>"but it seriously sounds like this guy is so dumb he deserves the jail time."
+1 Bingo.
This is not a legal assessment but:
1) We are not talking about an obscure movie, but something very popular.
2) We are not talking about some old movie, or something that should have been public domain a decade ago, but something recent produced.
3) We are not talking about some secret or obscure site, but Facebook, which doesn't get more mainstream and visible.
4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundreds or thousands of views, but over 6 million potential viewings.
5) He probably has no money, so there is probably nothing to take from him other than his freedom.
6) His attitude about it shows he has zero remorse and, instead, actual contempt for the law AND the justice system.
Keep in mind that I have no love of what "modern" copyright has become- with ridiculously long monopolies, and evil tactics to enforce it. But there is some type of balance that has to remain if we expect any reasonable quality of intellectual property to be developed.
>"Addiction To Fortnite Cited In Over 200 Divorce Petitions"
>"received over 200 petitions citing addiction to Fortnite and other online games as one of the reasons"
>"also citing online pornography and social media."
So which is it? 200 for Fornite, or the 200 games including Fortnite, or 200 computer addiction citings that include Fortnite? So it is all about addiction to Fortnite, gaming, or computers?
>"Tech companies" are not responding to the hurricane in any way that matters. [...] How many of them are donating supplies? [...] How many are putting up people in housing?"
This series of articles is about technology, not about supplies.
Did you not read the summary? AirBnb is covering the entire cost of lodging people. That is pretty damn significant right there. Not listed: Google is matching donations to the Red Cross up to $1 million. Amazon set up a way to donate easily through Alexa. Facebook activated safety and crisis response pages and in-app donation collection.
10,000,000+ installs, very high rating, lots of positive reviews and articles. But it has some annoyances, like asking to be the default dialer/phone app EVERY TIME you look in the log (since I don't want it to have that ability). But the powerful feature is there is a single click in settings that blocks all calls EXCEPT those in your contacts and whitelist. And it does seem to work (I have been testing it). There are some issues and limitations:
1) Sometimes one ring will go through 2) It can't prevent voicemail options 3) It seems to want to leave a persistent notification else it is "slow to react" 4) Has ads on the log page, but that isn't bad, plus there is a "pro" (paid) version if that annoys or you want to reward them. 5) It will block your own landline, even if you the number listed in the Android hard-coded "Me" contact. So you will have to add yourself again, as another contact and list your home or other "own" numbers there (I tested that it works).
The important thing is that you really have to remember to add anyone you want to allow calls, and any number they might use, to your contacts OR the whitelist. That won't work well for people who give out their number to businesses or for casual use. But since I don't do that, and rarely give out my cell number, I should be OK, as long as I remember for those few exceptions. Of course, at least voicemail will work in those cases.
>"Also I don't believe you. I get non-recognized calls all the time and they NEVER leave voicemail. I think you're making that up."
Believe what you like. Sometimes they are just a 1 second click. Other times they are just part of some stupid pre-recorded message they blast through.
>"It looks like they have an app for Android too."
They do, but it is rated 2 stars with endless complaints and issues. Plus it is a paid "service" (which I would never do). But thanks for sharing the info.
>"I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize. If it's important they'll leave a voicemail. "
Not a solution at all.
Spammers leave voicemail all the time, either intentionally or not... especially when it is those damn robocalls.
And then you have an annoying notification. Then you have to open and wait for the voicemail app. Then find the message and select it. Then wait for it to download the audio. Then listen to it, yep, F'ing spam. Then you have to delete it. Then you might want to delete it from your log or manually add it to the useless "blocklist" which STILL allows those calls to leave F'ing voicemail all over again. And they will just call back later, ANYWAY.
Except it is apparently civil and not criminal. So nobody cares and they go right ahead and spam. Same thing with junk faxes- which are also illegal, and yet only civil. As if someone is going to find and pay a private detective to find out who REALLY faxed, then find and pay a lawyer to maybe find and sue that party, then have to take time off work to do all that and to go to court, to MAYBE get a few dollars or something. It is a total joke.
Unless it is criminal and actually enforced, nothing will change. We need a system where if you get a spam call on ANY line, you hang up, then dial a simple code, and it automatically reports them to the FCC/FTC/whatever, real-time, and they actually DO something about it when it is confirmed by a second report from someone else. But don't hold your breath, that will never happen.
