Hello all:
the subject says it all.
sometimes and for unknown reason, the whatsapp on mac logged out, and i have to relink again to my phone.
Scanning the qr code is really so hard, i got it just one time.
but, is there a better way to do so?
linking with phone number is not available on the mac app,
do not know if this is related to My country or what, but the only solution is scanning the QR,
any help will be highly appreciated
Comments
still need your help and ideas please
am still waiting your ideas to link my whatsapp
QR Code is not that hard
Because 1 there is indeed no other option, 2 what I do is have screen brightness at 100, try to get fullscreen though I am pretty sure it's not very possible, and roughly move my phone around the centre of the screen and it usually works, it can just take 1-2 minutes sometimes.
There's already a accessible solution...
That beeing, as others have said; scanning the qr. That's the only way to link whats app. I think there might, be a manual linking too but if there is, linking via qr is easier and faster.
tried but failed
I tried all your ideas,
screen brightness etc, but same resulots
\
This is what I do
First, make sure there are no notifications, pop-ups, hidden windows, or system alerts visible on your Mac screen. Any of these can interfere with WhatsApp's ability to recognize the QR code when linking your Mac.
Next, position your Mac screen as close to a 90-degree angle as possible. On your iPhone, open WhatsApp and go to the Linked Devices section. When the QR code scanner appears, tap OK to activate the recognition screen.
What consistently works for me is placing the iPhone near the bottom edge of the Mac, around the touchpad area, while keeping the phone upright at roughly a 90-degree angle as well.
QR Code Login Issues
It used to be really easy to scan the WhatsApp QR code on Windows, but lately I have found it a bit hit and miss.
On Windows, the useful workaround is the “log in with phone number” option. With that method, you type your phone number into WhatsApp on the PC, choose the same linking option on your phone, and the phone gives you a code. You then type that code into the PC and you are logged in. For me, that option can be a lifesaver.
The QR code method seems much less reliable in the dark. If I try it at night, when the room is basically pitch black, it is much more hit and miss. My computer is next to a window at roughly a 90-degree angle, so during the day the screen gets a fair bit of light at certain times, and that seems to help. Even then, though, it can still take a few tries.
I am not sure exactly what changed. It feels as if the QR code may have been moved. I remember it being nearer the top left of the screen, but now I think it may be closer to the bottom right. That could be part of why people are having trouble lining the phone up with it.
As for the Mac version, I cannot test it myself because I do not use a Mac. WhatsApp’s help pages do mention linking with a phone number for linked devices, but if the Mac app you are using does not show that option, then it may not be available in that version, region, or particular Mac app interface.
One thing that might be worth trying is WhatsApp Web in a browser on the Mac, rather than the Mac desktop app. If WhatsApp Web offers the phone-number linking option there, it may avoid the QR code problem. If it does not, then unfortunately the only remaining option may be to make the QR code as easy to scan as possible: turn the screen brightness up, remove any pop-ups or notifications, keep the screen straight, and slowly move the phone around the screen until the scanner catches it.
tried but failed
THanks all so much for your suggestions.
I tried all things,
believe me all things,
but failed,
Just want to thank you for this.
i will wait a sited assistance to help
You're not alone
I have never been able to find the QR code when doing this - it drives me crazy. I will try some of the suggestions above and see if I can find the knack but it is is infuriating. I think it's also one of those apps you need to use all the time or it will end the session and you need to do it all over again.
One other thought I just had would be to use an AI image app like Be My Eyes, PiccyBot or whatever and ask it to describe what is on your screen. Then it could probably give you an idea of exactly whereabouts the QR code is, and if it is properly visible.
Also, obvious thing but make sure screen curtain isn't on. (I only mention this because it has tripped me up when using VOCR a few times)
Be my eies
I tried be my eyes as a first idea,
the volunteer Told me that the QR is visible,
but when scanning, he couldn't see what i'm seeing now, because when you switch the Be my eyes to open whatsapp, the camera will not work.
but the qr is visible, and screen curtain is off.
a sited assistance is a must
I did it with the help of a sited assistance,
shame on whatspap that there is no other option for that.
QR code scanning**
Yesterday, I was setting up WhatsApp and ran into the same issue. I hadn't experienced this problem on Windows.
