From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Updated to iOS 27 last night. It seems my Notifications now have a gray background which makes them ugly and hard to read. Also all my groupings of icons have a gray background.

https://ibb.co/Zj5pTw3
https://ibb.co/prwVnYhr

IrCOve played around with the Display and Accessibility settings but canrCOt seem to change this. Does anyone know how to fix this?
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

badgolferman wrote:

Updated to iOS 27 last night. It seems my Notifications now have a gray background which makes them ugly and hard to read. Also all my groupings of icons have a gray background.

https://ibb.co/Zj5pTw3
https://ibb.co/prwVnYhr

Iove played around with the Display and Accessibility settings but canot
seem to change this. Does anyone know how to fix this?

Hi badgolferman,

I have no idea, but I looked it up and it appears perhaps this is iOS 27's
new Liquid Glass appearance, rather than something you accidentally changed
in Accessibility, where Apple moved the relevant control in iOS 27.

The setting that affects both notification cards and the gray/translucent backgrounds behind Home Screen folders is apparently located at
Settings > Appearance > Liquid Glass
There is a slider there where moving it to the left makes it more clear.
Move it to the right and it's more opaque which makes gray more obvious.

Seems to me you don't want the extremes, but you want to be a bit left.

The setting applies system-wide, including notifications and Home Screen folders according to MacRumours.
<https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/ios-27-tone-down-liquid-glass-transparency/>

Apple says that this additional setting below makes transparent interface elements substantially more solid so set Reduce Transparency to off in
Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text Size
<https://support.apple.com/en-ie/guide/iphone/iph3e2e1fb0/27/ios/27>

If this doesn't help, I guarantee your money will be refunded in the mail.

BTW, you were wrong to claim that the USA accident rate, which has been
kept since the 1920s, and which is reliable, is "cherry picked" just
because you don't like that it doesn't support your religious belief
system.

You owe me an apology.

Just as I would give you if I said something that absurd, since I trust you
to act like an educated adult, where saying all statistics you don't like
must ge "cherry picked" is an absurd thing for an adult to claim.

It doesn't bother me when the Apple religious zealots make that claim.
Because that's what religious zealot nutcases do.

But I had assumed you had an education where nobody educated could possibly claim that cellphones never existed during the period we said they did.

To wit:
a. The US accident rate is NOT cherry picked, no matter what you claim.
b. The time that cellphones were introduced is NOT cherry picked either.

For you to make that claim, was just absurd.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Maria Sophia wrote:

badgolferman wrote:

Updated to iOS 27 last night. It seems my Notifications now have a
gray background which makes them ugly and hard to read. Also all
my groupings of icons have a gray background.

https://ibb.co/Zj5pTw3
https://ibb.co/prwVnYhr

IN++ve played around with the Display and Accessibility settings but >>canN++t seem to change this. Does anyone know how to fix this?

Hi badgolferman,

I have no idea, but I looked it up and it appears perhaps this is iOS
27's new Liquid Glass appearance, rather than something you
accidentally changed in Accessibility, where Apple moved the relevant
control in iOS 27.

The setting that affects both notification cards and the
gray/translucent backgrounds behind Home Screen folders is apparently
located at Settings > Appearance > Liquid Glass
There is a slider there where moving it to the left makes it more
clear. Move it to the right and it's more opaque which makes gray
more obvious.

Seems to me you don't want the extremes, but you want to be a bit
left.

The setting applies system-wide, including notifications and Home
Screen folders according to MacRumours.

<https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/ios-27-tone-down-liquid-glass-transparency/>

Apple says that this additional setting below makes transparent
interface elements substantially more solid so set Reduce
Transparency to off in Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text
Size
<https://support.apple.com/en-ie/guide/iphone/iph3e2e1fb0/27/ios/27>

If this doesn't help, I guarantee your money will be refunded in the
mail.

Thank you Arlen that worked! Apparently you used the correct words in
your search attempts on the internet.

BTW, you were wrong to claim that the USA accident rate, which has
been kept since the 1920s, and which is reliable, is "cherry picked"
just because you don't like that it doesn't support your religious
belief system.

You owe me an apology.

Just as I would give you if I said something that absurd, since I
trust you to act like an educated adult, where saying all statistics
you don't like must ge "cherry picked" is an absurd thing for an
adult to claim.

It doesn't bother me when the Apple religious zealots make that
claim. Because that's what religious zealot nutcases do.

But I had assumed you had an education where nobody educated could
possibly claim that cellphones never existed during the period we
said they did.

To wit:
a. The US accident rate is NOT cherry picked, no matter what you
claim. b. The time that cellphones were introduced is NOT cherry
picked either.

For you to make that claim, was just absurd.

I will apologize to you for not providing proof of my statements,
something which you go to great lengths to provide. My assertion is
based on my own 45 years of experience as a government contractor
providing raw data collection services to federal bureaus that create
official reports and studies of environmental trends. I have been in
meetings where the lead scientist did not like the results of the
processed data and ordered the algorithms "corrected" to get the
results he was trying to achieve. Needless to say, I have become quite skeptical of studies that claim something which common sense disagrees
with. I'm not claiming to be 100% correct, I just don't believe
everything science says.

https://ibb.co/qLbjzhjZ
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

badgolferman wrote:

If this doesn't help, I guarantee your money will be refunded in the
mail.

Thank you Arlen that worked! Apparently you used the correct words in
your search attempts on the internet.

Hi badgolferman,

Oh. Thank God. I'm glad it worked.
I needed the money and didn't want to return it, with interest. :)

You owe me an apology.
For you to make that claim, was just absurd.

