Fake news
Do they mean to tell me that Apple users don't have anything less than a death grip on their precious fondleslabs?
Apple has become the first smartphone manufacturer to pass the three-mile drop test after one of its iPhones was found on the side of a road by volunteers helping to recover debris from Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 over the weekend. The device, which was reportedly found by X user Sean Bates on Sunday, was undamaged despite a …
Now that basically everyone has an iPhone it's not such a big deal. Not like the first couple years when they came out and people would go to extraordinary lengths peacock with their phones and make sure everyone knew they had an iPhone. Like some precursor to the desperate wannabe influencer who annoys everyone around them in an attempt to get the "perfect" shot or angle or whatever.
Hardly, although Apple would like you to think so. As of 2022, some stats for all phone brands are here, and as of January 2023 "A total of 5.44 billion people use mobile phones in early 2023, equating to 68 percent of the total global population" (again for all brands).
I know subtlety on these here interwebs is something of a lost art and all, but FFS, it wasn't meant to be taken so literally. "Everyone" wasn't meant to mean "everyone in the entire world" but more like "everyone who wants one" which, you'd think would be pretty obvious from the context, but here we are. Plus, the point was that people who were early adopters of iPhones were just hell bent on making sure everyone in their social circle and just general vicinity was aware that they had an iPhone. They'd pull it out in stores, feigning that they were trying to get a signal, but really it was just an excuse to hold it up to the sky so everyone could see. Or they'd make a big production out of saying something like, "Let me look that up on my new iPhone!" Unless you're some kind of sweet summer child who wasn't born yet, or was living under a rock, you surely saw this happening. Now, nobody cares if you have an iPhone because everyone (who wants one) has one.
It is rather Apple's marketing as usual. I think it was Apple, who first started showing non-skippable ads on YouTube.
Make phones that do not break after falling 1 meter down the pavement. That would be innovation! Or too hard for you, Apple?
And forget ugly plastic cases, hiding beautiful designs.
"I think it was Apple, who first started showing non-skippable ads on YouTube."
You "think"? More likely it was Google trying to squeeze more money out of YouTube watchers.
All of Google's products are shady. Oh wait, Doesn't Google have something to do with that other phone OS? You know, the one all the neckbeards use?
Based on drop tests I've seen from >10 feet (because waist height and head height tests were no longer busting the screen) where the guy was trying to deliberately land a phone on its face or on its corner, you can't even keep it stable for that long. No way it would maintain an edge on profile for 100 feet even unless you dropped it perfectly on a totally calm day.
I’m a skydiver.
Height that you drop something (ie phone, human, brick etc) does not affect it by the time it hits the ground. At very great heights, think Kittinger/Red Bull Felix/Eustace terminal velocity is much higher as there is less air resistance in the stratosphere. Naturally this does not apply to us landlubbers hopping out at 14k. We can accelerate or slow down by adjusting our body position or orientation (head down is much faster than belly to earth). Now, a tumbling phone generates all sorts of turbulence and would have a much lower, and more variable terminal velocity than a person or a brick.
"At very great heights, think Kittinger/Red Bull Felix/Eustace terminal velocity is much higher as there is less air resistance in the stratosphere. Naturally this does not apply to us landlubbers hopping out at 14k. "
not quite. The velocity at a certain point in the fall may be higher, but as drag increases as you get lower in the atmosphere it'll come out about the same by the time it becomes terminal.
《Terminal Velocity is Terminal Velocity. If the case/phone makers test at that speed, no additional height will make a blind bit of difference》
With or without phone's owner's death grasp?
With I believe around 66m/s (148mph.)
The owner landing first might cushion the phone's impact.
Seriously a thin rectangular object would likely tumble which I guess would limit its maximum velocity.
The force of the impact will still pass through the entire device. Those stupid laws of physics don't end at the outermost barrier. Cases are mainly useful for preventing cosmetic damage and providing some additional friction so you can hold onto Cupertino's slipphones.
"The force of the impact will still pass through the entire device"
However there are numerous ways of dissipating the energy more gradually and at least partially isolating fragile components (ranging from 'bubble pack' to active shock absorbers) Indeed there's a whole branch of engineering dedicated to this. The question is not whether it's possible, but whether the case manufacturers took the trouble to apply the necessary principles to their design. In most cases (no pun intended) they don't but some might.