The best we can ACTUALLY hope for, MAYBE, is to close ALL the loopholes that allow people to fake or hide their actual phone numbers and where calls are coming from. At least then, some filtering and blocking techniques might have a chance.
I do too. During the last hurricane, all the cell towers failed, but land lines were fine. And I have land phones throughout the house that just work, and with good clarity. And I have a system that is wireless and also links to my cell phone, too. Panasonic I know I always have a reliable way to call 911- either land or cell. I would much rather "talk" on my wireless land line with HUGE battery life and easy to hold handset... often with a wired headset plugged into it.
The problem is that F'ing Verizon keeps raising the rate so it is crazy expensive now. I have NO optional services, limited dialout (something like 60 calls max per month), and my bill is still something like $38/mo!
>"Until then, I'll continue to set my blocking app automatically hang up if they're not in my contact list."
Care to share the love with info on what you did/use? First, I didn't think any app could have that permission, so I think it would require root, which rules out use by most people.
But it sounds like you have something similar to what I want (which is doable on a land line, but apparently not on cellular). I don't want a "service" from some third party. Ideally I would like something, non-root, that would silently answer calls from anyone NOT in my contact list and challenge the caller with a simple math problem or something like that. If they fail, it hangs up WITH NO VOICEMAIL OPTION, perhaps with a warning to remove my number from their list. But it still logs the call event WITH NO NOTIFICATION. If they pass, it rings through as normal.
The problem right now is that stock Android is EXTREMELY weak when it comes to anti-call-spam. And almost any option you try, still gives them freaking voicemail options, which are just as annoying as a call, if not more-so, because you still get annoyed by a notification, have to go find the stupid voicemail app, wait for it to load and download the audio, listen to it, then delete it, every time.
I would even be partially happy if I could just have the option to not allow voicemail for dismissed calls. So frustrating.
>"Apple invented the touchscreen phone as we know it."
"As we know it?"
That is quite a disclaimer. Palm and others had very functional touch screens for a long time before Apple had any phone at all. Of course, they were resistive and not capacitive. But I read all the time in the media how Apple invented the smart phone, which is absolutely and totally false. And how Apple invented the touchscreen phone, which is equally false.
But since Apple tried for years to say that large screen phones are stupid and people don't want them, let's give them credit for inventing such wonderful things as:
* Walled garden app infrastructures * Non-replaceable batteries * Elimination of convenient and universal headphone jacks * Stupid screen notches * Non-standard charging ports * A single button trying to do 20 things * Thin at the expense of battery life * Requiring cases to have a hole to ensure the Apple logo is always visible, because, you know, everyone has to know you have a "real" phone.
Sorry, I don't believe it. The footprint of a headphone jack next to the USB jack isn't going to give any meaningful improvement in battery size opportunity.
How about make the stupid phone 1 or 2 mm *THICKER*. That would make a huge difference in cubic space available for a bigger battery. And now poll consumers- which would you rather have:
1) Crazy thin with headphone jack and X battery life
2) Crazy thin with NO headphone jack and X + 20 min more battery life
3) 2mm thicker with headphone jack and X + 20 HOURS more battery life.
Of course, I am making up the numbers, but you get the idea.
A media company can include well-researched and detailed articles and yet still be very slanted. Don't mistake equating quality research and writing with impartiality.
>"California's tech industry is over 40% foreign-born [mercurynews.com]. Any candidate who runs on an anti-immigrant platform"
He ran on an anti ILLEGAL immigrant platform. There is a HUGE difference, and I guarantee that those 40% you mention in the tech industry are almost all legal. Although he also ran on limiting legal importation of competing high-skilled visa workers and that was EXTREMELY popular with tech workers. Such moves put companies like Google at odds with their own citizen workers' best interests, and perhaps THAT is their motivation to try and twist it to be about "xenophobia" and "anti-diversity"...
>"Trump has had a huge impact on the business climate in America, right across the board"
And yet this video was right after he was elected and hadn't DONE anything yet and wasn't even president yet. And nothing political being discussed was actually about BUSINESS. It was more of a whine fest on "feelings", not a reasoned examination of how it might affect business operations, competitiveness, revenue, policy, etc.
>"And this from a man not known for delicacy or nuance."
Yeah, because stuff from MSNBC, Washington Post, NY Times, Huffington, or CNN would be SO much less biased [NOT]...
