On Windows, with 5 frames open and 89 buffers (some of which have custom modes and highlighting running) 170MB.
In comparison, my Visual Studio instance is taking up over 550MB with very few plugins and way fewer files open. (The only reason I keep it running is for debugging. I do literally all my other programming and building from emacs.)
There have been persistent (though difficult to verify) stories that Google makes more money off of Apple users than Android users for years now. This isn't so surprising, since when it comes to purchases from mobile devices, more iOS users buy things, and they pay more per purchase on average.
But more to the point, I don't think Apple has ever been in an open war with Google the way people often think they are.
Google wants to be your search engine, and they want to be in your pocket. They don't care WHAT device you have, they just want to be there. As apps become the most significant way that people spend their online time, Google wants to make sure that you're still doing searches through them, even if you're not using your web browser.
Android is partly about leverage. Without Android, Google's bargaining position is a lot weaker. They COULD decide to get up and walk away and still be pretty profitable. But Android is also about making sure that no matter your income level, Google search is available at all times.
Apple just sells hardware--that's where all their money is. Their software is a point of differentiation, which the Android handset wars have taught us (well, reinforced for us) is the most important thing in a crowded market.
The reality is that both these companies could walk away from the deal and not feel much pain from it. But both companies are better off with the partnership.
They aren't, actually. They're only ending the app portion of it. So that means that they won't advertise apps in the app store in iAd anymore. iAd will continue to limp along for no reason that most of us can understand.
(Here's the first line of their announcement: "The iAd App Network will be discontinued as of June 30, 2016. ")
In principle, there's nothing wrong with the idea, but at that level of complexity, I can't imagine it would be profitable. At that point, we're better off having governments do more to preserve habitat and breeding grounds. Sanctuaries are really effective for sustaining fish populations.
It depends on who you ask. Fish farmers would claim that you can scale up quite a lot. From what I've read, it doesn't scale very well at all. It tends to pollute the water, attract parasites, and produce a lower grade of fish. You save the wild populations, but the water ends up having a lot of antibiotic runoff, etc.
And where do you put the farms? Are you pushing out a native species by setting up a farm? How much food do you have to bring to farm? Very often, producing 1kg of fish people want to eat costs more than 1kg of some OTHER fish or animal that could be eaten, but has been considered less desirable.
Shrimp farming is actually a great example of all the problems that you can find in farmed seafood. They cut down mangroves and flood them with water to raise shrimp. The mangroves were previously protecting the shores from storm surges, so now tropical storms do more damage. The ponds that they raise the shrimp in are filled with salts and chemicals that foul the water and the soil, so once the site is abandoned, nothing can be grown there anymore without extensive rehabilitation. The shrimp themselves are usually diseased or deformed, and in the process, they had to be fed ground up fishmeal from something caught somewhere else that would fetch a lesser price per unit weight.
Shrimp are a rather extreme example--North American operations are better regulated and less damaging, from what I understand--but they're a warning of how things can go badly wrong if you're strictly concerned about farming over wild catch, as opposed to just doing the least damaging thing.
If it's that onerous to get footage from a particular officer or from a particular day, the problem is with the filing mechanism. It should take seconds to retrieve all the available videos spanning a well-defined set of criteria. "I need all the bodycam footage from these three officers on this day and that day, around 2pm."
If a report was filed because there was some sort of incident, it should be cross-indexed with the date and time and the officer. So even if you just know the person involved in the report, it should be trivial to get to the right blocks of video.
So if that's taking any more than a few moments, one of the things the department should be doing is updating how the information is archived. There are plenty of people with library and archival science degrees that would know this stuff better than me, but they're all about cataloging. Maybe police departments need to hire one of them to do the filing and retrieval.
But moving on from that, there IS the question of reviewing the footage to make sure none of it releases anything that should be protected for whatever reason. Again, some of that should already be covered through meta-data and correct filing, but assuming all the video needs to be scanned, I don't think it'll need to be scanned in real time. People can make broad assessments at higher speeds, and once the video is narrowed down, it can be watched more carefully. An hour of footage probably shouldn't need an hour of viewing time, in general.
