There would need to be an incredible breakthrough in battery technology. Cellular radios just take up too much power for it to be a reasonable experience right now, unless you want to change watches mid-day.
There's no breakthrough necessary. The batteries are already good enough to manage standby with an occasional call, which meets the _phone_ needs of most users. The Apple Watch today is at least as good as a phone today as the iPhone was a decade ago. I can't even imagine the complexities of carrier/Apple politics to know what the real reasons are for why Apple hasn't allowed the watch to be standalone, but they aren't technical.
SE. How long is a day for you and what are you doing on it? Mine lasts at least 8 hours with light use (mostly standby with an hour of music but no streaming) before I decide to charge it around 50%, which is about what I'd expect of my phone 5 years ago.
Are you using cellular exclusively during those 8 hours? "Apple Watch Series 6 (GPS + Cellular) usage includes a total of 4 hours of LTE connection" according to Apple. (https://www.apple.com/watch/battery/).
My LTE only usage includes about 30 minutes of streaming and the rest just glancing. I can't get through a day like this.
If you have the cellular version, yes. However, I have found that the handoff from WiFi to Cellular is terrible. It takes a few minutes for the watch to realize it's not going to reconnect to WiFi soon, and in the meantime you're just sort of left waiting for when it decides to switch over to cellular.
This is especially annoying if you're listening to streaming radio (like NPR) and going for a walk. It will just drop. This has been the case since the very first version of the cellular watch, I suspect as a battery-saving feature.
The only way to really get around this is to force cellular mode before you leave. This is what I do, and it's embarrassingly un-Apple in experience:
(1) Put my iPhone in Airplane mode. I think I could accomplish the same thing just turning off BT, but I want to be really sure the phone and watch are cut off from each other.
(2) Turn WiFi off on my Apple Watch. Wait a few minutes(!) before I go for a walk -- make coffee, leash up my dog, etc
(3) Walk outside, and issue my Siri command to trigger music/radio
This usually works fine. But its annoying. If you're not especially dedicated to going phone-free (it drains the battery quickly) I really wouldn't bother.
No, you can use AirPods on a non-cellular watch just fine, it has bluetooth. Cellular only affects your ability to stream content (eg. Music or podcasts), but you are also able to download/cache those while on WiFi on the non-cellular watch.
Yep. That goes to show what I've said often in comments here: "meat" means food in certain parts of the world. That is to say English speaking parts of the world.
For instance, I'm Greek and in the Greek language bread is synonymous with "food". A few expressions in Greek characteristic of this synonymity of bread with food are: "δεν έχουμε ψωμί να φάμε" - "we have no bread to eat", meaning "we shall go hungry"; "βγάζω το ψωμί μου", "deriving one's bread", meaning "making a living" (analogous to "bring the bacon home"); and of course "πάτερ ημών ο εν τοις ουρανοίς δωσ' ημίν σήμερον τον άρτον ημών τον επιούσιον", or "our father who art in heaven give us our daily bread".
This is one reason why debates like the ones in this HN thread frustrate me. Yes, some people should definitely eat less meat. Much less meat! But that's by far not everyone in the world and some people have been eating very reasonable amounts, very sustainable amounts of meat (and very sustainable kinds of meat) for many generations. Of course those are the same people whose national cuisines are already teeming with vegetarian and vegan dishes, except of course those are simply called "food" in the local languages. I find it an affront, having grown up in such a culture, to hear that I have to reduce my meat consumption even further or switch to repulsive-sounding "plant-based meat alternatives" because some people half a world over can't sit down to eat without a big fat beef stake in front of them.
Bottom line: we haven't all fucked up the planet to the same degree. We shouldn't all have to change our way of life and the way we eat to the same degree.
Do I really have to find another source that somehow « counter » your post and give a « definition » of what meat is or how it is generally employed for?
I mean, we really are there?
If you make a barbecue party, do you discuss the new meaning of « meat » by the « I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about website »?
The modern definition of meat meaning animal flash evolved from the old more broad definition. And now it's evolving again to again include plant based meats.