I managed to solve it this way:
1. Open WhatsApp on your Mac in full-screen mode.
2. Open the device-linking screen on your iPhone.
3. Hold your iPhone in landscape orientation, with its rear cameras facing the Mac's display (where the QR code is shown). Position the iPhone in the center of the display and adjust its height so that the side edge with the volume buttons is level with the top edge of the Mac's display.
4. Move the iPhone close to the Mac's screen, leaving approximately 10 cm (4 inches) between the iPhone's rear camera and the Mac's display.
5. The devices should then pair automatically. I knew it had worked because my iPhone vibrated and the window on my Mac changed.
you hav the option to link with phone number from what i know of
i'm not sure of if this is just on the web and the app but i know it igzists
Phone Number vs QR Code
I still can't get it to recognise the QR code even with the above instructions.
The Mac app has no option to link with a phone number as far as I can tell. However, the web version does. So I was able to login there, but sadly the app still wants the QR code. I guess one option would be to make the web site into a Safari web app and use it like that and forget trying to use the app.
Re: Phone Number vs QR Code
yeah hold on, i'll install the app on my mac and see myself. i thought the app was still in my downloads folder, but nope. aparintly i can keep 665 other things in my downloads folder, but not the whatsapp disk image
can conferm
yea you need to scan a qr code. well that sucks
Use the App Store version
Last time I had this problem, it stemmed from using the WhatsApp version downloaded from the official site; the iOS WhatsApp client would simply not recognize the QR Code produced by that version for whatever reason. Deleting it and downloading the App Store version of WhatsApp fixed the problem.
OK found a way in
OK this is a totally stupid way to fix the problem, but I think it works. I asked Claude to write me a little app. Basically you start WhatsApp, get to the QR code then start this app up. What it does is it monitors the WhatsApp app for the QR code, and recreates it much bigger. I pointed my phone at it and it let me in immediately.
Sorry, choom, I know you will hate this solution. And I can say I've tried it exactly once, which is pretty much all that anyone needs, but I will post it once I have got it sorted it github in case it is useful to anyone else.
I've only tried with the app store version of WhatsApp.
WhatsApp QR Magnifier app
Oh that was easier than I thought. Please bear in mind that this is code written by Claude that I haven't verified, and I have only run the app once (the app store versoin). These are the instructions from Claude if anyone wants to try it:
Get it
Install it
Log in to WhatsApp
Re: OK found a way in
This is not about me, but rather about the recklessness of normalizing trusting random Internet strangers with system security. In a single post you are promoting a vibe-coded app that's not even notarized by Apple and requires screen capturing privileges to solve a non-existing problem. Even if you didn't intentionally include malware in your code, there's a medium chance that it unintentionally ships malware if you are as lax with security as you expect others to be here.
Re: OK found a way in
Yes I do get your point that having a principal of just running every executable you find on the internet is going to probably get you in trouble. I would hope that I am not a total stranger to a lot of people on here, and personally I would be disappointed if anyone genuinely thought I would do anything malicious. You can ask the great white sharks in my swimming pool - I feed them very well with the British secret service agents who visit me in my volcanic underground lair. I understand they are very plump and nutritious.
But to get to the point. I have never been able to get logged into this app. I've tried a number of times over the years and never been able to do it. I asked Claude and in absolutely no time at all I had a solution that worked immediately. It felt a little selfish not to share it. The source code is all there - you can have a look and pour scorn on me if you like. Build it yourself if you don't trust my build. Or ask ChatGPT, Claude, or whoever to write it for you - it'll probably take less time then for us to debate the pros and cons of my contribution.
Anyway I knew given that I'd seen your name in this post that sharing this would likely get me in trouble. And I do get what you are saying. But what would you prefer me do? Get this working on my own and not mention it? Or keep the source to myself? That doesn't feel like a very helpful way either. I'm not paying £100 a year for the privilege of sharing it with the world.
Guys, can we not?
I'm not going to go into this whole AI debate. You all already know my thoughts on it. I have no reason to say anything more.
I'm just going to say that if it helps a certain person, if it's made with AI, then why complain? If it's helping somebody then that's the least of your worries. I understand why people are talking about security but if you're going to really make points about AI-made apps being a threat to security, then do the same with non-AI-made apps.