I will apologize to you for not providing proof of my statements,
something which you go to great lengths to provide. My assertion is
based on my own 45 years of experience as a government contractor
providing raw data collection services to federal bureaus that create official reports and studies of environmental trends. I have been in meetings where the lead scientist did not like the results of the
processed data and ordered the algorithms "corrected" to get the
results he was trying to achieve. Needless to say, I have become quite skeptical of studies that claim something which common sense disagrees
with. I'm not claiming to be 100% correct, I just don't believe
everything science says.

Apologies accepted. You didn't even L@@K at the data before declaring it
was "cherry picked", which is simply absurd given the data is only this:
1. The years between when cellphones were introduced to saturation
2. The number of accidents reported during those years, before & after
3. The number of miles driven for those same periods

All this is good data.
None of it is "cherry picked".

That data shows EXACTLY what one would expect if they UNDERSTOOD what
causes vehicular accidents, which is speed, intoxication & not following
the laws, e.g., running stop signs, red lights, failure to yield, etc.).

That's what causes most accidents.
Not distracted driving.

Anyone who UNDERSTOOD the data would UNDERSTAND that first & foremost. Furthermore, people have been handling distractions while driving since the 1920s, so adding yet another distraction is simply something new to handle.

I never once said distractions don't cause accidents.
And I never once said a cellphone isn't an added distraction.
Only a fool says that, and I'm no fool.

All I asked is why do people THINK the accident rate would be affected by cellphones when distractions are a minor cause of accidents in the first
place, and worse, cellphone distractions are simply one more out of a
hundred that people handle every minute that they drive a vehicle.

Mostly what I got in response was people claiming, like you did, that the
data is bad, but the whole point I'm making is the data is damn good data.

So what people need to do is adjust their belief system.
Which was the main point of me writing the thread in the first place.

If you learned something, then I'm happy, as that was my overall goal.
'nuff said.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

badgolferman wrote:

My assertion is
based on my own 45 years of experience as a government contractor
providing raw data collection services to federal bureaus that create official reports and studies of environmental trends. I have been in meetings where the lead scientist did not like the results of the
processed data and ordered the algorithms "corrected" to get the
results he was trying to achieve. Needless to say, I have become quite skeptical of studies that claim something which common sense disagrees
with. I'm not claiming to be 100% correct, I just don't believe
everything science says.

Hi badgolferman,

As for "skewed" data, almost everything that a government entity claims is subject to that bias, which I don't doubt your experience on one bit.

Luckily I only worked "with" the government (i.e., a TLA in Fort Meade) but never "for" the government, and, well, you can't trust anything any TLA
says anyway. For example, they'd have a software problem where they were missing all the data that EVERY company would have, but they claimed they didn't have it, and I STILL had to make the software work, for them.

I complained to my boss about it, only in terms of I thought they were
making me do more work than was necessary, but my boss pulled me aside and explained things to me that would be obvious to me, now, 60 years later.

The point being, I agree we can't trust everything (or even anything) the government tells us as they tell us things to make it believe it.

I rarely get political on Usenet, but just listen to the crap that Trump
spews, where I can't believe he's that stupid so he is simply trying to
make us parrot the propaganda that he spews, much as any world leader does.

Putin is exceptionally good at that, where I do not object to you looking
at the data and, after looking at it, telling me what's wrong with it.

For example, when it gets to second-order effects, there are TONS of ways government entities can skew the data (e.g., injuries/fatalities) to make almost any point that they want to make. For example... see below.

But my data is 1st-order data, which is MUCH HARDER to skew.

============< cut below for example of 2nd-order data >=============

Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident
rate?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 00:42:28 +1200
Message-ID: <11935rk$19ch$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

While it's trivial to compare crash data to cellphone ownership trends
by simple arithmetic, where we only need to account for the well reported
a. Total number of accidents
b. Divided by total number of miles driven
c. For the periods before, during and after cellphones skyrocketed

A lot of the data is clouded by "injuries" and "fatalities", which are second-order effects (as the accident has to happen for their to be them).

Not only does an accident have to happen to have injuries and fatalities,
but many other factors play a role, such as the speed at which emergency services arrives, and the availability of local medivac transport, etc.

Nonetheless, we get some idea of what actually causes accidents in
this "copyright 2026 National Safety Council" report on
*Distracted Driving*

<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/distracted-driving/>
And
*Improper Driving and Road Rage*

<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/improper-driving-and-road-rage/>
Which reports:
Speed too fast or unsafe 18.8%
Failure to yield right-of-way 8.4%
Careless driving 7.6%
Improper lane usage 5.2%
But bear in mind those are for *fatal* crashes, which, while useful and
while interesting, my argument is about crashes, which are first-order.

While it's notoriously difficult to ascertain how much any given
driver is using a cellphone while driving, pertinent is this statement
"Over the last 10 years, the prevalence of drivers using hand-held
cell phones at any given daylight moment has decreased from 3.8%
of drivers in 2015 to 1.9% in 2024."

"The percentage of drivers manipulating hand-held electronic devices
has increased 104%, from 2.2% in 2015 to 4.5% in 2024. Among other
activities, this observation includes text messaging. Drivers
observed with visible headsets remain low at 0.5% in 2024."

The main problem is *how* they collect that data, which I've reported
in the past (a decade or more ago) was done by red-light observations.

For those who wish to look at 2nd-order effects (e.g., fatalities),
this reference breaks down the cause of fatalities state by state.
*Fatality Facts 2024, State by state*
<https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state#yearly-snapshot>

Please bear in mind fatalities are NOT what I'm talking about,
because, while they're important, they're a 2nd-order effect
which has many more statistical complications (e.g., how long
it takes an ambulance to arrive) than just 1st-order crashes.
--
People tend to parrot propaganda without ever looking at the data.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2