It's how the language works and I'm not sure why would anyone be against using the broader definition when it's useful.
I don't see anyone complaining about coconut milk and peanut butter.
Funny enough, this is the original definition. You are the one using the new "fancy" definitions.
Wiki:
The word meat comes from the Old English word mete, which referred to food in general. The term is related to mad in Danish, mat in Swedish and Norwegian, and matur in Icelandic and Faroese, which also mean 'food'. The word mete also exists in Old Frisian (and to a lesser extent, modern West Frisian) to denote important food, differentiating it from swiets (sweets) and dierfied (animal feed).
This is at best dishonest, if you really referred to that definition, you would use "meat", not "imitation meat"/"fake meat"/"plant based meat". Everything in the marketing of that stuff is made to mimic meat-as-in-animal-muscle meat.
If you want a burger, go eat a freaking slaughtered cow patty burger, don't be all fancy with that highly process crap.
You really don't have to defend your masculinity to me.
I promise that I, or anyone else, won't think anything less of you if you'll replace steak with quinoa burger from time to time. It will be good for you and the environment!
Sure it is. It’s right there on the label. Things are called what they are called not because they have properties which match a platonic ideal and those properties are inextricably linked with the phonetic and orthographic representations of a language. No, things are called what they are called because lots of people make those sounds or write those symbols and associate it with that thing, which people receive as information and then use themselves.
In other words, you’ve already lost this battle, and you’ve lost it in many languages and countries at once.
Whatever world you wish to preserve in which, for whatever reasons of comfort you insist that plant-based meat isn’t meat, no longer exists.
By the amount of words I’m sure I’ve lost indeed. In « many many » languages and countries, everywhere around the world, and particularly in our very small new extremism world.
I have one question: why do people trying to eat only vegetables (is « vegetables » still ok?) insist so much to call that « plant-based » food « meat »?
> I have one question: why do people trying to eat only vegetables (is « vegetables » still ok?) insist so much to call that « plant-based » food « meat »?
That don’t. They just read what’s on the label and call it that. It’s preservationists who see a war here: everyone else has moved on.
If you’re into vegetables, as-in you’re against meat, you just eat vegetables and you don’t eat meat anymore. You don’t need that to be called « plant-based meat ».
Only the people who are actually so nostalgic of the good meat they had want something called « plant-based meat ».
Europe yes. US, no. The US is in an amazing position in terms of demography and growth. Aging population, but not immigrant averse like Japan and not an island. The US borders a rising economy with perfect demographics for growth (Mexico). The US is the least involved country in global trade. The US is increasingly disinterested in being the world police, so that capability can be deployed to protect economic interests abroad.
We’re headed for global instability, but don’t expect the US to have a fate similar to Europe.
> not immigrant averse like Japan and not an island
As the past 4 years have demonstrated, there is a very large segment of the US population is very much against immigration, and would happily turn the country into an "island" by building walls around the land borders.
That 78% breaks down to something like 90% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 60% of Republicans.
Among the Republicans, the 40% who are anti-immigration tend to feel very strongly about it, and are likely to consider it a major issue. The 60% of Republicans who are OK with immigration are less likely to consider it a major issue.
This makes it hard nowadays to get Republican support in the House for pro-immigration policies, because a pro-immigration Republican member of the House will attract anti-immigration primary challengers who will get the vote of the 40% who are anti-immigration. With that big bloc in hand its hard for the challenger to lose.
You can see a similar thing with abortion. About 60% of Republicans favor keeping Roe v. Wade, about 30% want to overturn it, and the rest are unsure [1]. But how many Republican members of Congress will come out or vote in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade? Pretty close to zero because doing so is political suicide in their next election.
