not gonna turn everyone's devices into Flipper Zero targets.
The request definitely comes from the leagues' broadcast partners, right? They would want as many eyeballs concentrated in as few places as possible so they can sell ads for more.
My first eye-opening moment working within the government was with team of herpetologists at the state conservation agency. They had a pretty slick public education campaign around protecting Gopher Tortoise habitats and a grand call-to-action "let the agency know where and when they see their nests". The whole thing fell apart because they were getting tons of earnestly-submitted junk data from earnestly-engaged citizens. Turns out the application was just a form that they asked people to fill out. I suggested they ask for user photos and scrape the EXIF data or ask them to opt-into sending their location and got laughed out of the room. Turns out that they discovered users immediately nope out of government websites that ask for their location! What a shame.
A colleague of mine tried doing this after a large sturgeon die off in the San Francisco Bay a few years ago. Citizens were asked to upload photos of dead sturgeon washed up on beaches. They actually got pretty good data (sturgeon are very easily identifiable) and lots of participation, but the location data ending up being largely useless because it was fuzzed (I think by iOS?) to a large enough degree to no longer be helpful, and the fields for manual coordinate entry had very low usage
Oh that's fascinating. I hadn't considered OS-level fuzzing as a hurdle until now. I'm an pixel guy and typically I get decently-accurate location heatmaps in the Photos app when I search by location; I wonder how we would have handled this. HABs are so difficult, they break my heart.
How does iOS decide whether to default to including location?
I coulda sworn, even in earlier versions of iOS 26, if you told it not to include location when sending a photo once then it would not include it by default the next time.
Also I thought that when you uploaded a photo from your camera roll to the web I thought it defaulted to no location. And that seems to have changed too. (Of course, you can still tap a button to withhold location EXIF.)
I wonder if there would be any way to fix this with the right messaging. With infinite funding and the right agency cooperation, I bet you could include this in a state parks app that you could also use for other useful purposes, like pulling up trail maps, paying for parking and camping, fishing licensing, signing up for volunteer events, receiving notifications with news around particular parks you frequent, etc.
But in the real world, if you put a QR code at the trailhead and said "take a picture of this code. When you see a tortoise nest, use the code to go to our website and share your exact location."
If people are wary of sharing their location with the conservation agency, you might have better luck if the website was run by a nongovernmental conservation group?
> I bet you could include this in a state parks app that you could also use for other useful purposes, like pulling up trail maps, paying for parking and camping, fishing licensing, signing up for volunteer events, receiving notifications with news around particular parks you frequent, etc.
I wanted us to do this so badly; inter-agency coordination was the biggest issue with I had with large-scale projects. The funny part about your comment is that each feature you listed was a function that a different agency or contractor handled. I won't name names, but the agency I worked for had better-than-expected public outreach and engagement and were organizationally flexible enough to get low-footprint, high-impact conservation PR like this out the door and in front of people in time to make a difference. But in state government, the idea of several agencies pooling resources for a permanent app store project is totally pie-in-the-sky thinking largely because nobody has the bandwidth to contribute. I'm trying to imagine submitting a PR to 'The State Parks App' org board to get this form shipped and in every instance, I'm getting yelled at.
> If people are wary of sharing their location with the conservation agency, you might have better luck if the website was run by a nongovernmental conservation group?
Our NGO partners were incredible for this sort of thing. People legitimately do not think twice about pinging a facebook group run by, say, the local aquarium and including their location, a description of the site, and photos of what they found. Social media removes a lot of metadata from uploads - they probably keep it someplace and I just can't get at it without a brokerage, idk - but it still gets better results than we did. One fix for the tortoise problem was to supply personal trail maps and golf pencils at trail heads. Hikers were encouraged to take them, mark on the map where they saw burrows along the trail, and put them in a box at the end of the trail/parking lot/ranger station. Park rangers would scan in the maps and upload the scans to our internal site and we would work it out from there.
Well that's just it - in most of the submissions the coordinates weren't supplied at all, and when any location information was given it would come down to just a city name or a park name. They're trying to pipe these results into ArcGIS to inform park rangers where to reroute trails, public works departments where to survey before digging, and real estate developers which lots need proper relocation assistance before building on. They were depending on the average citizen to know how to fill out a technical field in this form and to do so accurately, and without and form validation. The whole project needed re-thinking.
Sounds like a combination of 'can it be geocoded?' and 'is their location precise enough?' There is some progress on resolving human-written locations in cities ( https://www.danvk.org/2026/03/08/oldnyc-updates.html ) but I imagine once you lose reference points, '100 feet into Golden Gate Park...' would be interpretable but not possible to fix to one point.