Thank you
Re: OK found a way in
It's not just that. You might even have a good intention, but if your security is as lax as you expect other people's to be, then you might be infected with malware which you can unintentionally spread through your compiled code. Notarization exists precisely to mitigate against this problem; it doesn't offer any protection against the intentional distribution of unknown malware, but it offers some protection against known threats.
Re: OK found a way in
To be fair to Choom, and IMO he's being overly harsh/critical and I think what you've done is fine, I don't think the problem is you being malicious. I mean, since you've used Claude:
https://doublepulsar.com/anthropic-hacked-to-deliver-remote-access-trojan-to-claude-developer-laptops-worldwide-1148a92baae2
So. How do you know whether or not something like that's being inserted into your code? Like I said, I think Choom's being overly critical. I think if people get things working, and we can help each other, great. I mean I've played around with Turnover a bit and my system hasn't exploded or anything. But this is kind of an important question to consider. If you can't check your code, then how do you know what's happening to it, and what it's doing when it runs?
Re: Guys, can we not?
The whole point here is security, not AI.
Re: OK found a way in
Notarization isn't a full blocker though. It's on the person who uses the machine. In my opinion whether they wanted to install the software or not. Notarization can pretty easily be bypassed, I've done it before.
I personally wouldn't install this on my computer, mainly because I can use WhatsApp for web, which has the option to link using your phone number, but also just because I don't like Claude. Claude almost sent my website Skyways so I'm not touching it. I'd much prefer something made with Gemini or Codex because they are far better although I haven't used a Gemini-made AI programme, which is fair because Gemini isn't meant for coding
Re: OK found a way in
I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. I did not say that Notarization was infallible, quite the opposite, I explicitly mentioned that it doesn't protect against the intentional distribution of malware, however it does protect against some unintentional distribution of malware by looking for known malware that might have been inserted in the compiled code from a compromised developer machine.
Hopefully one last word from me about this
I am aware that this could very easily go further and further off topic into the realms of debating vibe coding, and I don't want that to happen as we have another place for that. I actually agree with what choom is saying, but am also conscious that no one has really answered the question of what to do with this kind of thing. Like it or not, vibe coding is extremely good at providing us with alternative ways to fix accessibility issues without having to devote huge amounts of time and effort on it. In this particular case, it is such a small problem that it would hardly be worth the effort of a human to figure out and write the code, but with Claude it took less time than I've spent trying to justify why I did it. I can see that a wider discussion on how best to distribute this kind of thing may be warranted, but possibly not here.
Returning from this tangent, What I would suggest to someone having this specific problem with WhatsApp is to firstly read through the advice in this thread and see if anything works for you. I would also pay attention to turning up the brightness on your screen to see if that helps. I think if you can do it without any other kind of app, then that's obviously the best answer.
However, if you can't and you don't want to use the web app, then my tool may provide another way in. As I said before, the iOS app immediately found it without me having to spend any time faffing about trying to line things up or know where anything is.
If you want to use it and you are able, then it's probably a good idea to read through the code and see if you agree with what it is doing. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, then ChatGPT and Claude are both extremely good at reviewing code. I don't install a lot of things from github but if I do, I will always at least ask an AI to give it a good review. Now obviously anyone against vibe coding is probably going to be against this too, but it is still lot better than nothing and is pretty thorough. You can also ask your AI to compile and run the tool so you don't have to use my binary.
Alternatively, if you don't want to do that then ask your AI of choice to write you something that monitors the QR code in the WhatsApp window, scans it and recreates it much bigger to make it easier to find when you can't see the screen. Note: the QR code changes every 20 seconds I believe, so having something that keeps updating will work around that and seemed easy enough. My tool does nothing special beyond this so you can knock up your own in a few minutes. Or write it by hand if you really want to.
Or not, it's up to you.
If anyone finds anything in the code I published that shouldn't be there, then I will be sure to take it down or fix it as appropriate.
My commitment to solving this problem for anyone other than me does not stretch to £100 a year to get the app signed, though, although I do understand why that's a good thing and choom's explanation was actually quite helpful here.
