Comment Re:It's so much bigger. (Score 1) 59
Wnat do you mean so much bigger? It is lighter and thinner than an airtag, not quite as wide but 14mm longer. If it is too big then so is an airtag
Comment Re:Gabe knows what's what (Score 1) 12
I know EEE very well, and yet publishing something in a store is very much not EEE. The Microsoft store provides no APIs to extend functionality, and has no capability in itself to extinguish any competition.
So software and media on MS Store is DRM free then? There is never a scenario where an online store shutdown will cause that media or software to be useless without an authentication server?
Virtually everyone who uses the phrase Embrace Extend Extinguish fails to understand there are very specific market conditions that need to exist for that strategy to work. For one, you can't do it on an open ecosystem, you can only do it on a closed one
And you are confusing what situations EEE is successful and what conditions MS has tried and continues to try.
Comment Re:Creepy (Score 2) 59
Finding your stuff is the basic purpose. What stuff is up to you. People have used AirTags and TilePros to track their luggage on trips, for example. So when the airline said your luggage would arrive today and it hasn’t left your original airport, you may have to buy some clothes for today. Other people have tracked down their stolen property like cars, backpacks, etc. It has uses.
Comment Re:It's so much bigger. (Score 1) 59
It is bigger but not dramatically bigger than it cannot be used in most applications. I don’t have an AirTag but my question is why did it take Google so long to make a competing device? The AirTag was not original either; TilePro existed before the AirTag. Apple just made theirs round, slightly smaller, and work with their ecosystem. It took Google 5 years to copy what Apple copied?
Comment Re:High price. (Score 1) 34
You should be asking WHY these things just keep getting more expensive rather than accepting the premise that they are all ridiculously expensive but it's okay that this is ridiculously expensive because some other product from another manufacturer is moreso.
Well recently a certain product’s price doubled to quadrupled over the last year. We all know which product is to blame: labubus. That or RAM, SSD, GPU, etc have multiplied in prices because of AI. Who is to know?
Comment Also customer service (Score 1) 35
Maybe not so much in the US, but often security guards are also a customer service position, providing directions, answering questions, etc.
Comment The so-called reverse takeover (Score 1) 35
Reverse takeovers aren't necessarily big company/small company. It's usually when you have one company flush with cash but with concerns about viability buying a company that has liquidity issues (i.e. risk of bankruptcy) but a viable business model, then the company that was purchased taking over the new company. The TPG/Soul Telecom reverse takeover is a pretty good example of a successful reverse takeover. The Atari/JTS reverse takeover is a great example of a disastrous one.
Comment Re:potentially criminal act (Score 1) 123
The link that he posted offered no confirmation that Federal law (46 U.S.C. 2304) "only applies to distress calls" as he stated.
The link makes it clear it wasn't a distress call, you are not obligated to respond to a non-distress call. It's the reason distress calls are treated as a separate class.
Please cite in the link where it said any of this. It does not. It is as detailed as linking the Constitution and saying that it does.
Comment Re:More detailed explanation (Score 1) 123
If they heard the call and did not help, it is implied it was a refusal to aid. So the yacht's excuse could be they never heard the call. But the call was on an emergency channel that they should be monitoring while sailing. However it would be unlikely that both ships somehow missed the call for aid.
Comment Re: potentially criminal act (Score 1) 123
Ad Hominem does exist, but suggesting or outright saying that someone is too stupid to understand an argument is not ad hominem.
To review, I stated his link did not actually say what he claims it says. His response was not clarification of his claim but to claim I was too stupid/young to read.
You want to quibble that it was an ad hominem attack, go ahead.
Comment Re:More detailed explanation (Score 1) 123
Neither vessels responded to the call. We do not know if any actions will be taken yet against the crews as there is not an investigation yet.
Comment Re:potentially criminal act (Score 1) 123
Your link says nothing about what you claim it is. Ad hominem attacks do not answer the lack of detail in your answer.
Comment Re:Riding the Metawaves. (Score 1) 123
But it does mean nobody is required to help. And the Coast Guard determined in real time, talking to the boat, that it was a request for assistance, not a distress call.
No, that's not what that means. It means that vessels in the area are not required to drop everything and rush immediately to the vessel. It means assist if they can.
Both terms have a specific legal meaning. One requires assistance, the other does not.
If they can means "if they can."
Zuklerburg wasn't on board at the time, and really doesn't know much more than what his captain told him. The captain's excuses do seem flimsy, and Zuck himself is a disgusting slime mold, but no laws were broken. Get over it.
Seeing how there has not been any investigation, it is extremely early to say that "no laws were broken."
Comment Re:46USC2304 - Duty to provide assistance at sea (Score 0) 123
"Not been confirmed by us independently."
Bahahahahahaha. So your answer to your lie that there "was not a distress call" is to ask other to disprove your claims.
And the claim that the yacht refused to help was, at best, third hand.
The yacht DID NOT help. That was the refusal.
Pretty much ever story on it, with quotes from Coast Guard reps. So, it's a dozen or more news articles quoting Coast Guard sources by name vs "some nameless person who claimed to be onboard the ship that ran out of gas, and claimed that the captain said. .
So you refuse to post links validating what you claim then?
If you'd spend five seconds at a search engine, you'd know all that.
So your answer to you having the facts wrong which you won't support is to claim I did not search. How do you know how much I researched? You don't.
But facts don't support your masturbatory hatred of rich people, with rich people being anybody who makes more money that you do flipping burgers.
Ad hominem attack. Your answer is to attack other people who challenge you. Got it.
Comment Re:Riding the Metawaves. (Score 0) 123
you have literally no idea whether it could have or not.,
The superyacht passed by the vessel in distress. The superyacht had no mechanical issues. Thus it could have helped.
jesus fucking christ get off your high horse, i get it we hate Zuck but he literally wasnt even involved. the captain of the ship made its decision whether they could assist or not.
I never said one thing about Zuckerbug. You on the other hand seem ready to defend him at all costs.
the captain of the ship made its decision whether they could assist or not. get over it. no one died. nothing happened. everything is fine.
Captains. Zuckerburg owned two vessels in the area. Neither of them assisted. These are facts. They seem inconvenient to you that both Zuckerburg ships did nothing.