Not at the distances of 1-2m. They're mostly cosmetic protection at those heights. All those cases that claim to be made out of military grade plastics or whatever are just like gold plated cables: fodder for gullible people. Sure, if you're running cable close to the maximum length of the spec and don't want to have some kind of repeater in the mix, maybe the gold plating will reduce resistance enough to make a bit of difference, but when we're talking the typical lengths of 1-3m, it makes absolutely zero difference. You want a case, fine, I have one too, but it's mostly to increase the amount of friction because that glass casing Apple puts on its phones makes the little buggers incredibly slippery. They're more fashion accessory than functional (e.g. excluding cosmetic) protection. Drop a phone from the average height of a human being, which is 1-2m, it'll survive just fine unless you drop it in precisely the right way. Especially newer models, before the various components start drying out and become brittle. The screen may crack, or you may get some dents and scratches, but that's cosmetic damage. The phone itself is still functional.
Absolutely at the distances of 1-2m. If it lands on its back, and has a glass back, the case will typically prevent the glass from breaking. If it lands precisely face-down, the case projecting just a bit in front will reduce the forces on the glass front. Corner impacts will be partially cushioned by a decent case. An uncased phone is much more likely to break.
Not at all to say that a cased phone dropped from 2m will always survive, much less untouched, but it does make a difference.
As for gold-plated cables, it would keep the connector from corroding, so there could be a small benefit there. (The wire itself, though, can be almost anything with no impact to signal.)
That extra layer of plastic reduces g-force shock loading quite a lot. Seen plenty of uncased phones with crack damage from dropping "just 1 meter" onto concrete.
"The screen may crack" is pretty severe damage to many people, as it makes things harder to read.
Of course, to me, "military grade (meeting mil-spec #something)" means "hopefully meets the minimum specification, and was made as cheaply as possible, with the usual luck you'll die of enemy action before it breaks"
Sorry to be boringly pedantic and technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, obv.) but that one's been debunked by the Mythbusters. Quoting from the MB Wiki: "Even modifying a rifle to shoot a penny at supersonic speeds failed to cause a penetration."
This reality sucks.
"Even modifying a rifle to shoot a penny at supersonic speeds failed to cause a penetration."
Probably so, but there is a notable case from (if I remember right) the early 1980s, where a guy was killed by a falling bullet outside the Bisley (UK) rifle range. Someone accidentally shot into the air and the falling bullet landed on the guy's head. So the outcome will depend on terminal velocity (limited by air resistance) and the shape of the object, plus quite probably other factors as well.
Actually No. It was sucked out of the plane. It's called Explosive Decompression. The Aircraft interior is pressurised to remain comfortable for the Meat sacks inside. When the Plug let go (apparently due to the Bolts not being tightened correctly!), the low pressure outside sucked the door and everything else in the vicinity out of the Aircraft. This is naturally, not a good thing.
They are extremely lucky that this happened at only 16,000 ft and not a higher cruising altitude (typically between 33,000 and 42,000 ft). They are also extremely lucky that everyone in the direct vicinity was still wearing seatbelts. The forces from Explosive Decompression are nothing to be sneered at...
See, that's kind of my point.
We tend to use 'sucked' when we impart a low pressure into an area and let the ambient pressure push things somewhere... think sucking up a drink through a straw, and blown when we (or something) is pushing from a high pressure area to a low one.
In this instance the ambient pressure is low, and we've taken a pressurised thing up there, which promptly exploded.
So surely the contents were 'blown out' of the plane? If someone had thrown a phone out of the plane we wouldn't say it was sucked out, but when the thrower is air then it was 'sucked out'??
Explosive implies outward too (we say things are 'blown up' after all).
I get it's all relative, and I'm being very very picky... just found it an interesting quirk of language.
What's the difference? The transition from a high pressure volume to low pressure is both depending on how you frame it. But seeing as how we tend to use blowers in otherwise constant pressure conditions, and suction for sudden changes, I think suction here is the better description.