Any other constructive comments are welcome if we can keep them on topic.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
If you are going to distribute source code, then provide the prompts and explain how to set everything up, because the prompts are the true source code.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
Prompts are instructions used to generate software.Source code is the program text that gets compiled or interpreted.
thoes are not the same.
the code is a lot more important then the prompts, and it is your stubborn refusal to look at the code half the time so you, without evidence, blankly accuse the person of making the code if gennerated by ai having succurety issues. you wouldn't no that unless you look through the code. just blankly assuming that just because it happens sometimes means it will happen almost always is why i don't publish my shit here. i talk about it but i won't tuch this site with my programs even if it's the last thing i do on this plannet.
and btw, don't say that's not the cace. there's a pretty long patten of this.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
Wrong, source code is the original code written by humans, which in the case of vibe-coding, are the prompts.
Kindly point out where I accused anyone of anything. If I recall correctly I only mentioned that if the developer's security was as lax as they expected other people's to be then they shouldn't be trusted because their own security is likely already compromised. This is far from being an accusation, but feel free to quote one if you find it...
Patent of what exactly? And by the way, software patents don't exist here in the EU.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
"Wrong, source code is the original code written by humans, which in the case of vibe-coding, are the prompts.
hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah. that isn't true lmao, ai can also generate source code for program. the human makes the prompt, the ai can still make the code. like my rl reserves, ternover, that web brouser that you were complaining about, for good reason that brouser is a complete shitshow, because it used ai, all of them hav code. if it wasn't for the code that made the program it legitimately wouldn't exist. prompts arn't everything to make the vibecoded program, and just by saying that it shows your completely clueless about what your saying, with your "software engineering and science stuff I would've expected you to know a bit more about this\
And I never even brought up a patent. I said there was a continuous pattern of this behavior. That has nothing to do with paitent Maybe you would consider reading my response again maybe that might help you?
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
Hi all,
Dominic, I get that you disagree with Choom here, but please... Leave the sarcasm at the door. It helps no one.
Thanks,
Michael
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
> hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah. that isn't true lmao, ai can also generate source code for program. the human makes the prompt, the ai can still make the code.
Yes, and in that case both the prompts and the code that you wrote are source code, just like assembly becomes source code if I write parts of it directly myself in a Rust program. In vibe-coding, however, the only code written by humans are the prompts, so the prompts alone are the source-code. Not sure what's so funny about this but I'm sure that you will explain yourself.
> And I never even brought up a patent. I said there was a continuous pattern of this behavior. That has nothing to do with paitent Maybe you would consider reading my response again maybe that might help you?
You misspelled pattern as patten so I thought you meant patent. The mistake wasn't mine, and I'm still not sure about what pattern you're referring to.
PS: When commenting, try to avoid personally attacking me with ridiculous deductions like "with your "software engineering and science stuff I would've expected you to know a bit more about this". Everyone has the right to be ignorant, that's how we are all born, so if you think that you can educate me, do that instead of indirectly calling out my alleged ignorance, because the latter achieves nothing of positive.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
Sarcasm? Where is the sarcasm. I don't believe I was being sarcastic. I was just debunking his untrue and unclaimed statements. His sweeping claims certainly do not help anything.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
Yes, but the code is still generated. The prompt is what makes the code, however, the code is more what you would want to look at over the prompt as the code would probably contain more information than the prompt.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
> Yes, but the code is still generated. The prompt is what makes the code, however, the code is more what you would want to look at over the prompt as the code would probably contain more information than the prompt.
That is the case regardless of level of abstraction. The lower the abstraction, the higher the amount of information. Source code is the code that sits at the highest level of abstraction, the code that humans wrote directly, meaning the prompts in vibe-coding. While plain English is pretty ambiguous, it's still a codified language through which instructions can be transmitted, and analyzing the behavior of a program is much easier if done at the level in which it was written by other humans, or in other words, at the source-code level.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
You're still missing my point. Just because the prompt is what you used to tell the AI what to make doesn't mean the prompt is the source code. The AI still generates actual code, whether that's Swift, Python, JavaScript or whatever else.
