And the sky is blue. Your comment does not dispute the fact that larger watch faces is a style people like. Because you don't does not invalidate others do
This was a style thing that tended to ebb and flow. The trend in the 2000s was to have really big watch faces but by the 2010s people were calling them “dinner plates” and it started to be viewed as kind of tacky and ostentatious. Smart watches ended up recalibrating people’s expectations but, if they hadn’t shaken things up, I think we’d be leaning towards smaller faces by now.
In fact, fashionable youths these days are wearing those vintage Casios which come in at 35mm to 39mm.
Most people I know who use iPads do so because a phone is too small to see or type on, but an actual computer/laptop is too complicated and intimidating to use.
It will save people a lot of time because they don't have to go to the Apple store, they can use their own passport to discover that the phone is still too big in a different dimension to use with one hand.
The swipe controls are terrible on my Pro 2s and make me miss physical buttons like on my ancient Jabra 65t. It's easier to reach into a pocket and push the volume buttons on my phone without unlocking or looking at it.
Oh man, I loved the 65t! I remember Jabra making great true wireless headphones. They were small, sounded ok, had actual buttons but operating them didn't push the earbud against the brain.
Miss that a lot. Nowadays it's all touch and I hate it so much because for some reason I have a problem spatially locating them and always end up touching it the wrong way (and yes, I know... ;)
i still use their conference speaker for calling and music and is the primary sound for my computer. i like it and it has worked really well for the last 5 years.
“[REDACTED, MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION]”
So any company has the option to redact information if they feel like it. Tesla has chosen to provide as little information as possible, claiming business secrecy, and no one can compel them otherwise.
Tesla can do both. There will undoubtedly be a fee to join and use the Tesla ridesharing platform - I would expect that every Cybercab sold to require, at the minimum, the monthly $100 FSD subscription. On top of that, Tesla would take a cut off of all rides that cannot be negotiated.
Any franchisee contract would also need to have some sort of rules that prevent Tesla from running their own taxis themselves and undercutting their business, if it turns out to be too successful.
I don't know if that's true, especially when those "local governments" are cities with millions of people. You can get permission to operate in a small city, but if you can't drive outside of it, that really limits the usefulness. Small cities aren't a focal point of taxi services either.
Waymo didn't even bother dealing with any of the small cities in the San Francisco Bay Area, they worked directly with the state of California in order to expand their service area.
Companies have to convince potential franchisees that they will be successful. Usually, the franchiser needs to already be wildly successful and have a playbook of how the franchisee will also be successful and how the franchiser will protect them, often via regional exclusivity.
I don't know if Tesla has proven that their own fleet is successful.
Between "Most of the west" and "Asian countries" it seems like it's the vast majority of industrialized countries that take off or swap their shoes inside. There's just an odd blip of over-represented online people who don't.
reply