I think you're underestimating how many people would buy a Hello Kitty Cybertruck.

I'm not singling you out because you really seem to be just making a joke, but I think this is the appropriate place to insert a comment to make a critical observation about the groupthink present in this thread.

First, yes, lithium ion batteries losing their ability to hold a charge with repeated use is a weakness in the design of the Airpods. While Airpods and other wireless earphones do have other benefits, the non-repairability of Apple's product means the tradeoff is one that affects the value of the product.

But in this thread that leads commenters to

• Call users morons.
• Deride Apple as (mere) profit seekers.
• Declare the design of devices without headphone jacks as defective (which your joke plays upon).

The problem with this aggressive need to fine the One True Way to hear one's audio devices overlooks the benefits of wireless headphones and that $170 for Apple's target market segment is not a lot to pay every year or so.

But more to the point, the design of Apple's current smartphones that do not have headphone jacks already has a solution to use wired headphones: a dongle that converts lightning –> 1/8" stereo. Though not a perfect solution (charging while listening), it does satisfy the use case of being mobile and not having access to a charged wireless earbuds.

So the whole premise of the joke is a fantasy that devices that do not have headphone jacks somehow need to be reinvented when these devices already have a good-enough solution in place.

Even more telling is that by all accounts, wireless earphones (and Apple's Airpods in particular) are a runaway success and consumers rate these products with high levels of satisfaction. This whole thread is sort of like the time when a prominent Slashdot user declared an mp3 player dead-on-arrival but that device ended up marking the inflection point at which Apple went on to become (for a few weeks) the most valuable company in the world.

The paywall can be circumvented by using, ironically in this case, Facebook.

Can we stop with the "Trump Derangement Syndrome"?

It's propaganda intended to dismiss the legitimate opinions about an elected official.

Trump is by all measures a terrible steward of the economy, the environment, diplomatic relations, the truth, etc. etc. It makes sense people are furious about his executive actions which to date amount to grift, corruption, dishonesty, and cronyism.

People upset about Trump's executive actions are not necessarily deranged. They're responding as one should to someone who wields executive power against the principles of the office to which they've been elected.

Martial law would require advanced notice through multiple channels and media. There would be ample time to prepare accordingly.

On the other hand, an inbound nuclear warhead means you're gonna die immediately or some time in the next few days. Presuming you have 30 minutes advanced warning (it's more likely to be 5-10) you might have just enough time to get limber and kiss your ass goodbye.

I'm with you on that one. It seems nothing in the business and consumer computing space is designed to last 5 years, let alone 25.

tl;dr: Recommending Fitbit over Apple Watch is like recommending OS/2 over Windows.

As early as 2016, Professor Scott Galloway (currently NYU Stern School of Business) alerted that Fitbit is a loser simultaneously arguing that Apple Watch is actually a second screen for iPhone. Since then Apple Watch has added cellular, but Galloway's "second screen" theory still seems about right. A couple years later, Galloway revisited his remarks that Fitbit is going to go out of business.

The moment US mobile carriers are able to positively identify individuals by their mobile devices is the moment they resell user data to advertising affiliates.

Well that's embarrassing. Thank you for the correction. Definitely was confusing DST with setting clock back.

My main point—which lives alongside your comments about the futility of adopting DST year round—is that any shifting of the clock backward or forward is not about individuals waking up earlier or later but about larger geopolitical financial systems synchronizing production.

Florida adopting DST or moving to Atlantic Time is, to my mind, six of one half dozen of the other. Having more daylight at the end of the work day seems to be the objective of DST and I don't have an opinion regarding what legislative mechanism is used to achieve it. Though, it does seem counterintuitive to "standardize" time by choosing something that is not standard time.

I made an error in my second sentence (I blame GP for mistaking which direction DST runs), though the sense is correct. That sentence should read:

For one, Daylight Saving Time (not SavingS) is when clocks move one hour backward, not forward, which means getting up one hour early is in the wrong direction.

For what it's worth, I think the twice annual shift back and forth for DST should be stopped in favor of keeping DST year round.

Why not just get up one hour early? That's exactly what "permanent Daylight savings time" means.

That is not what permanent Daylight Saving Time means.

For one, Daylight Saving Time (not SavingS) is when clocks move one hour forward, not backward, which means getting up one hour early is in the wrong direction. Daylight Saving Time has people waking up one hour later.

Second, and more importantly, Daylight Saving Time is when an entire geographic region coordinates its entire sociopolitical, economic, and manufacturing infrastructure (and their interdependencies) to shift production to be one hour later for a period of about 8 months. When Daylight Saving Time ends, all that infrastructure is then shifts its production to one hour earlier.

Saying "set your individual clock to be one hour later is the same as Daylight Saving Time" is like saying you can catch a plane earlier by simply moving your watch to be one hour later. Do that and you're going to miss your plane.

If you go in the other direction, you're going to end up wasting an hour at every single appointment you make, which I suppose is better than missing your plane..

In any case changing your personal clock ain't Daylight Saving Time. Daylight Saving Time is delaying an entire geographical area's political, social, and economic productivity by one hour.

Building codes would suffice as long as they prohibit the use of asbestos since engineering would be unable to provide proof against catastrophic damage.

That's fine until a fire, earthquake, or other event damages these buildings such that "encapsulated" asbestos is released into the air thus exposing first responders, cleanup crews, and civilian bystanders to toxic plumes of asbestos.

OK, so I misinterpreted your comment about putting the shine on a yacht as some kind of deranged gloating.

The Comcast-Netflix arrangement is part of the problem and I think we see it a bit differently. My understanding is that NF was paying L3 (iirc) for its connection to the Internet. If NF is paying a company that has proper peerage to Comcast then Comcast throttling NF's packets to Comcast's customers is extortion.

NF likely paid because the legal battle would have been more costly. Plus, net neutrality was supported at the level of the executive and, so, by the FCC.

As a single customer, my concern is that if I pay Comcast for a connection to the Internet, I do NOT want them to decide which packets can come to me faster and which not. I understand there are QoS needs, and I'm fine with traffic-shaping, as long as those traffic-shaping rules affect all similar traffic (including Comcast's own) equally.

But this is well-trod ground because Comcast, Time-Warner, and the like are slobbering all over themselves at the thought of zero-rating their own services, charging their subscribers for a "fast lane", and extorting their competitors for access. Additionally, the current situation means the FTC will have to bring about lawsuits to claims about discriminatory peerage even though in the current environment this is perfectly legal.

So, yeah label me a hater. I hate Pai's cronyist rollback of Net Neutrality and look hopefully to 2 things.

1. Federalism forcing the issue and states punishing willful violations of a no-longer legally mandated Net Neutrality

2. Political blowback because of the effects of Net Neutrality's rollback (among other things) which sweep the current executive out of office making the way to strengthen the protections that have so far made the Internet great.

To me, your interpretation of the rollback of Net Neutrality as an opportunity to happily (?) pay more for an Internet fastlane is just crazy town. Maybe I'm misreading you again, here, but from the above that really seems to be what you're saying.

SuperKendall sometimes you are such a stupid fucking asshole.

Comcast throttled Netflix and Netflix made the problem go away by paying an extortion fee.

Consumers dissatisfied with Comcast (or AT&T or Time-Warner or what-have-you) often have no choice of ISPs. I live in fucking downtown San Francisco and my ONLY choice of high-speed cable Internet is Comcast.

So kindly accept as truth when I say that you're a goddamn fucking shill for the telcos (even if you're unpaid), I mean you go so far as to ejaculate all over the screen that "my own gigabit internet service fee probably keeps a nice shine on some executives yacht."

Fucking moron.