You're absolutely right. Highways are a little better since they have mile markers, but once you get into a nature preserve you're dealing with a whole bunch of "If you pass the pond with the cattails on your left, you've gone too far." Fishermen, it turned out, LOVED sending coordinates for stuff they saw so long as their fishing spot wasn't nearby.
I've also noticed that iNaturalist also fuzzes exact locations for some species within a geographic grid (example: zebra) even the ranch zebra in California.
I get the reflex to deny permissions (and I also get the reflex to allow anything, in the interest of just getting the annoying pop-up to go away), but it's really tiresome that we have to expect people to avoid thinking even the least bit critically at every juncture.
If you're filling out a form with the express purpose of letting someone know specifically where something is... a request for location information is reasonable, duh. And I won't accept the "people are busy and don't have the time and energy to think this through" excuse. If you're taking the time to fill out this form, then yes, you have the time -- seconds, at most -- to think this through in this particular case.
Right because that has worked so well with PCs over the last 40 years. Do you remember the people that had a dozen toolbars on their browser because if bundleware? Not to mention viruses and ransomware.
I wouldn't take it that far. For most users we spoke to, its often a reflex to deny location privilege popups, and on mobile it wasn't easy enough to fix once denied. However for some of the less-engaged folks who might be out in the park casually and stumbled on something worth sharing, the idea that we need their exact location probably sounded overbearing.
"I told them which park I was in, that should be enough!"
Yeah no kidding the vulnerable animal population is in the park, that's where all their threats are removed. But sometimes "the park" is 60,000 acres and it would be nice if you could help narrow it down.
Or the permission prompt isn't clearly worded or precise enough to understand whether you are allowing the location of this one photo to be shared, versus agreeing to some ongoing tracking...
A government agency, which might even have good use for the data, isn't the problem. The problem is sending your precise location to Facebook and a two dozen silly little games and a note app, which all sell this data to anyone and their brother.
By framing the problem as being with untrustworthy government agencies rather than with greedy data brokers selling data everywhere, you are part of the problem. You may distrust your government as much as you'd like, but before we solve the problems with private data brokers, we can never improve the situation.
The difference is that private brokers don’t have “a monopoly on [legslized] violence”. Facebook doesn’t have an army of masked jack booted thugs with military gear.
Sure, but those masked thugs of yours can simply buy what they need from Facebook. They have deep pockets and it would not even be an inconvenience for them. In fact, for at least for political systems with checks and balances, subcontracting to data brokers carry huge upsides of minimizing responsibilities.
Again, very rough. We go round and round on things. Loving to decompose, debate and determine how we want to tackle all these large and interesting areas :)
You should try getting _extremely_ good at Trading Card Games. Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, and Magic The Gathering all have extremely active current player bases and loads of places to play across the Americas, Europe, and (mostly east) Asia. Getting deep into card advantage, deck construction, and hypergeometric theory has been an absolute blast. Plus, the online simulators are free for Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon are free and pretty current with the paper game. Making new friendships with people not in my usual circles has been so rewarding, I can't recommend it enough. Not to mention the most meaningful contribution of all - winning events moves the needle on the way the rest of the playerbase plays the game. I could go on and on about this.
This is a wonderful-looking infographic, but I truly don't think there are 49 GPUs that mattered in the PC gaming hardware space - let alone all of computer graphics. Call it recency bias, but after the Pascal cards it feels like maybe one or two more entrants actually mattered?
With the release of D3D9 in 2002, GPUs of different vendors didn't really stand out anymore since they all implemented the same feature set anyway (and that's a good thing).
IMO there’s room for something more recent, maybe a Titan or something, to stand in as an avatar for making GPUs as compute accelerators a thing. I know that’s been going on forever, but at some point it went from some niche hacky thing to a primary use-case for the cards.
But yeah this list has a on of incremental bumps on it. Maybe there was some mixing of cards that mattered historically and cards that mattered to the author.
Nvidia Turing (RTX 20) definitely marked a major shift IMO.
- It was the first card to enable real-time ray-traced effects.
- Mesh shaders are a significant overhaul of the geometry pipeline that's only recently getting real traction.
- Its tensor cores enabled a new generation of AI-driven upscaling/antialiasing. DLSS 2, FSR 4 and XeSS are all some variation of "TAA + neural networks", and these all rely on specialized matrix hardware to get optimal performance.
Obviously all of these features are supported across all vendors. Intel Arc Alchemist has all of these features as well, and AMD got RT and mesh shader support with RDNA2 along with slowly building up to tensor cores with RDNA3/4. But Turing clearly debuted these feature which have majorly changed the landscape of realtime 3D graphics.
Outstanding article; I'm glad you put these thoughts into words and published them because I've felt similarly this week since I've had time and reason to reminisce on my 2010 MacBook. I had AutoCAD on that poor little computer, working at the pace it could handle.
