It’s funny that there’s a concept on earth “finite”, and it’s the default for us and we can’t compare infinity… which kinda natural if you think of it, and the default for the universe or whatever is “beyond” it, incomprehensible in size

Yeah which means we evolved to fit the moon, the moon wasn’t created for our benefit.

I agree actually.

Anything you catch Meta doing, it’s safe to assume tik tok is doing in a worse way.

Ironically Apple present themselves as the heroes of privacy, but are actually allowing Tik Tok to do thing it won’t allow Facebook to do, just because they are Facebook as a competitor

It’s really unclear from the article since the contents of the document and the guide are not described (other than “horrible”), as well as the scale of the tests.

Most likely the document contains standard procedures.

It’s not. This is exactly the problem with the article, it takes something that’s a normal procedure and makes it sound evil to people who don’t understand it.

In a “lab” I can test a change to my app on 30 devices maybe. 100 maybe if I have a bigger budget.

But still, with thousands of devices out there and an infinite amount of setups I can’t predict all the different ways a change to any piece of code can affect every single user.

As evil as Facebook are (and they are), they have ZERO interest in draining your battery. The opposite is true.

So when they create a new feature, or even make a change to something you don’t even notice about the app (I.e. the method in which images are loaded) - instead of releasing it to everyone - they release it to some… if the effect is negative, yes, these few users get fucked, but then the code is fixed, without fucking every single user.

So for example if Facebook finds a way to make images load faster, which is for the benefit of all users, one thing they need to do is make sure it doesn’t drain the battery too fast - because that would defeat the purpose.

They can’t just test it in the lab. They need to make sure it works well even if the device is on low battery mode, low/high brightness, with open apps in the background, and without, and so on and so on and so on for every single device.

The first paragraph you quoted does not come from the document, it just describes what negative tests are.

The second refers to a document titled “how to..” and the only description of it is “it contains examples of tests”… he says “it’s the most horrible document I ever read”, so I’d expect him to describe what was so horrible in it… a test of loading an image that drained the battery faster? Jesus Christ! The children! The horror!!!

That’s not how things work in real life.

Tests in “a lab” don’t represent reality, and every single company on earth expands testing to users to get real data.

That’s why new features are rolled out and not just appear for all users at once.

Of all there bad things that can be said about Facebook / Meta, this is the most story about nothing I’ve ever heard.

So basically this one guy who worked for Facebook, saw a document called “thoughtful negative testing”, describes nothing of what it contains, but assumes from it that FB was purposely draining users’ batteries, while the nypost (which is basically, the Fox News version of “People”) exaggerates it to be “life threatening”.

Every company on earth tests whether their features impact battery life, it’s not “evil”.

There’s no story here.

Let’s talk about the really bad things Mets actually does.

They know how to make space stuff happen. That’s what the gov’t needs. Harris doesn’t need to know how rockets works, she needs to know how to strategize.

So cool. You should have it recolored, might be really cool.

This graph could’ve been a sentence.