This is just another way to make sure that justice and transparency are for the rich. They have the best lawyers, they can afford to pay processing costs for the video, etc., etc. I'm not sure I care how many obstacles there are in the way to making this data available in a timely and cost-effective fashion. I generally trust the police in my country (Canada), but I think it's important for us to keep tabs on them. We're finally in a position to answer the question of who watches the watchers, and it's gross that police departments are trying to throw citizens off by making it too expensive to pursue.
It seems like conservatives are usually the ones with 'tough on crime' agendas and making sure there are more police in the streets.
More police isn't even inherently a bad thing, as long as what they're doing is providing a reassuring presence in the community and not arresting people for no reason.
But ultimately, I don't think this is a conservative/liberal issue. The same people that panic over vaccines making their kids autistic or getting slightly dirty are the same people that hover around their kids to make sure that every aspect of their children's lives is regulated and scheduled, and I don't think that's an issue of political affiliation.
I mean, I think my perspective on the police is slightly different. I'm Canadian, and until just the last few years, I always viewed the Police as people that could help you out. I wouldn't expect the police to do any more than ask the kid if everything was okay, get them to school, and make sure they weren't legitimately neglected. The law as it's written doesn't seem to imply that responsible parents with thoughtful kids should be punished because they slept in and their kid knows the way to school on their own.
I'm not quite 40, but it really was different when I was growing up. The expectations of the Police in the community were a lot different. They didn't draw their guns as quickly and they weren't so interested in arresting people so much as having a presence in the community.
Additionally, I greatly suspect that he had no idea that anyone would be arrested for this. His intent wasn't to get someone thrown in jail, he just wanted a kid to make it to school without incident. So now he's left with a conundrum the next time something like this happens: does he call the police and possibly get a parent tossed in jail for no goddamn reason, or does he ignore the event (which is probably fine, but clearly he's got concerns) and potentially leave the child in a situation that he thinks is inherently unsafe.
No, that's not true. Several jurisdictions have prohibitions against photographs where someone is identifiable without their consent, even in public, except if the photograph is for the news. Quebec is the one that springs most immediately to mind (since I live here). You're entitled to your privacy, *even in public*, because there's the notion that even if you're out and about, you may still be doing things that are private and intimate in a way that you don't want captured forever in a photograph. (For instance, if you're kissing your partner in public, you're okay with that moment happening with people around you, but you don't necessarily want it to be captured on film forever.)
The key is whether someone is identifiable in the photograph. If it's just the backs of everyone's head or you can't make out any faces, you get a pass.
My phone application sits in a folder on the second screen of my iPhone, next to 'TimeHop'. It is one of the least important functions that my 'phone' has. It may be worse at making calls than older phones used to be, but I make an order of magnitude fewer calls than I used to as well. If I spend more than a couple hours total on the phone a YEAR, I'd be surprised.
Phoning someplace is my last resort. If I've got to phone somewhere and there's no other choice, I'll actually consider whether or not I want to shop there/use that service.
Well, it works for me on the condition that the adaptor is provided in the box.
I know some people want more battery life and find a thinner phone anathema, but Apple's phones get about the same battery life from model to modelâ"10-14 hoursâ"while being thinner. So they tend not to regress significantly. I only need about that much, so a thinner phone is a bonus for me. For other people, external battery cases let you have the thicker phone you want and provide an enormous battery boost. I've heard John Siracusa call it the 'naked robotic core' theory. Sell a good, physically minimal device and allow people to augment it externally. That's the best of both worlds to me. I get the smaller phone that I want, and I can put a thin or nice case on it for a bit of protection or fashion. People with more robust needs will buy a different kind of case. Isn't that part of the choice everyone is begging for? I can't make a thick phone thinner, but I can slap attachments onto the phone all I want.
On the headphone front, I do about 3/4 of my listening through the Lightning port anyway. I have the phone docked at work and then run through a mixer, and I've got audio through the port in my car. A small adaptor on my headphones for when I'm walking around is a minimal burden. It's one fewer port that can be fouled or damaged.
Despite complaints, thinness does have actual benefits, tech-wise. Being forced to think about physical constraints and throw out old ideas about what's necessary on a device is important. Making parts smaller and more heat efficient is good. Packing it all into one thin device is amazing. And it's not just Appleâ"Apple drives parts manufacturers and competitors to come up with novel designs to compete. Sony has been making and refining amazing camera sensors for years now, driven in large part by the industry's need for better cameras in small formats.
