Correct - ZoomPresence.app.

The iPads are generally paired with a mac mini - they don't run the zoom room, they are just the scheduler. (The iPads also emit a subsonic signal that allows other macs to autojoin the meeting.) Source: I run this setup for a startup.

And - well before this request from ZoomPrensence.app - we were weekly rebooting these mac minis via launch daemon. Would continue to do so no matter the specific meeting app - macOS updates often require a reboot.

`softwareupdate --fetch-full-installer` is slightly more elegant!

That’s simply not true, a marketing a line from jamf. There are several serious MDMs. Of big enterprises I know of just one that uses jamf, and they augment it with many, many questionable bash scripts.

What enterprise management isn't chock full of questionable scripts?

Shit, my org has over 15,000 group policy objects that have been collecting, getting linked across OUs, and duplicated for over 15 years. The whole thing is questionable.

It works though.

> a marketing a line from jamf

My perspective comes from talking to anyone on the Apple Business team at the San Francisco union square location, and also reps from apple's general business support line.

There are definitely a ton of other MDM solutions, but none that I've heard mentioned so frequently by apple employees as JamF.

Apple has long echoed this line (part of the reason their purchasing of fleetsmith, not jamf, is surprising).

A sampling of MDMs that large companies you've heard of use:

- vmware workspace one

- bare metal micromdm

- simplemdm

- fleetsmith

- kandji

- jamf

My experience also. Apple business team recommended jamf every time.

Right but Jamf is what enables you to deploy those bash scripts reliably.

Journaling or therapy can be effective strategies. Both give you the outside perspective needed to spot patterns.

> fu Zuck > we are scared

In my opinion both completely reasonable reactions to Facebook attempting to set up a private currency.

YANAL. It certainly could be illegal, depending on the law. For instance, it is illegal for American companies to pay bribes in foreign countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act)

It's an open problem. All the proposed solutions are an invitation to or an implementation of tyranny.

There's also ethical questions around whether solving the problem is even something any human is entitled to do.

It's an open problem It's nice to see this is at least recognized.

All the proposed solutions are an invitation to or an implementation of tyranny. Such a categorical claim (universal Quantifier!) from someone that probably has zero background in voting theory and not enough in epistemology e.g cognitive biases and logical fallacies.

You make such a powerful claim but honestly, in all sincerity: All the proposed solutions How many alternatives are you aware? 1? Dictature ? Two maybe ?

You don't know what you don't know and me neither but at least I know that I don't know what I don't know. The best solution to me is the one I co-designed with my brother, it is not public and will only be when I'll have a mature software implementation. But public solutions that are still an improvement would be for exemple an epistocracy semi-direct. I can explain it to you if you're open to the possibility of changing your mind about "representative" democracy being the least worst governing system.

There's also ethical questions around whether solving the problem is even something any human is entitled to do. No.

I'm no expert. My universal qualifier is based on sci-fi fever dreams and ugly history.

> There's also ethical questions around whether solving the problem is even something any human is entitled to do. No.

I'm more interested in hearing you explain this.

You're almost there. "Fixing" that problem - and you'll find many folks who don't want the federal government to have ID information for everyone - is not simple. In the meantime, multifarious ID laws will empower discrimination and disenfranchisement.

What about the disenfranchisement of citizens who's will is overrun by people not eligible to vote? Are you really trying to convince me that we should make our elections insecure because some people want to vote in federal election while simultaneously not wanting the federal government to have their ID. You do realize you have to register to vote right? Why should we all make our election insecure for people who don't even trust the government themselves?

Because its a free country, because a federal ID disenfranchises those who will find it difficult or impossible to get such an ID, because not trusting the government is the whole point of the US constitution.