Compared to other nations, the US has the least restrictive immigration laws. The US also benefits by bordering Canada with some of the most restrictive immigration laws. If you want to go where there is growth, there's no other option
> Compared to other nations, the US has the least restrictive immigration laws. The US also benefits by bordering Canada with some of the most restrictive immigration laws. If you want to go where there is growth, there's no other option
I thought Canada was far easier. I knew a software engineer who, about 15 years ago, got the Canadian equivalent of a green card as a "backup" without ever having actually lived there, in case she had problems with her US immigration. It sounded like a box ticking exercise, though this person had two masters degrees (IIRC, the second was to keep her status since she graduated from the first into a recession).
The last four years can’t really be compared to the last 2000 of Japan’s. Immigration is already ingrained in American culture. The aging boomers will die and be replaced by the most ethnically diverse generation in American history.
It's disingenuous to cast immigration concerns like an "aging boomer thing". The vast majority of Americans are fine with vetted, legal immigration. According to Pew, nearly 80% worry about illegal immigration "At least a little" to "A great deal". Furthermore there are real concerns, costs, and benefits to be weighed with immigration of all kind (legal and not), and dismissing them is just naive.
To list a few different people find concerning: depressing wages of domestic population, rapid cultural change of domestic population, brain drain from foreign population, strain on tax / social systems, ineffective vetting allowing cross-border contraband and criminal activity, and so on.
All of these are valid and deserve scrutiny and investigation. Obviously there are many beneficial aspects to immigration, and nearly all examples of very successful civilizations in history were at a crossroads of many cultures. Just wanted to make it clear that the immigration debate won't "die with boomers", and it shouldn't, because it is an important discussion to have.
Large in number, yes, but not in proportion to the total population.
Moreover, mostly in the places where productivity is not happening. Their growing irrelevance and sociocultural aversion to change are primary reasons for their vocality.
There was an article about this on HN. The perception of polarization is greater than reality. The overlap between republicans and democrats is pretty high. Most of them are only moderately against or in favor of migration.
Why Europe yes but US no? Europe is also not immigrant-averse and not an island. It doesn't border on Mexico, but it does border on many other countries.
I don't see why Europe would suffer a much different fate from the US.
I think the main thing holding the EU back is their love for austerity. They could do a lot more to invest in their economy.
Europe as a going United concern is headed towards a breakup. Germany’s demographics (and patience) will not not hold to support countries like Greece and Italy, which funded pensions instead of spending their bailouts responsibly. France will flourish, like it always does, because it’s more or less self sufficient and is strategically located and internally configured, but other countries like Spain will flounder due to internal conflicts. All of these will lead to a mixed to poor economic condition of slow growth and low to negative interest rates.
EU as a concept is still highly supported amongst adults and young adults. And if anything Brexit strengthened that, since UK is a now a clown that everyone laughs at with all the issues they are going through.
A lot of young people migrate between EU countries and just that is the biggest visible positive that all working adults recognise. Its something people would not want to lose willy-nilly. Something realllly serious would have to happen for EU to fail catastrophically.
Nationalism is on the rise. We are 7 decades removed from the horrors of conflict on the continent. Everyone who remembers that is dying.
The EU is a globalization project in an era where globalization is on the decline. It was held together by US warships and will fall apart as they recede, a vacuum filled by local, competing powers. Europe will not be immune to it, since it is after all composed of many cultures and many economies with competing aims.
It’s not a matter of what people want, it’s a matter of economic realities that will impugn any high-minded desire for unity and collaboration.
Die Zeit: "In the dispute over the delivery delay of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the EU Commission is currently making the best advertisement for Brexit: It is acting slowly, bureaucratically, and protectionist. And if something goes wrong, it’s everyone else’s fault. This is how many Britons see the EU, and so the prejudices were confirmed at the beginning of the week"
MSN Money: "Bild tore apart Von Der Leyen's explanation of the vaccine delays and threat to stop supplies heading to the UK line by line, accusing her of placing 'junk' orders for vaccines three months behind Britain. 'She says: "We know that there is no time to lose in a pandemic," but what she means is: "We may have wasted time. But we will NEVER admit that",' the newspaper wrote. Meanwhile 'Brexit Brits continue to receive full supplies,' the paper added.