Apple took a lot of crap for removing floppy drives and disc drives from their machines, too. The alternatives were better.
I don't think the headphone industry will switch to lightning (not even Beats; they'll obviously just have a choice between the two) but that's fine. I want my phone to effectively disappear. Something so thin and light and unobtrusive that I hardly notice it's there. We're most of the way there now, but I like how this is progressing.
Just PLEASE include the adaptor in the box, Apple. Seriously.
Wacom stylus replacements are only slightly cheaper, depending on the model. Some are very inexpensive, but some are certainly in the $100 ballpark. Apple isn't charging appreciably more than competitors, and by accounts of how the pencil works on that screen, it's a much better device.
So as a programmer in the AAA games industry, one of the nicest things about supporting consoles is that they're a fixed target and your development only gets more efficient over time. The API changes almost not at all, your engine settles into place, and your optimization pipeline becomes more refined as time goes on. You make better games at the end of the cycle than at the beginning.
Don't discount the value of a development target that is very consistent. After the first time we build some engine components, we literally never have to update them ever again. This is a big part of why consoles really took off and PC games comparatively languished for so long--each PC configuration represents a potential problem we didn't cover around the edges, and THOSE people are the ones that any support costs are going in to. If one person on console finds a bug and we can fix it, we've covered every single console user simultaneously. In the PC world, we've only fixed the problem for a handful of people and we're waiting for the next edge case.
I've never worked with Android, so I take you at your word that it's easier than it would seem for someone on the outside looking in, but I don't think it's entirely fair to accost the parent post.
I think his point was merely that it's not as trivial as getting a phone with fingerprints on it and suddenly having full access. The list of steps you included is still non-trivial, and I think we'd probably agree that almost all phone security is about discouraging trivial access. That list of steps is complicated enough that it probably requires a dedicated location (nobody is going to be able to do it while still on the subway), which gives me time to recognize my phone is gone and remotely kill it.
My partner and I have enrolled one of each other's fingers on each device. If there's an emergency or I die or something, I want her to have access to my stuff. That's also why my master password lives in her 1Password vault and vice-versa. Too much of my life is governed by this stuff to have it non-retrievable.
As a cyclist, I've got a special place in my heart for things made out of titanium. But something about the casing on this watch and the matte finish makes it look like plastic, and the face looks really fake. I know that it IS fake, but it LOOKS fake. Some of the other smartwatches out there have the good sense to at least attempt the illusion of depth.
But what part of this watch is actually Tag Heuer? Not the internals, and the watch face isn't anything special if you can just swap it in and out for anything else. You're left with an ugly watch casing (subjective, I know) and a brand name. Normally you can use the brand name as a proxy for some quality you want (lightness, thinness, openness, what have you) but this brand is a proxy for nothing here. The watch will be obsolete immediately and it has no qualities that stand it apart from every other watch on the market--it's not even the most expensive! It even fails as a Veblen good.
First, I agree with the comments saying that it's not clear that Apple cares to enter that space. They probably don't want to.
But if they do, they've got an advantage in that their update cycle is 5-7x faster than the normal console cycle. They can release a new Apple TV next year. And the year after that. They could release an Apple TV every 2 years and still have an update cycle that's 2-3x faster than Sony or Microsoft.
Actually, why? I'm not sure why that's important, honestly. What do we owe to the fossil fuels industry that we need to continue propping them up? They receive BILLIONS in subsidies every year.
I happen to think that we're dumping carbon into the air faster than the planet can cope, particularly because we're simultaneously disrupting the systems that would normally be able to capture that carbon properly. But beyond that, it's indisputable that literally every step of extracting and using fossil fuels is bad for the environment. The tar sands in Alberta are a disaster for the soil and birds and wildlife and trees, they use an enormous amount of fresh, drinkable water and turn it into completely unusable filth. Offshore drilling and pipelines cause enormous environmental damage when they go wrong, and the sad reality is they go wrong ALL THE TIME. There's really just no good or clean way to extract or use this stuff right now.