And no, just because something is written in plain English and gives instructions doesn't automatically make it source code. If I ask an AI to make an app, the prompt tells it what I want, but the actual code determines what the app does.
That's why I've been saying the code is more important to look at, especially when you're talking about security. The AI could generate something that wasn't even mentioned in the prompt. How exactly are you supposed to know that just by reading what the person asked it to do?
I'm not saying prompts are useless. They can be helpful for understanding how something was made, but they don't replace the actual code. That's literally my whole point.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
I'm not missing your point, I'm pointing out that you are wrong since your definition of source code is wrong by ignoring the fact that source code is the code written by humans. Machine-generated code is compiled code even if it's human-readable. Case in point: binary ARM instructions are human-readable to me, but that doesn't make it source-code; even ARM assembly is usually not source code unless it's directly written by humans; that's what the source part of source-code means. Humans are the source, and source-code is the code that they write; whether that code is written in a structured or natural language is of no relevance.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
lmao. Hang on, so now you're saying that any code generated by a machine is compiled code, even if it hasn't actually been compiled? That doesn't make any sense.
If I ask an AI to generate a Python file, it's still Python source code. If I ask it to generate Swift, it's still Swift source code. Just because a human didn't physically write every line doesn't suddenly make it compiled code.
By that logic, if I get an AI to generate a program, it's not source code, but if I copy that exact same code and type it out myself, suddenly it is? The code hasn't changed at all, so how exactly does that work?
And you're still ignoring the main point I've been making. The prompt tells the AI what you want it to do, but the generated code is what actually determines how the program works. The AI could put something in there that wasn't even mentioned in the prompt, which is exactly why you would want to look through the code, especially if you're concerned about security.
I'm not saying prompts aren't useful, but they're not a replacement for the actual code. And calling generated source code compiled code just because a machine generated it doesn't change that.
and also the fact your saying i'm wrong when every comment you hav made in here to try your claim even ferver just makes my comment from even more earlyer more believable in my eyes. Every single comment that you have published on this matter in this topic is an example of.
A walking contradiction
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
Any code generated by a machine from some other source is compiled. It doesn't matter whether it was generated by an AI model or an actual compiler; the process of converting instructions between two forms of codification is called compilation. Even the mere act of attentive direct translation is a form of compilation often referred to as transpilation.
No, it's Python and Swift code, compiled from some source. Source-code is the code directly written by humans, hence the term source as I mentioned earlier. The assembly code generated by the Rust compiler is also compiled even though it's human-readable. When used for coding, AI is just a fancier compiler that translates natural language into structured language, with the only difference between AI and a classic compiler being that AI is trained to address the ambiguities of natural language.
Copying and generating are different concepts, so no, copying compiled code verbatim doesn't suddenly make it source code.
No, the prompt determines what the code does, it's just at a much higher level than usual. You can look under the hood to see what was generated from the prompt, just like you can look under the hood to see what your Rust compiler generated from your source code, but that doesn't mean that what you are reading underneath is source-code. Source-code is generated by humans; machines generate compiled code, unless they decide to start writing code all by themselves without being instructed to do so, in which case the code they write is the highest level available code so it should be considered source code, but in vibe-coding the instructions come from the prompts, so those constitute the source-code.
That's precisely why AI assisted coding is a gimmick rather than a tool. AI is not deterministic, so the same prompts won't result in the same code being generated, but the same applies to a buggy compiler without that it suddenly turning compiled code into source-code. The lack of determinism in the compilation process does not make the generated code a form of source-code since it wasn't written by a human.
I do explain my points as well as why I think you're wrong, so if there are contradictions, I'm sure that you can point them out by quoting them.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
I still don't agree with what you're saying. Just because something is generated by a machine doesn't automatically make it compiled code. Code generation and compilation are not the same thing.
If an AI generates a Python file, that file is still source code. Same with Swift, JavaScript or whatever else. And even if something is generated by a compiler, it can still be source code for another process. Something being generated doesn't suddenly stop it from being source code.
And your comparison between AI and a compiler doesn't really work either. A compiler follows defined rules to translate code, whereas AI can make its own assumptions, misunderstand instructions and generate things that weren't even requested.