This is such a better deal than I had growing up, Apple has to be taking a bath on these.
My high school required students to bring their own laptops to school when I started in 2010. Their shopping list suggested a MacBook Pro 13" with a case - I looked up "MacBook Pro price" for the first time in my life and just about walked into traffic. I didn't have a laptop to bring, I didn't want to bring the wrong kind of laptop and get double-screwed, so I bit the bullet and brought my car savings to the Apple store at the mall. A tremendously thoughtful sales rep told me "that's crazy, what school requires a MacBook Pro for 9th graders?", led me to the white unibody MacBooks on the side, and showed me that if I was buying it for school, I would get a discount on the laptop, a free inkjet printer (with ink!), and a free iPod Touch. This blew my mind. I thought it was a scam.
If I recall, that model of MacBook compared admirably against the same year's base model MacBook Pro 13 on a stat sheet but felt worse in hand. The MacBook Neo might actually bring up the rear on fit and finish at the expense of I/O and like, the questionable idea of running an A-series chip in a laptop running Tahoe and Chrome. I'm thrilled with this release.
Wow props to that sales rep. Not many would pass on the opportunity to sell something more expensive. I'm assuming they make some sort of (paltry) commission
I've had a similar experience with Apple Store employees many, many times: I walk in and vaguely describe what I want, and they steer me to the cheapest item they sell that could possibly meet my stated requirements.
I've also returned Apple products multiple times, once (recently) without the packaging, and once several days past the return window. They refunded me every time, no questions asked.
This makes me wonder if it's part of their training?
It is - you’re not trained to upsell, only to give the customer what they need to do what they want.
Can be a little annoying (an employee actively tried to downsell my partner, even though they knew what they wanted), but overall it’s a nice practice.
That assumption would be wrong, and is why you get that kind of service from them. They may have targets of units sold but the real target is customer satisfaction and part of that is getting the customer into the right product so they're happy with it
They are a highly NPS driven operation. It makes sense: if you keep NPS above a certain threshold each sale begets additional sales from other customers. They manage people and places to what customers say in NPS surveys but don’t allow tolerate soliciting ratings. It’s simple, thus scalable.
My experience is that they are more focused on finding the right product for your needs. I've been there more than once where they happily downsell a customer.
At some point in the 2000s I was buying a laptop at an Apple retail store, and just before we processed the transaction the salesperson asked if I was a student.
> I'm assuming they make some sort of (paltry) commission
I worked at an Apple Store in 2010. There was no commission. I was a sales person at the time.
A college student had a bad interaction with one of our sales people and asked a manager to be helped by a female employee. We had none available and I was asked to assist her because I wasn't aggressive.
An asshole pathological liar, who later got fired, had tried to upsell her for no reason. The MacBooks with Intel processors were plenty fast. A 13" MacBook Pro was more expensive and offered no benefits for her student needs. I don't remember the rest other than she bought the MacBook, which was what she wanted when she came in.
> This is such a better deal than I had growing up, Apple has to be taking a bath on these.
Apple doesn't sell anything where they're taking a bath; their margins have been high 30's to low 40's for many years. All of the technology in the Neo already existed; they didn't have to create anything new.
To me the price seems to be so uncharactaristically low for Apple during a time where hardware prices are rising across the board that this almost feels like an attempt to try and capture the desktop market. During a time where Microsoft is fumbling with Windows on every front, having a competitively priced Macbook even for budget-concious people seems like a smart move that will pay off even without direct high margins.
Capture the student market 100%. I’d buy one for my kids tomorrow. These machines are made with an iPhone chip so they’re going to be great at browsing the web and studying. I wouldn’t buy one for myself To do actual work on but for light users it’s the perfect device. Start them early and get them hooked in the ecosystem so they’re grow up and keep buying iPhones, Apple Watches, AirPods, and iPads.
You have to compare with the base iPad, which costs only about half of the Neo. The Neo adds a keyboard (but without Touch ID for the base model), a larger screen but without touch, a somewhat better but also binned SoC (which the next iPad refresh will very likely also get) and more storage. It seems roughly in line, relative to the price difference.
It's more expensive if you want Touch ID, and on par ($350 + $250) if you don't. However, the $250 Magic Keyboard is heavily overpriced, the actual keyboard can't be more than $10-20.
Anecdotally, at universities now, it seems like across domains, iPads are increasingly popular as ways to take notes and study. I wonder what the business model is here given their similar use cases with the neo for the student.
Why? Lots of companies sell Windows Laptops for under $200 (a 1/3rd the price of this). Personally I'd expect Apple's costs to be lower. Plus, Apple gets services money (iCloud, AppleTV+, ...)
reply