Given that we have other technologies and we're starting to make good progress with them, I think we should stop propping up a sector that we know is dirty and harmful, even if they're not doing exactly as much damage as many scientists claim. There will be jobs in other energy industries for workers, it's just the people at the top that will have trouble finding new work--but they're already so rich I don't see any reason to be concerned for them.
If we take climate change out of the equation entirely, I still think it's worth shifting to a post-fossil-fuel energy infrastructure and doing it quickly. There are just too many downsides to oil and coal.
I love a good ternary. I find it really obnoxious to try and set a variable through a long set of if-then-else statements, and sometimes I'm forced by C++ const correctness to do it through a ternary anyway.
I do my best to break them up over multiple lines in a way that makes the structure obvious, and I document them so you can read the comments instead of reading the actual code, but I know that's vulnerable to comment-rot.
To a certain extent it's a bad practice, but I really do find the terseness of a ternary a lot more pleasant. (If I have to do it more than once, I just make it a function, obvs.)
It's probably not much of a factor. iOS apps are aggressively throttled in the background. Facebook plays all sorts of dirty tricks to keep running (apparently like trying to pretend it's an audio app, I've heard?) but otherwise, most apps happily accept the kill signal and take up no additional CPU time.
Really? My friend can't make it through half a day without running to charge her Galaxy S5, whereas I get 12 hours of actually tapping on my screen on my iPhone 6.
My anecdote is at least as good as yours.
The 6 and 8 hour values are through synthetic benchmarks that purposely stress the processor and display things on the screen non-stop. I've never gotten as little as 8 hours from my phone, even on a day where I all I do is play games and load webpages. Apple's devices generally get about 10 hours of usable battery, and that's exactly how it's been for the last 4 years.
They do it as a trade-off for phone thinness. I'd rather have a thin phone and a thin case than a bulky phone that lasts 2 hours--or even 10 hours--longer. If I change my mind, I can buy a case that has a battery built in to it. But if I start with a bulky phone, I can't make a thin phone out of it. That's the tradeoff I'm willing to make.
Slashdot Mirror
On Windows, with 5 frames open and 89 buffers (some of which have custom modes and highlighting running)
170MB.
In comparison, my Visual Studio instance is taking up over 550MB with very few plugins and way fewer files open. (The only reason I keep it running is for debugging. I do literally all my other programming and building from emacs.)
There have been persistent (though difficult to verify) stories that Google makes more money off of Apple users than Android users for years now. This isn't so surprising, since when it comes to purchases from mobile devices, more iOS users buy things, and they pay more per purchase on average.
But more to the point, I don't think Apple has ever been in an open war with Google the way people often think they are.
Google wants to be your search engine, and they want to be in your pocket. They don't care WHAT device you have, they just want to be there. As apps become the most significant way that people spend their online time, Google wants to make sure that you're still doing searches through them, even if you're not using your web browser.
Android is partly about leverage. Without Android, Google's bargaining position is a lot weaker. They COULD decide to get up and walk away and still be pretty profitable. But Android is also about making sure that no matter your income level, Google search is available at all times.
Apple just sells hardware--that's where all their money is. Their software is a point of differentiation, which the Android handset wars have taught us (well, reinforced for us) is the most important thing in a crowded market.
The reality is that both these companies could walk away from the deal and not feel much pain from it. But both companies are better off with the partnership.
They aren't, actually. They're only ending the app portion of it. So that means that they won't advertise apps in the app store in iAd anymore. iAd will continue to limp along for no reason that most of us can understand.
(Here's the first line of their announcement: "The iAd App Network will be discontinued as of June 30, 2016. ")
In principle, there's nothing wrong with the idea, but at that level of complexity, I can't imagine it would be profitable. At that point, we're better off having governments do more to preserve habitat and breeding grounds. Sanctuaries are really effective for sustaining fish populations.
It depends on who you ask. Fish farmers would claim that you can scale up quite a lot. From what I've read, it doesn't scale very well at all. It tends to pollute the water, attract parasites, and produce a lower grade of fish. You save the wild populations, but the water ends up having a lot of antibiotic runoff, etc.
And where do you put the farms? Are you pushing out a native species by setting up a farm? How much food do you have to bring to farm? Very often, producing 1kg of fish people want to eat costs more than 1kg of some OTHER fish or animal that could be eaten, but has been considered less desirable.
