Mgwl

seanismorris said:

I read in a review on the Samsung watch the battery life is up to 48 hours.  But, using LTE it lasted 3 hours...

Soli said:

Where are you seeing 3 hours of battery life on LTE? I'm guessing that it's 3 hours of life on LTE when on a phone call, but just being a connected and doing normal stuff should get you about a day. Tom Guide's says, "Samsung says the LTE version lasts about 24 to 36 hours on a charge, depending on which size watch you buy, but I didn’t get a chance to test an LTE model." That's what you expect from your always on iPhone compared to actual phone call time with your iPhone.

I’d say about a day’s battery life is quite right. I regularly go to the office (well, not in these days of the coronavirus, I’m not) with only an Apple Watch on my wrist and the iPhone shelved back home. Including my commute, that’s about 12 hours on LTE with 5-10 minutes of phone calls, a handful of messages, some notifications and checking emails a couple of times during the day. If I don’t overuse it, the watch may hold up until bedtime. I keep a charging cable in my commuter bag, just in case, but have seldom used it.

Is there a good breakdown of how much the artists are paid by Apple Music and other streaming services? It would be really interesting to see if there are any merit to these ”complaints” that surfaces from time to time (which I think there is) and what we could possibly do about it (like also buying the albums from artists we really dig?).

I recently subscribed to Apple Music, although hestitantly, since I reckon that my family like to play the recent hits while they are just that; recent. As for myself, I will continue buying obscure death metal albums on iTunes Store because I imagine the bands get a bigger part of the share that way. Right or wrong?



 

I’m working as a building control officer, though in Sweden, and we’ve got pretty much the same ”problem” with large glass panes in highly architectual structures. The architects and designers keeps coming up with elaborate explainations as to why there’s no need for etchings or adhesives on the panels. This is what the Swedish building code says:

Glazed surfaces that are unprotected and positioned in such a way that people can come into contact with them shall be designed to ensure the risk of personal injury is limited.

Since the building code is built around functional properties, it doesn’t specifically or explicitly prescribe the use of etchings or adhesives, even though that is the obvious and common solution. The developer of the building could come up with something else, such as an proximity sensor that would tint the glass, should anyone get too close, even though that would be a very expensive solution.

Anyone knows what the US or Californian building code says on this matter?