Did you read my comment? I did not say the iPhone Air has 2 hours of battery life. I said previous apple products that had the "Air" name were "less capable." I was wondering aloud why a company would apply this sobriquet to a new product, regardless of it's capabilities.
Ah, fair enough! I read this as saying almost exactly that, but yeah, I get what you mean.
> but not appropriate for a mobile phone that you may want to operate untethered for hours at a time.
I do think this shifted a little when the first M1 Air came out. Anecdotally, many now associate it with being more than capable unless you’re an actual professional.
> In ensuing decades, high altitude electrical discharges were reported by aircraft pilots and discounted by meteorologists until the first direct visual evidence was documented in 1989.
The link also contains information of the history of the current understanding? And is a direct summary of current understanding? I guess that contains your constraints for an interesting article (as it includes historical and current references that cover said history). So, what am I missing?
Also, I didn't edit the main premise of the comment, as it still contains the phrase "Pretty well understood today", unedited, but whatever.
EDIT: I have now removed that phrase as my comment was flagged. I mean, "fuck off" to whoever did that. My original comment had "Pretty well understood today" with the wikpedia link.
Stupid shit, imo
Community here continually becomes less "don't be a dick" from 2009 and more "fuck you, toe the line"
There are many things that would be in Apple's interest to do, but they aren't so that's a complete non-argument.
I think it's a very valid question to ask, as many open source projects I've seen in the past that had to interface with Apple on the developer tooling front had to go through constant pain, as Apple isn't willing to e.g. provide references for certain .plist files, forcing many project to try and reverse-engineer what they do. More precisely there are usually people inside Apple willing to do that, but incapable to do that due to internal structures that result in a lack of clearly defined ownership.
So given that, I would say that if/once the original contributor of this PR moves on(/is made to move on) from that project, there is a good chance that this would also mark the end of cooperation from Apple's side.
You aren't wrong but it's not an argument you're going to win. A bad restaurant or a dumpy hotel, etc won't kill you either, yet most people rely heavily on crowdsourced reviews. It's just a part of the culture today, given how prevalent ratings are. This isnt 1940, so suggesting, out of the blue, "just go watch the movie regardless if it is any good" isn't going to convince someone to do so.
> Life is about more than optimizing the movies you watch.
Where did I say it wasn't? That's a straw man.
But if you're going to watch a movie for the next two hours, then yeah -- your life is going to be about that movie. So why not choose wisely?
> Watching a bad movie is not going to harm you. Maybe you'll take something away, maybe you won't.
Straw man again. And again -- why not choose quality instead of choosing ignorance and rolling the dice?
> Much like having a bad day is unlikely to ruin your life - it'll just give some nice context to the good days.
Again, straw man. Nobody's talking about ruining your life. But why intentionally choose a bad movie...?
> And we're talking about watching them on the plane, so the "busy person" argument really doesn't apply here.
To the contrary. For a lot of busy people, the plane is one of the few moments they have time to watch a movie. So it sure does apply.
You're arguing in favor of choosing bad things, because it's not going to ruin your life. Huh? Shouldn't we have a higher bar for the things we try to choose to spend our time on? You're describing standards that are the lowest of the low -- as long as it doesn't harm you, it's fine. Don't seek anything better. Yikes. I've rarely come across a life philosophy more depressing.
This isn't a straw man - I'm not claiming you think life is all about movie optimization. I'm making the point that the effort of optimization might not be worth it in the broader context.
> Straw man again. And again -- why not choose quality instead of choosing ignorance and rolling the dice?
Also not a straw man. I'm illustrating that the downside of a bad movie is so minimal that extensive optimization might not be justified. This directly addresses your argument about opportunity cost by suggesting the cost is actually quite small.
> Again, straw man. Nobody's talking about ruining your life. But why intentionally choose a bad movie...?
Again, not a straw man. I'm making a proportionality argument about how much a sub-optimal movie experience actually matters in practice.
> To the contrary. For a lot of busy people, the plane is one of the few moments they have time to watch a movie. So it sure does apply.
Even on a plane, the stakes just aren't that high. A less-than-perfect movie isn't going to meaningfully impact your life regardless of how busy you are.
> You're arguing in favor of choosing bad things, because it's not going to ruin your life. Huh?
You're interpreting my position as "arguing in favor of choosing bad things," but that's just not accurate. I'm suggesting that the effort of optimization might outweigh the minimal downside of occasionally watching something mediocre. There's a middle ground between actively choosing bad things and obsessing over choosing only the very best.
> A less-than-perfect movie isn't going to meaningfully impact your life regardless of how busy you are.
There are movies I've seen that changed my life. If I'd watched a dumb movie instead, yes my life actually would have been meaningfully impacted for the worse. That's the power of art.
> I'm suggesting that the effort of optimization might outweigh the minimal downside of occasionally watching something mediocre.
It takes a few seconds to check Rotten Tomatoes. A movie is around two hours. In what universe would you rather waste a couple of hours in order to save a few seconds?
And it's not occasionally watching something mediocre. Most movies are mediocre. You have the choice of usually watching something mediocre, versus usually watching something high-quality.
Again, you're strawmanning with "obsessing over choosing only the very best". Where did I describe an obsession? I'm just saying, check Rotten Tomatoes to help pick a good movie. There's just no universe in which the tiny effort to do that is going to outweigh the two+ hours of boredom and frustration of a bad movie.
I genuinely don't understand how you can take the position you're taking with movies, when checking Rotten Tomatoes takes seconds (a minute if you're checking several) and a movie lasts for hours.
It's not perfect, but it's a very strong and useful signal.
Never in my life have I seen something with 98% and thought, well that was a crap movie.
And never in my life have I seen something with 35% and thought, that was amazing!
It's more in the 75-90% range where you have to consider the "dimensionality" of the thing, like whether it's a genre you like, or which individual reviewers match your tastes more precisely.
There's a big difference between compensating skilled professionals for their work and running healthcare as a profit-maximizing business. Doctors deserve fair compensation for their expertise and time, just like any other skilled professional.
The issue with for-profit healthcare isn't about individual compensation - it's about corporate entities having the power to make sweeping decisions that affect access to healthcare. When large healthcare companies control substantial market share, they can unilaterally raise prices or restrict coverage in ways that leave patients with few alternatives. Unlike choosing a different doctor, patients often can't easily switch insurance providers or hospital systems, especially in emergencies or in areas with limited options.
> Doctors deserve fair compensation for their expertise and time, just like any other skilled professional.
What's fair compensation for the skilled professional who administers a $50B organization?
Your proposed alternative to corporate healthcare is what? Government-run healthcare? How does that solve the problem of a single entity being able to unilaterally raise prices or restrict coverage, or allow patients flexibility to change their hospital in an emergency?
Are you claiming that government-run healthcare will make better decisions at minimizing cost than private healthcare? What other industry have you found the government to be better at minimizing cost than the private sector?
>Are you claiming that government-run healthcare will make better decisions at minimizing cost than private healthcare? What other industry have you found the government to be better at minimizing cost than the private sector?
Medicare has overhead of just 3%.
Last I checked, that's leaps and bounds better than private insurers.
I agree on money != success in a broader sense, but we live in a capitalistic society where wealth creation is possibly the top indicator of "success", so in that sense wealth captured and created is _the_ metric.
The 17 Air reports 27 hours of video playback - the same as the 16 Pro.