Shrimp farming is actually a great example of all the problems that you can find in farmed seafood. They cut down mangroves and flood them with water to raise shrimp. The mangroves were previously protecting the shores from storm surges, so now tropical storms do more damage. The ponds that they raise the shrimp in are filled with salts and chemicals that foul the water and the soil, so once the site is abandoned, nothing can be grown there anymore without extensive rehabilitation. The shrimp themselves are usually diseased or deformed, and in the process, they had to be fed ground up fishmeal from something caught somewhere else that would fetch a lesser price per unit weight.
Shrimp are a rather extreme example--North American operations are better regulated and less damaging, from what I understand--but they're a warning of how things can go badly wrong if you're strictly concerned about farming over wild catch, as opposed to just doing the least damaging thing.
I'm going to guess either Winnipeg or somewhere in QC. I grew up in Edmonton.
If it's that onerous to get footage from a particular officer or from a particular day, the problem is with the filing mechanism. It should take seconds to retrieve all the available videos spanning a well-defined set of criteria. "I need all the bodycam footage from these three officers on this day and that day, around 2pm."
If a report was filed because there was some sort of incident, it should be cross-indexed with the date and time and the officer. So even if you just know the person involved in the report, it should be trivial to get to the right blocks of video.
So if that's taking any more than a few moments, one of the things the department should be doing is updating how the information is archived. There are plenty of people with library and archival science degrees that would know this stuff better than me, but they're all about cataloging. Maybe police departments need to hire one of them to do the filing and retrieval.
But moving on from that, there IS the question of reviewing the footage to make sure none of it releases anything that should be protected for whatever reason. Again, some of that should already be covered through meta-data and correct filing, but assuming all the video needs to be scanned, I don't think it'll need to be scanned in real time. People can make broad assessments at higher speeds, and once the video is narrowed down, it can be watched more carefully. An hour of footage probably shouldn't need an hour of viewing time, in general.
This is just another way to make sure that justice and transparency are for the rich. They have the best lawyers, they can afford to pay processing costs for the video, etc., etc. I'm not sure I care how many obstacles there are in the way to making this data available in a timely and cost-effective fashion. I generally trust the police in my country (Canada), but I think it's important for us to keep tabs on them. We're finally in a position to answer the question of who watches the watchers, and it's gross that police departments are trying to throw citizens off by making it too expensive to pursue.
It seems like conservatives are usually the ones with 'tough on crime' agendas and making sure there are more police in the streets.
More police isn't even inherently a bad thing, as long as what they're doing is providing a reassuring presence in the community and not arresting people for no reason.
But ultimately, I don't think this is a conservative/liberal issue. The same people that panic over vaccines making their kids autistic or getting slightly dirty are the same people that hover around their kids to make sure that every aspect of their children's lives is regulated and scheduled, and I don't think that's an issue of political affiliation.
I guess?
I mean, I think my perspective on the police is slightly different. I'm Canadian, and until just the last few years, I always viewed the Police as people that could help you out. I wouldn't expect the police to do any more than ask the kid if everything was okay, get them to school, and make sure they weren't legitimately neglected. The law as it's written doesn't seem to imply that responsible parents with thoughtful kids should be punished because they slept in and their kid knows the way to school on their own.
I'm not quite 40, but it really was different when I was growing up. The expectations of the Police in the community were a lot different. They didn't draw their guns as quickly and they weren't so interested in arresting people so much as having a presence in the community.
Additionally, I greatly suspect that he had no idea that anyone would be arrested for this. His intent wasn't to get someone thrown in jail, he just wanted a kid to make it to school without incident. So now he's left with a conundrum the next time something like this happens: does he call the police and possibly get a parent tossed in jail for no goddamn reason, or does he ignore the event (which is probably fine, but clearly he's got concerns) and potentially leave the child in a situation that he thinks is inherently unsafe.
No, that's not true. Several jurisdictions have prohibitions against photographs where someone is identifiable without their consent, even in public, except if the photograph is for the news. Quebec is the one that springs most immediately to mind (since I live here). You're entitled to your privacy, *even in public*, because there's the notion that even if you're out and about, you may still be doing things that are private and intimate in a way that you don't want captured forever in a photograph. (For instance, if you're kissing your partner in public, you're okay with that moment happening with people around you, but you don't necessarily want it to be captured on film forever.)
