A new version of iOS can be be uploaded to a phone when it's put into DFU mode without a passcode and without wiping out the data.
This is precisely why I went with Insteon smart switches with an ISY994i and Homebridge for interfacing to my phone. It is completely and totally under my control and I have not trusted any outside company with the keys (literally) to my house.
The problem is that the above solution only works for a nerd such as myself. There is 0% chance your average home owner could get their smartphone to control their house without the help of the "cloud" (in this case a thermostat that phones home every so often).
Just buy a Tesla already
Battery based cars tend to do very poorly in very cold countries.
And has anyone done the math on how much pollution is created during the lifecycle of those lithium ion batteries?
They have to be made (hint, they're not made from daisies and dandelions). Recharged (fossil fuel fired plants) and disposed of.
I'll just leave this here (and probably get mod'd to hell).
Anyone who thinks "sales figures" are what determines who is winning the smartphone war needs a lesson in business. Apple is making 60% of the profit by selling 20% of the devices. And you think their making a mistake?
Our country makes it too easy for nutcases to have guns. I, for one, would give up the right to bear arms for everyone, and not miss it.
This wasn't shot on film. The exposure time in digital has nothing to do with the frame rate.
I didn't realize it was shot digitally, but you're statement isn't completely true. If you shoot something at 48FPS then the slowest possible frame rate you can have is 1/48th of a second in digital. Digital does give you the chance have a faster shutter speed though.
Here's the kicker though, in film you have to double it. So 24fps would give you 1/48th shutter speed (half open half closed) meaning the motion blur for 48fps digital vs 24fps film should be the same, which explains why they picked 48fps - it afforded them the option to do either 48fps, slow motion or 24fps in post without giving anything up (except disk space).
Because the shutter is fixed, the exposure time of each frame is directly related to the frame rate. Lower frame rate = longer exposure = more motion blur in the frame. Shorter frame rate = shorter exposure = less motion blur in each frame. You need more light to shoot at a higher frame rate to keep the same aperture setting.
So, if they do project this at 24 frames per second (by throwing away half the frames in post), the frames will not have the necessary motion blur and it will actually look worse because half the frames are missing. This could also probably be fixed in post, but that would be a pretty big hack for such a large production.
"We live, in a very kooky time." -- Herb Blashtfalt