Finding relatively unbiased media has never been easy in the last 25+ years. It hasn't gotten better, just worse.... the only REAL difference is that the "mainstream" media is now being ever more pressured by Internet sources that can't be so easily "controlled" to fit their narratives.
And yet, those views really don't belong at work. It is one thing for people to talk at lunch or on break, but the type of stuff in that video really is inappropriate. It is done on company time, with company money, and doesn't really relate to their business mission or processes at all.
>"But I give more weight to the offence felt by the descendants of slaves (who still deal with racism and slavery apologists)"
Sorry, but just about EVERYONE was a descendant of slaves when you go far back enough in history. It doesn't matter your race, skin color, ethnicity, or country. Slavery had existed for many thousands of years just about everywhere and was still quite prevalent just several hundred years ago. Statistically, it is very probable anyone can trace their ancestors back to at least one that was a slave.
Same thing with "racism", it is not exclusive to any one group or demographic. Never has been, never will be.
Same thing with "class"
Same thing with "family background"
People need to stop playing the victim cards/roles and take responsibility for their own life, actions, speech, activities, beliefs, whatever.
>"...suddenly doesn't look quite so bad, does it?"
That is exactly what I was thinking.
>summary: "with many heralding their adoption as the death of the internet."
Well, no, but it might be the death of the "internet" in the EU. At some point they are going to go too far (this might be it) and companies will just give up and start blocking the EU and it will be like the great firewall of China, except in reverse. Then the EU can live in their own "digital utopia world" with as much censorship, manipulation, taxes, and control over information that they want.
Wait- so they are voting themselves free money, and then "crowdsourcing" (I guess online begging) to pay for it? Who do they expect will donate money to such a thing and why would they?
Why not just put the town on "gofundme" with a description of "We want your money, because we want to give it to our citizens. Please give us money, we like money and would like some free money. Thanks"
The real problem comes when you try to use a modern web browser with such a low-powered system. Some web sites might fare OK, but the current main web is such a crapzone of intense and unbelievably big javascript, forced video, HUGE images that it forces the client to scale, transparencies, fly-outs, mouse-overs, stupid animated transitions, hooks into a zillion other sites, that ANY browser that CAN render it halfway decently is going to gobble up all your memory and CPU resources with just a single, terribly slow page.
So although such a system might work fine for some types of projects, but as a desktop, it would be pretty bad.
Ironically, I just updated my browser, and have 5 tabs open half-screen, with ads blocked, and is doing NOTHING, yet it is consuming 50% of an entire core (hasn't done THAT before, but has since the update two days ago, it pretty constant). Top shows one of the processes at 50% CPU, yet about:performance says NOTHING about anything using resources. The tabs are 4 static/old forums, Slashdot, Hotmail, Youtube. And the Youtube one is just sitting on a listing of videos with nothing playing and no animation. If I close that tab, wham, back to a very low CPU, except it didn't work this last time I closed it. Annoying on a powerful 6 core system... but it would be crippling on a old/weak 1 or 2 core system.
>"My 1980's Casio can run 20 years on one battery"
How long does your smart phone run on one battery? That would be the more appropriate comparison.
Besides, a 1980's Casio watch can't do: notifications, remote control, internet searches, heart rate, step counter, send text messages, take notes, show weather and news, reminders, monitor sleep, voice-to-text... Your comparison isn't valid.
Oh, and with the Gear S3, at least, if you just want it to tell the time only, it will last over 40 days between charges. Not bad for an hour on a charger.
>"So basically this is a watch that forces you to recharge every day (until the battery degrades)"
Um, pretty much like a phone?
>"that can't keep accurate time for longer than a minute (unless it synchronizes),"
Have worn 3 smartwatches of different models over 5 years, none have had that issue.
>"that tracks your location and listens to your voice under programmatic control"
Completely up to you in settings.
>"and that plays back music over headphones with batteries that don't even last as long as the watch."
The article is that they GAINED two additional days of typical run time, not that it lasts two days. Although music through a watch connected headset is a bit odd to me.... Like most people, I wouldn't go anywhere without my phone, so there is little point in that.
Slashdot Mirror
+1
Including a few "non-Googlers" (what a ridiculous term) on some "advisory" committee is NOT going to fix what is wrong with this whole AMP concept.
>"but it seriously sounds like this guy is so dumb he deserves the jail time."
+1 Bingo.
This is not a legal assessment but:
1) We are not talking about an obscure movie, but something very popular.