The key is whether someone is identifiable in the photograph. If it's just the backs of everyone's head or you can't make out any faces, you get a pass.
Oh no, someone without the courage to sign their name to a comment doesn't like me! :( :( :(
Move into the future, pops. I get plenty of business done, and it typically doesn't involve me using a technology pioneered in the 1800s.
My phone application sits in a folder on the second screen of my iPhone, next to 'TimeHop'. It is one of the least important functions that my 'phone' has. It may be worse at making calls than older phones used to be, but I make an order of magnitude fewer calls than I used to as well. If I spend more than a couple hours total on the phone a YEAR, I'd be surprised.
Phoning someplace is my last resort. If I've got to phone somewhere and there's no other choice, I'll actually consider whether or not I want to shop there/use that service.
Good riddance.
Well, it works for me on the condition that the adaptor is provided in the box.
I know some people want more battery life and find a thinner phone anathema, but Apple's phones get about the same battery life from model to modelâ"10-14 hoursâ"while being thinner. So they tend not to regress significantly. I only need about that much, so a thinner phone is a bonus for me. For other people, external battery cases let you have the thicker phone you want and provide an enormous battery boost. I've heard John Siracusa call it the 'naked robotic core' theory. Sell a good, physically minimal device and allow people to augment it externally. That's the best of both worlds to me. I get the smaller phone that I want, and I can put a thin or nice case on it for a bit of protection or fashion. People with more robust needs will buy a different kind of case. Isn't that part of the choice everyone is begging for? I can't make a thick phone thinner, but I can slap attachments onto the phone all I want.
On the headphone front, I do about 3/4 of my listening through the Lightning port anyway. I have the phone docked at work and then run through a mixer, and I've got audio through the port in my car. A small adaptor on my headphones for when I'm walking around is a minimal burden. It's one fewer port that can be fouled or damaged.
Despite complaints, thinness does have actual benefits, tech-wise. Being forced to think about physical constraints and throw out old ideas about what's necessary on a device is important. Making parts smaller and more heat efficient is good. Packing it all into one thin device is amazing. And it's not just Appleâ"Apple drives parts manufacturers and competitors to come up with novel designs to compete. Sony has been making and refining amazing camera sensors for years now, driven in large part by the industry's need for better cameras in small formats.
Apple took a lot of crap for removing floppy drives and disc drives from their machines, too. The alternatives were better.
I don't think the headphone industry will switch to lightning (not even Beats; they'll obviously just have a choice between the two) but that's fine. I want my phone to effectively disappear. Something so thin and light and unobtrusive that I hardly notice it's there. We're most of the way there now, but I like how this is progressing.
Just PLEASE include the adaptor in the box, Apple. Seriously.
Wacom stylus replacements are only slightly cheaper, depending on the model. Some are very inexpensive, but some are certainly in the $100 ballpark. Apple isn't charging appreciably more than competitors, and by accounts of how the pencil works on that screen, it's a much better device.
So as a programmer in the AAA games industry, one of the nicest things about supporting consoles is that they're a fixed target and your development only gets more efficient over time. The API changes almost not at all, your engine settles into place, and your optimization pipeline becomes more refined as time goes on. You make better games at the end of the cycle than at the beginning.
Don't discount the value of a development target that is very consistent. After the first time we build some engine components, we literally never have to update them ever again. This is a big part of why consoles really took off and PC games comparatively languished for so long--each PC configuration represents a potential problem we didn't cover around the edges, and THOSE people are the ones that any support costs are going in to. If one person on console finds a bug and we can fix it, we've covered every single console user simultaneously. In the PC world, we've only fixed the problem for a handful of people and we're waiting for the next edge case.
I've never worked with Android, so I take you at your word that it's easier than it would seem for someone on the outside looking in, but I don't think it's entirely fair to accost the parent post.
I think his point was merely that it's not as trivial as getting a phone with fingerprints on it and suddenly having full access. The list of steps you included is still non-trivial, and I think we'd probably agree that almost all phone security is about discouraging trivial access. That list of steps is complicated enough that it probably requires a dedicated location (nobody is going to be able to do it while still on the subway), which gives me time to recognize my phone is gone and remotely kill it.
