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.
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
To go on a different tangent, I want a round Apple Watch. I know it's not the most efficient use of space, but dangit I don't want the weird little (but constantly-growing) square! If I have to have something on my wrist all day, I want it to look nice and not like a brick.
Even better idea: Get a Casio FX-91 [1]. You'll get used to its shape pretty quick - like the 100 Million other humans who already have. Good chance it will still be produced 30 years from now, too, so if you lose it or break it you can get a new one. Costs a tenth of an Apple watch.
Try Garmin if you want a round smart watch. They get good reviews and the sporty types who own them swear by them.
Can’t imagine Apple ever doing this, though, because a round display is pretty terrible for displaying the sort of content and UI elements that iPhone/Apple Watch users are used to. Much of the UI and all existing apps would need to be completely redesigned.
I have a Garmin for the express reason of battery life. I get 2-3 weeks per charge and it's "oh I should charge it eventually" "about to start a jog - oh it's a 6%, ok charge it tomorrow..."
Yeah I fully admit I'm yelling at clouds here. I have looked at Garmin and they're likely to be be what I eventually settle on. I have my own issues with their design philosophy, or more particularly, the design philosophy of their operating systems and back-end UX, but they're a far sight better aesthetically to these eyes. The watches by "nothing" are also pleasing to the eye but don't seem to be really be good at doing what i want (responsive heart rate monitoring, sport features).
Almost seems like it’d be easier to spend a couple weeks in Shenzhen getting cables made to your specifications rather than testing everything on the market.
A better question is why a company is allowed to effectively lie using fraudulent false advertising in its marketing and brand image about being environmentally conscious and become the largest polluter in the country?
Is Amazon too broke to buy the necessary land to build out wind/solar/battery? I thought a company that name sponsored “Climate Pledge Arena” could afford to pay a little bit extra to care about the climate.
A wind/solar/battery solution is not even really much more expensive than gas power and it’s far less dependent on fluctuating fuel prices.
I'm absoltutely not defending the environmental decision, but these datacenter projects seem to be funded mostly by free cash flow (not borrowed money), from the hyperscaler profit margins.
I don’t think business really wants interest rates that high. Without conspiracy theories, a simpler explanation is that this is simply democracy in action. People don’t want the spending reigned in, and they don’t want their taxes raised.
I think in this thread it’s worth posting out that interest rates aren’t actually high historically. They’re pretty normal. They were just wildly low for around a decade or so.
If you look at a 30-year fixed mortgage chart, the <6% rate situation only existed between roughly 2008 and 2021. At no other time in the history of the 30-year fixed rate mortgage was it ever that low. Ever.
If I understand correctly, for speed of deployment they're building a less-efficient simple-cycle plant (instead of the typical combined-cycle). Even though it's larger, the efficiency is worse than a typical natural gas plant.
Natural gas is basically a waste product that gets flared off in many oil-producing parts of Texas. If this private power plant can use that gas for something productive then I guess at least we're no worse off. But it's not clear that is what is happening.
Which is nonsense. There's plenty of pollution that's been diluted as much as it possibly can be and is still problematic. CO2 is an obvious example. Or consider leaded gasoline or mercury. You have to be careful not to eat too much fish or you'll have trouble with the mercury in it. That's been diluted by the entire ocean and that didn't solve it.
also, i don't necessarily mean to endorse this worldview in terms of its potential impact on policy, though there may be some truth to it, technically speaking.
A bigger unit is generally more efficient, but this is a single plant with a bunch of units, and I don't know that the individual units are any bigger than they would be elsewhere.