2) We are not talking about some old movie, or something that should have been public domain a decade ago, but something recent produced.
3) We are not talking about some secret or obscure site, but Facebook, which doesn't get more mainstream and visible.
4) We are not talking about damages that number in the hundreds or thousands of views, but over 6 million potential viewings.
5) He probably has no money, so there is probably nothing to take from him other than his freedom.
6) His attitude about it shows he has zero remorse and, instead, actual contempt for the law AND the justice system.
Keep in mind that I have no love of what "modern" copyright has become- with ridiculously long monopolies, and evil tactics to enforce it. But there is some type of balance that has to remain if we expect any reasonable quality of intellectual property to be developed.
>"Addiction To Fortnite Cited In Over 200 Divorce Petitions"
>"received over 200 petitions citing addiction to Fortnite and other online games as one of the reasons"
>"also citing online pornography and social media."
So which is it? 200 for Fornite, or the 200 games including Fortnite, or 200 computer addiction citings that include Fortnite? So it is all about addiction to Fortnite, gaming, or computers?
>"Tech companies" are not responding to the hurricane in any way that matters. [...] How many of them are donating supplies? [...] How many are putting up people in housing?"
This series of articles is about technology, not about supplies.
Did you not read the summary? AirBnb is covering the entire cost of lodging people. That is pretty damn significant right there. Not listed: Google is matching donations to the Red Cross up to $1 million. Amazon set up a way to donate easily through Alexa. Facebook activated safety and crisis response pages and in-app donation collection.
Reply to self. I did some more research and decided to at least try SOMETHING. After reading and reading, I ended up installing this:
https://play.google.com/store/...
Calls Blacklist - Call Blocker by Vlad Lee
10,000,000+ installs, very high rating, lots of positive reviews and articles. But it has some annoyances, like asking to be the default dialer/phone app EVERY TIME you look in the log (since I don't want it to have that ability). But the powerful feature is there is a single click in settings that blocks all calls EXCEPT those in your contacts and whitelist. And it does seem to work (I have been testing it). There are some issues and limitations:
1) Sometimes one ring will go through
2) It can't prevent voicemail options
3) It seems to want to leave a persistent notification else it is "slow to react"
4) Has ads on the log page, but that isn't bad, plus there is a "pro" (paid) version if that annoys or you want to reward them.
5) It will block your own landline, even if you the number listed in the Android hard-coded "Me" contact. So you will have to add yourself again, as another contact and list your home or other "own" numbers there (I tested that it works).
The important thing is that you really have to remember to add anyone you want to allow calls, and any number they might use, to your contacts OR the whitelist. That won't work well for people who give out their number to businesses or for casual use. But since I don't do that, and rarely give out my cell number, I should be OK, as long as I remember for those few exceptions. Of course, at least voicemail will work in those cases.
>"Also I don't believe you. I get non-recognized calls all the time and they NEVER leave voicemail. I think you're making that up."
Believe what you like. Sometimes they are just a 1 second click. Other times they are just part of some stupid pre-recorded message they blast through.
>"It looks like they have an app for Android too."
They do, but it is rated 2 stars with endless complaints and issues. Plus it is a paid "service" (which I would never do). But thanks for sharing the info.
>"I use Advanced Call Blocker."
Unfortunately, I can't find that in Play Store :(
>"I don't answer calls from numbers I don't recognize. If it's important they'll leave a voicemail. "
Not a solution at all.
Spammers leave voicemail all the time, either intentionally or not... especially when it is those damn robocalls.
And then you have an annoying notification.
Then you have to open and wait for the voicemail app.
Then find the message and select it.
Then wait for it to download the audio.
Then listen to it, yep, F'ing spam.
Then you have to delete it.
Then you might want to delete it from your log or manually add it to the useless "blocklist" which STILL allows those calls to leave F'ing voicemail all over again.
And they will just call back later, ANYWAY.
I don't find that useful at all.
>"At least it's still illegal to spam cellphones"
Except it is apparently civil and not criminal. So nobody cares and they go right ahead and spam. Same thing with junk faxes- which are also illegal, and yet only civil. As if someone is going to find and pay a private detective to find out who REALLY faxed, then find and pay a lawyer to maybe find and sue that party, then have to take time off work to do all that and to go to court, to MAYBE get a few dollars or something. It is a total joke.