The Telegraph: De Standaard, a Belgian newspaper, said the success of the Prime Minister’s move was a source of great frustration to the French, in particular, who are lagging far behind in their vaccine programme. It suggested that Brexiteers would take heart from that because Paris had regularly taken a hardline stance in the Brexit negotiations. The Flemish newspaper said that Mr Johnson liked to take risks and in this case, as opposed to in Brexit, the gambit had worked.
An El Mundo editorial accused the EU of a "failure" on vaccine procurement, citing a "lack of coordination between member states to articulate a homogeneous process" which is "ruining the prospect of achieving herd immunity after the summer"
Daniel Stelter, Manager Magazin: It is dawning on the German and European population that the political class has failed across the board in meeting the enormous economic and social challenges of the Corona crisis. It marks the accelerating decline of the EU. Everybody in the economic sphere now knows that whenever there is a problem at a production site in the EU, there is a risk of being hit with an export ban: vaccines today, biotech tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow what? This destruction of trust in the EU as a place of business (Standort EU) is all of a piece with its tendency towards over-regulation and planned-economy control. The gap between wish and reality in the EU is greater than ever. By failing to procure vaccines, the EU has validated Brexit and given all EU citizens an objective reason for euroscepticism.
I command you for putting effort to writing a post.
But you probably have no idea of british politics beyond headlines for newspapers. Uk dealing with covid was a circus on fire.
Here [0] UK has highest death per capita behind Belgium (super high pop density) and Slovenia (they had also excelent ideas on dealing with covid - have slovenian friend).
Johnsons gov did multiple 180 when dealing with covid, recently promised schools will stay absolutely open, only to closed them after 1 day that they were open.
I think I understand British politics pretty well, being British.
Here [0] UK has highest death per capita behind Belgium
No, it has one of the highest numbers of "people who died within 28 days of a positive test" which isn't the same thing. COVID is highly infectious but not very deadly, so with this definition the more you test the more such events can be found. This problem becomes obvious when you look at excess death stats and discover more people have died of COVID than the overall increase in deaths.
The UK does more than double the amount of testing Belgium has done [1]. This will automatically lead it to reporting more deaths in proximity to a positive test.
Johnsons gov did multiple 180 when dealing with covid, recently promised schools will stay absolutely open, only to closed them after 1 day that they were open
Like almost everywhere except Sweden the UK has a problem with any attempt to reopen being sunk by supposedly 'expert' scientists who seem to consider lockdowns to be free. Johnson is trapped by the public's expectation that scientists know what they're doing, which in this case they don't. Constant see-sawing, announcing garbage numbers and other problems have been seen in many countries, not just the UK. Really only Sweden has managed to avoid this, thanks to Anders Tegnell who has been both (a) consistent and (b) correct. It'd be great if the UK had Tegnell too, but no such luck.
I am not going to change you mind anyhow so have a great day living in your political thriller.
You could change my mind if you raised points I hadn't previously considered months ago, or weren't claiming things that are obviously false about how the UK and Brexit are currently being reported.
Still, the US seems to have a lot more internal conflicts. People are openly discussing civil war there. I think the EU does a better job of learning from its past, and support for the EU is pretty high.
Of course there will always be problems in the EU, but I don't see it breaking apart any time soon.
You might want to mention some sources in case people are interested in reading more on this theory.
Namely: Peter Zeihan. I'm a fan of the guy - his logic and rough predictions certainly seem to be bearing fruit over the last decade. If he's right about the coming decade we are in for a bit of a bumpy ride.
Agreed! I'm plagiarizing wholesale from Peter Zeihan, I'm not a geopolitical expert. I recently read Disunited Nations. His YouTube videos and podcasts are very interesting.
Re: your comment about being in for a bumpy ride: I think his logic is solid in that the bumpy ride is only in relation to the unprecedented post-WWII/post-cold-war era. We know from history that the norm in the world is instability.
Pretty much all the countries in America have a fertility rate around 2 more or less.
Even Mexico is approximately at 2.1
They will start to lose population in a few decades.