Which brings me back to the point I've been making this entire time. If I ask an AI to make a program, the prompt tells it what I want. It doesn't tell me everything the AI actually put into the program. That's why you look at the generated code, especially when you're making claims about security.
And saying AI-assisted coding is a gimmick rather than a tool is your opinion, not a fact. I've used AI to work on RL Reserves and other projects. Some have worked extremely well, others have been complete shitshows. I'm not pretending AI is perfect, but saying it's just a gimmick because the output isn't deterministic doesn't make much sense to me.
As for the contradictions, you've gone from saying prompts are the true source code, to talking about abstraction levels, to saying anything generated by a machine is compiled code. I don't think any of those explanations establish that generated Python or Swift files somehow aren't source code.
At this point we're going around in circles. You can call the generated code whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the actual implementation is what needs to be examined if you're concerned about what an application does.
And considering this whole discussion started because somebody made a tool to help blind people scan a WhatsApp QR code, I think we've gone pretty far away from the original point.
Also, calling AI assistant coding a gimmick, that's funny. 88% of organizations now use AI in at least one business function. Gartner's January 20262026 forecast put worldwide AI spending at $2.52 trillion ..
Yes, definitely sounds like a gimmick to me, but you float your boat the way you wanna float your boat
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
The same is true if you ask a compiler to compile from any other kind of source code. You know what's in the source, not what's in the abstractions provided by the compiler. If you want to know what's being generated you have to look in the compiled code.
Tools are expected to be reliable; AI, as you admit yourself, isn't.
I still can't find any contradictions there. Source-code is code written by humans, this is by definition; code generated by machines is compiled code. I'm not sure why you find this so hard to understand but hey I'm the ignorant one here...
That's true at every level, from source to machine code. Ultimately it's the implementation in machine code that matters, and this fact does not change the definition of source-code as code generated by humans, nor does it make this a circular argument.
Heavily subsidized by an investment bubble that is allowing frontier providers like Anthropic to thrive with a net loss of $80 billion in the first 6 months of the year, and without any tangible positive results in most cases.
You only have yourself to blame for that, by attempting and failing to nitpick on the definition of source code.
Re: Hopefully one last word from me about this
I personally object that last claim that it's my fault that this discussion has gone off topic. You hijacking the thread and trying to disclaim another members application when you probably haven't even used. It is the reason this has gone off topic. I've said this before, and I will not say this to you again. If it helps a person, then in my eyes, there is no need to be concerned.
Enough Already
Dominic,
This is getting ridiculous.
We cannot keep doing this. Any further off-topic responses to this thread, from you or anyone else, will result in the posts being removed and account access being paused indefinitely.
The Prompt
OK I am loathe to caarry on this discussion but given I have been asked the question I am going to assume that not answering means it will be perceived that I have something to hide.
Vibe coding isn't always about writing a big prompt and getting software spit out. IN this case I was just having a conversation about how to fix my WhatsApp problem. I have provided the gist of my prompt above which I thought would be enough. I don't think this is helpful but here is the exact wording I used. Bear in mind I had already been diagnosing the issue at this point, and I was not writing this because I wanted to share it with the world particularly.
"What I was thinking was something like:
1. I start WhatsApp on my Mac.
2. I start WhatsApp on my phone and go to add a device.
3. On my Mac I run another app that can find the QR code on the screen, then recreate it much bigger so that it is easier to scan.
Or possibly I start my app first, then use a shortcut when I want to try to capture it.
Or, in an ideal world, I would startt my app and it would monitor the WhatsApp window and echo its QR code as it changes.
Is anything like this possible?"
A question
Can the QR code in question be magnified, using Zoom?
Note, I'm referring to the Magnifier for macOS, not the video conferencing software)
Re: zooming
Yes I did think about that, but how would you know what part of the screen was being zoomed in?
Unless maybe you could set the mouse pointer to follow the VO cursor and turn on magnification around that? It's possible it could be done I guess even if it's a bit fiddly. It's probably worth adding to the list of things to try before going with my app.
[Edit] - and don't forget to turn the tracking option off again afterwards as it causes all sorts of weird behaviour with the application menus. I seem to remember Paul mentioning on here that Golden Gate is especially problematic with this to be the point where he wrote an AppleScript to turn it off.