macgui

How about an AirTag that will fit into a wallet. There are lesser similar devices that do but they're lesser devices. Such a tag would have to stand up the rigors of those who would put substantial pressure on the wallet and tag when seated. There have been DIYs to this end but I'd prefer a genuine  Tim Apple brand.

beowulfschmidt said:

As the article alludes, I guess that if a guest has a medical condition, such as diabetes, and uses the Apple Watch as a monitor using one of the devices for such purpose, they're just SOL, huh?  Were I such a person (fortunately, I am not), the couple would have to make a choice, either I wear my watch, or I don't attend.  I'd be fine not attending the wedding of someone who put their "vision" ahead of my health.

I am also fortunate that I don't know any people who would actually do this.

appleempl said:

My Apple Watch goes on in the morning and comes off before bed. I don’t use sleep functions. And, I don’t take it off for weddings. 

That's why wedding invitations are RSVP. Very easy not to attend. The article makes assumptions without considering the couple wasn't referring to people who depend on an Apple Watch for health issues. Even the reference to a tweet saying the bride 'works in the fashion industry' isn't damning proof or even a solid indication the bride objects to the look of Apple Watches.

RSVP is your friend. Or a phone call. "Hey my Apple Watch is a life/death overwatch. Would it be ok..." As if weddings aren't enough drama, let's make up some. It's not our wedding FFS.

No small amount of misogyny here. But like the freedom of a couple to make a specific request on a wedding invitation, people in forums have the freedom to make judgement calls with little or no basis but their own projections.

All the declarations of how they will or won't behave at someone's wedding because it's all about them, and not the happy couple. What asshats. I don't mean asshats.

Presumably it's friends and family that are invited to weddings but anybody who's been to a wedding or three knows that doesn't mean members of either will behave with basic common courtesy, same as demonstrated here.

We don't know why that specific request was made. If fact we don't know that tweet is genuine. The author could have made it up. If genuine does the couple seem smartwatches the same way people see 'kleenexx' 'Xerox' (mainly a few boomers on that one) or any other brand name pressed into generic service? Do they think Apple Watches garish and will accept Rolex, certain Pateks, or even a lowly Cartier? Or could then not want any smartwatch beeping during the ceremony, thinking that people will silence their phones? Just like in movie theaters. Right. We don't know.

I've been to weddings and heard phones on 'silent' and phones not on silent including those with loud songs as 'ring tones'. WTF.

A wedding couple gets to decide what goes and what doesn't at their wedding. That is their right. If they want every guest to wear clown shoes that's their right. Obviously they can't enforce it short of having security at the door. It's up to the guests to honor the requests. Like others have said they don't like it they don't have to go. Whether a couple are friends or not, if I'm not comfortable with any requests I just wouldn't attend. Nobody especially me needs to tell them 'I'll wear whatever I want to your wedding'. That's an asshat move. Just don't go.

Is it a shallow request? Maybe. Maybe not. Attendees defying the request are definitely shallower than their perception of the request.

It would be helpful to know more about the situation but it's an opportunity to assume the worst about two people (especially the bride) and demonstrate equally bad behavior. Grown ups. Yay us.

libertyandfree said:

foregoneconclusion said:

libertyandfree said:

DAalseth said:

Don’t bother trying to put lipstick on a pig. The next few years will be bad for everyone. Cook’s relationship with the man known for stabbing his friends in the back will not make any difference.

Well history of the first four years of the Trump Administration proved you wrong and most Americans, via the recent election, disagree with you.  

You should revisit Trump's use of tariffs from his first term. The soybean tariffs were such a disaster for American farmers that Republicans had to do a taxpayer funded bailout of those same farmers. So instead of boosting trade, it depressed trade and created debt levels so high that it could have destabilized American soybean production.

 So soybeans, really that’s the issue of concern. Oh boy. 🧒 

That's your takeaway? WTF. It's not the issue of concern. It's a bellwether of an issue of concern as in those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Then again if they don't understand it in the first place memory will have taught them nothing. Trump has already threatened Mexico with a promised 25% tariff and Mexico says bring it. He thinks everyone will bow to his will. By the way he never made them pay for the wall. 

Even when he's in agreement with someone, he's the scorpion/snake on their alligator back. Cook may be able to negotiate a no-tariff deal, but to Trump Tim Apple is a mere vassal same as any other US manufacturer that conducts some aspect of their business outside the US and its territories. 

The one thing we can trust about Trump is that he can't be trust. And that he will grift as often as possible. That his ego knows no bounds and that he's no guitar hero. Ok that's four things. I hate to think about it but there's more.

saarek said:

Pointing out other peoples flaws without reflecting how you are better isn’t going to win an election.

Uh, that was Trump's entire campaign. He didn't reflect on how he'd do better only that he would. OK he did promise deporting millions of people and establishing tariffs so yeah there's that. He might have even promised to rebuild The Wall. 

Granted Harris' campaign should have been much better. Still the tried and true strategy of telling lies people would prefer to believe and stoking their biases and fears won the election. It got half the country to elect an authoritarian who's a despot in training. Voting for Trump or not voting at all because the Dems didn't have a candidate I might not have liked was never an option. Maybe Harris wouldn't have turned out to be a great POTUS but she wouldn't come close to being the worst POTUS ever or even a bad one.

Four years from now let's all meet here and list all the ways the US and not very wealthy individuals was so much better under the Grifter in Chief. We can count all the wealth we accumulated like Scrooge McDuck. I predict that will be a very short discussion and an even shorter counting session.

The only people missing those "good ol' days" will be the very wealthy and those happy to see Browns, Blacks, and furriners put in their place. Preferably outside the US. Yes don't forget women barefoot and pregnant as God [insert upside down Bible pic here] intended. But there will be some consolation with the political inertia from Trump's war on Democracy.

I'll take solace knowing I still can afford an iPhone (I understand, Tim really) but will have to sell my Trump NFCs to afford food and shelter. We'll always have soybeans.