My partner and I have enrolled one of each other's fingers on each device. If there's an emergency or I die or something, I want her to have access to my stuff. That's also why my master password lives in her 1Password vault and vice-versa. Too much of my life is governed by this stuff to have it non-retrievable.
As a cyclist, I've got a special place in my heart for things made out of titanium. But something about the casing on this watch and the matte finish makes it look like plastic, and the face looks really fake. I know that it IS fake, but it LOOKS fake. Some of the other smartwatches out there have the good sense to at least attempt the illusion of depth.
But what part of this watch is actually Tag Heuer? Not the internals, and the watch face isn't anything special if you can just swap it in and out for anything else. You're left with an ugly watch casing (subjective, I know) and a brand name. Normally you can use the brand name as a proxy for some quality you want (lightness, thinness, openness, what have you) but this brand is a proxy for nothing here. The watch will be obsolete immediately and it has no qualities that stand it apart from every other watch on the market--it's not even the most expensive! It even fails as a Veblen good.
Mediocre.
First, I agree with the comments saying that it's not clear that Apple cares to enter that space. They probably don't want to.
But if they do, they've got an advantage in that their update cycle is 5-7x faster than the normal console cycle. They can release a new Apple TV next year. And the year after that. They could release an Apple TV every 2 years and still have an update cycle that's 2-3x faster than Sony or Microsoft.
Actually, why? I'm not sure why that's important, honestly. What do we owe to the fossil fuels industry that we need to continue propping them up? They receive BILLIONS in subsidies every year.
I happen to think that we're dumping carbon into the air faster than the planet can cope, particularly because we're simultaneously disrupting the systems that would normally be able to capture that carbon properly. But beyond that, it's indisputable that literally every step of extracting and using fossil fuels is bad for the environment. The tar sands in Alberta are a disaster for the soil and birds and wildlife and trees, they use an enormous amount of fresh, drinkable water and turn it into completely unusable filth. Offshore drilling and pipelines cause enormous environmental damage when they go wrong, and the sad reality is they go wrong ALL THE TIME. There's really just no good or clean way to extract or use this stuff right now.
Given that we have other technologies and we're starting to make good progress with them, I think we should stop propping up a sector that we know is dirty and harmful, even if they're not doing exactly as much damage as many scientists claim. There will be jobs in other energy industries for workers, it's just the people at the top that will have trouble finding new work--but they're already so rich I don't see any reason to be concerned for them.
If we take climate change out of the equation entirely, I still think it's worth shifting to a post-fossil-fuel energy infrastructure and doing it quickly. There are just too many downsides to oil and coal.
They love what their customers love. The system works.
I love a good ternary. I find it really obnoxious to try and set a variable through a long set of if-then-else statements, and sometimes I'm forced by C++ const correctness to do it through a ternary anyway.
I do my best to break them up over multiple lines in a way that makes the structure obvious, and I document them so you can read the comments instead of reading the actual code, but I know that's vulnerable to comment-rot.
To a certain extent it's a bad practice, but I really do find the terseness of a ternary a lot more pleasant. (If I have to do it more than once, I just make it a function, obvs.)
It's probably not much of a factor. iOS apps are aggressively throttled in the background. Facebook plays all sorts of dirty tricks to keep running (apparently like trying to pretend it's an audio app, I've heard?) but otherwise, most apps happily accept the kill signal and take up no additional CPU time.
Really? My friend can't make it through half a day without running to charge her Galaxy S5, whereas I get 12 hours of actually tapping on my screen on my iPhone 6.
My anecdote is at least as good as yours.
The 6 and 8 hour values are through synthetic benchmarks that purposely stress the processor and display things on the screen non-stop. I've never gotten as little as 8 hours from my phone, even on a day where I all I do is play games and load webpages. Apple's devices generally get about 10 hours of usable battery, and that's exactly how it's been for the last 4 years.
They do it as a trade-off for phone thinness. I'd rather have a thin phone and a thin case than a bulky phone that lasts 2 hours--or even 10 hours--longer. If I change my mind, I can buy a case that has a battery built in to it. But if I start with a bulky phone, I can't make a thin phone out of it. That's the tradeoff I'm willing to make.