Unless it is criminal and actually enforced, nothing will change. We need a system where if you get a spam call on ANY line, you hang up, then dial a simple code, and it automatically reports them to the FCC/FTC/whatever, real-time, and they actually DO something about it when it is confirmed by a second report from someone else. But don't hold your breath, that will never happen.
The best we can ACTUALLY hope for, MAYBE, is to close ALL the loopholes that allow people to fake or hide their actual phone numbers and where calls are coming from. At least then, some filtering and blocking techniques might have a chance.
>"You still have a land line."
I do too. During the last hurricane, all the cell towers failed, but land lines were fine. And I have land phones throughout the house that just work, and with good clarity. And I have a system that is wireless and also links to my cell phone, too. Panasonic I know I always have a reliable way to call 911- either land or cell. I would much rather "talk" on my wireless land line with HUGE battery life and easy to hold handset... often with a wired headset plugged into it.
The problem is that F'ing Verizon keeps raising the rate so it is crazy expensive now. I have NO optional services, limited dialout (something like 60 calls max per month), and my bill is still something like $38/mo!
>"Until then, I'll continue to set my blocking app automatically hang up if they're not in my contact list."
Care to share the love with info on what you did/use? First, I didn't think any app could have that permission, so I think it would require root, which rules out use by most people.
But it sounds like you have something similar to what I want (which is doable on a land line, but apparently not on cellular). I don't want a "service" from some third party. Ideally I would like something, non-root, that would silently answer calls from anyone NOT in my contact list and challenge the caller with a simple math problem or something like that. If they fail, it hangs up WITH NO VOICEMAIL OPTION, perhaps with a warning to remove my number from their list. But it still logs the call event WITH NO NOTIFICATION. If they pass, it rings through as normal.
The problem right now is that stock Android is EXTREMELY weak when it comes to anti-call-spam. And almost any option you try, still gives them freaking voicemail options, which are just as annoying as a call, if not more-so, because you still get annoyed by a notification, have to go find the stupid voicemail app, wait for it to load and download the audio, listen to it, then delete it, every time.
I would even be partially happy if I could just have the option to not allow voicemail for dismissed calls. So frustrating.
>"Apple invented the touchscreen phone as we know it."
"As we know it?"
That is quite a disclaimer. Palm and others had very functional touch screens for a long time before Apple had any phone at all. Of course, they were resistive and not capacitive. But I read all the time in the media how Apple invented the smart phone, which is absolutely and totally false. And how Apple invented the touchscreen phone, which is equally false.
But since Apple tried for years to say that large screen phones are stupid and people don't want them, let's give them credit for inventing such wonderful things as:
* Walled garden app infrastructures
* Non-replaceable batteries
* Elimination of convenient and universal headphone jacks
* Stupid screen notches
* Non-standard charging ports
* A single button trying to do 20 things
* Thin at the expense of battery life
* Requiring cases to have a hole to ensure the Apple logo is always visible, because, you know, everyone has to know you have a "real" phone.
Sorry, I don't believe it. The footprint of a headphone jack next to the USB jack isn't going to give any meaningful improvement in battery size opportunity.
How about make the stupid phone 1 or 2 mm *THICKER*. That would make a huge difference in cubic space available for a bigger battery. And now poll consumers- which would you rather have:
1) Crazy thin with headphone jack and X battery life
2) Crazy thin with NO headphone jack and X + 20 min more battery life
3) 2mm thicker with headphone jack and X + 20 HOURS more battery life.
Of course, I am making up the numbers, but you get the idea.
A media company can include well-researched and detailed articles and yet still be very slanted. Don't mistake equating quality research and writing with impartiality.
>"California's tech industry is over 40% foreign-born [mercurynews.com]. Any candidate who runs on an anti-immigrant platform"
He ran on an anti ILLEGAL immigrant platform. There is a HUGE difference, and I guarantee that those 40% you mention in the tech industry are almost all legal. Although he also ran on limiting legal importation of competing high-skilled visa workers and that was EXTREMELY popular with tech workers. Such moves put companies like Google at odds with their own citizen workers' best interests, and perhaps THAT is their motivation to try and twist it to be about "xenophobia" and "anti-diversity"...
>"Trump has had a huge impact on the business climate in America, right across the board"
And yet this video was right after he was elected and hadn't DONE anything yet and wasn't even president yet. And nothing political being discussed was actually about BUSINESS. It was more of a whine fest on "feelings", not a reasoned examination of how it might affect business operations, competitiveness, revenue, policy, etc.
>"And this from a man not known for delicacy or nuance."
Well that is for sure.
>"Breitbart arguing about inherent bias."
Yeah, because stuff from MSNBC, Washington Post, NY Times, Huffington, or CNN would be SO much less biased [NOT]...
Finding relatively unbiased media has never been easy in the last 25+ years. It hasn't gotten better, just worse.... the only REAL difference is that the "mainstream" media is now being ever more pressured by Internet sources that can't be so easily "controlled" to fit their narratives.
>"Political views are part of life."
And yet, those views really don't belong at work. It is one thing for people to talk at lunch or on break, but the type of stuff in that video really is inappropriate. It is done on company time, with company money, and doesn't really relate to their business mission or processes at all.
>"But I give more weight to the offence felt by the descendants of slaves (who still deal with racism and slavery apologists)"
Sorry, but just about EVERYONE was a descendant of slaves when you go far back enough in history. It doesn't matter your race, skin color, ethnicity, or country. Slavery had existed for many thousands of years just about everywhere and was still quite prevalent just several hundred years ago. Statistically, it is very probable anyone can trace their ancestors back to at least one that was a slave.
Same thing with "racism", it is not exclusive to any one group or demographic. Never has been, never will be.
Same thing with "class"
Same thing with "family background"
People need to stop playing the victim cards/roles and take responsibility for their own life, actions, speech, activities, beliefs, whatever.
>"...suddenly doesn't look quite so bad, does it?"
That is exactly what I was thinking.
>summary: "with many heralding their adoption as the death of the internet."
Well, no, but it might be the death of the "internet" in the EU. At some point they are going to go too far (this might be it) and companies will just give up and start blocking the EU and it will be like the great firewall of China, except in reverse. Then the EU can live in their own "digital utopia world" with as much censorship, manipulation, taxes, and control over information that they want.
Wait- so they are voting themselves free money, and then "crowdsourcing" (I guess online begging) to pay for it? Who do they expect will donate money to such a thing and why would they?
Why not just put the town on "gofundme" with a description of "We want your money, because we want to give it to our citizens. Please give us money, we like money and would like some free money. Thanks"
The real problem comes when you try to use a modern web browser with such a low-powered system. Some web sites might fare OK, but the current main web is such a crapzone of intense and unbelievably big javascript, forced video, HUGE images that it forces the client to scale, transparencies, fly-outs, mouse-overs, stupid animated transitions, hooks into a zillion other sites, that ANY browser that CAN render it halfway decently is going to gobble up all your memory and CPU resources with just a single, terribly slow page.
So although such a system might work fine for some types of projects, but as a desktop, it would be pretty bad.
Ironically, I just updated my browser, and have 5 tabs open half-screen, with ads blocked, and is doing NOTHING, yet it is consuming 50% of an entire core (hasn't done THAT before, but has since the update two days ago, it pretty constant). Top shows one of the processes at 50% CPU, yet about:performance says NOTHING about anything using resources. The tabs are 4 static/old forums, Slashdot, Hotmail, Youtube. And the Youtube one is just sitting on a listing of videos with nothing playing and no animation. If I close that tab, wham, back to a very low CPU, except it didn't work this last time I closed it. Annoying on a powerful 6 core system... but it would be crippling on a old/weak 1 or 2 core system.
>"My 1980's Casio can run 20 years on one battery"
How long does your smart phone run on one battery? That would be the more appropriate comparison.
Besides, a 1980's Casio watch can't do: notifications, remote control, internet searches, heart rate, step counter, send text messages, take notes, show weather and news, reminders, monitor sleep, voice-to-text... Your comparison isn't valid.
Oh, and with the Gear S3, at least, if you just want it to tell the time only, it will last over 40 days between charges. Not bad for an hour on a charger.
>"So basically this is a watch that forces you to recharge every day (until the battery degrades)"
Um, pretty much like a phone?
>"that can't keep accurate time for longer than a minute (unless it synchronizes),"
Have worn 3 smartwatches of different models over 5 years, none have had that issue.
>"that tracks your location and listens to your voice under programmatic control"
Completely up to you in settings.
>"and that plays back music over headphones with batteries that don't even last as long as the watch."
The article is that they GAINED two additional days of typical run time, not that it lasts two days. Although music through a watch connected headset is a bit odd to me.... Like most people, I wouldn't go anywhere without my phone, so there is little point in that.