Figure out where the phone came from: a plane. Figure out how high the plane was when the phone stopped being in it: approximately 16,000 feet. Insert the word "apparently" in case this was someone mocking up a fake ticket and planting a phone where debris from the plane would have landed or if a helpful skydiver carefully brought it down.
from the first 2 paras of the earliest article i can see :
BBC
Bolts in need of "additional tightening" have been found during inspections of Boeing 737 Max 9s, United Airlines has said.
guardian
United Airlines has found loose bolts and other “installation issues” on multiple 737 Max 9 aircraft, it said on Monday, referring to the Boeing model that has been grounded after a panel blew off an Alaska Airlines-operated plane mid-flight over the weekend.
telegraph
Phones, magazines and even the shirt off a child’s back were sucked out of an Alaska Airlines service from Oregon to California on Friday, prompting concerns about the Boeing 737 Max 9 plane used by commercial airlines all over the world.
times
A section of fuselage on a nearly new Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 fell off in-flight, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the aircraft, causing a loss of cabin pressure and forcing an emergency landing.
cnn
The FAA temporarily grounded certain Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft after an Alaska Airlines plane made an emergency landing in Oregon on Friday.
so a bit confused unless you mean specifically the 3 words "designed by software"
It's not an airfram incident. It's most likely a customisation issue do to the filling of an emergency door in an aisle. This is why the supplier, Spirit Aviation, is as much on the hook as Boeing. Airbus does not allow this kind of, presumably cost-effective, customisation.
"Multiple sources reported over the weekend that Apple has begun to issue checks as part of its "Batterygate" settlement reached last year. Claimants appear to be getting checks for around $92.
UK iPhone owners who experienced battery throttling are still waiting, however, as a similar case is still winding its way through UK courts."
UK iPhone owners will not be getting checks, but may be offered cheques instead.
Any word on the corresponding procedures in the Czech Republic?
I've made a check on what they call a cheque in the land of the Czechs
And the Czech I asked said he was disappointed with ya.
Because although the Czech word for cheque is šek,
It's neither cheque nor check,
The country is in fact called Czechia
Czechia has been proposed by the Czech Republic as the English name for the country but they don't get to decide, even though it does make sense: Czechoslovakia was comprised of Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. But Czechia doesn't work very well in English and the Polish-style "cz" as the transliteration for "č" has always been odd: "ch" (as in church) would make more sense, which would probably give us "Cheskia" or "Chekovia" or something like it.
Turkey is trying the same with Türkiye, and will have probably even less success.
Cheque/check is just one of those words where a common origin (from the Persian Shah for king, which gave the name to the game and thence to exchequer and the checkboard pattern) where neither spelling is really right because of the range of uses. It's arguable that the french-style "cheque" certainly helps disambiguation when reading but given the prevalence of homophones (they're, there, their, lead and led) (and heterophonic homograms (lead and, er, lead)) in English, I've long given up any hope of "fixing" it!
Bread usually falls butter-side down because the extra mass of the butter makes it a little more stable oriented that way.
And so the screen side might be a little heavier, in part to ensure more work for Apple screen replacers.
(Cats tend to land rubber-side down because they can use their tail as a rudder. A high proportion of cats would survive 16,000 ft free fall, you know how come? Because of eating birds, I reckon!)
Nah, butter has almost nothing to do with which side the bread lands on.
It's essentially due to the height of the table and the speed at which the toast is pushed that prevent it from performing a full flip. If the table is 10-ft high the toast will be more likely to land butter-side up.
Toast actually falls butter side down not because of the laws of physics, but because of the laws of murphy or sod. Depending on jurisdiction.
The real question is not how can we can come up with a grand unifying theory that covers both Einsteinian and quantum physics - but how we can reconcile both physical and Sod's laws. A Murphian computer could crack your password in anything between zero seconds and never - depending on a complex equation of whether you can remember the password or not and whether you need the contents or not.
Which way up would a cat land if you put butter in it's back?
Generally on your face, all 20 claws out..
Hell hath no fury like a cat disrespected. Especially a female [1] one
[1] In my (fairly extensive) cat experience, the cats most likely to attack randomly are (1) Intact tom cats [2] (2) breeding females (3) Black cat females.. (for some reason, our youngest black cat acts in a random tortie-cattitude manner, most unlike our *aqctual* tortie who is pretty laid back.
[2] Think Greebo.. Fortunately, I've never actually shared a house with one. They are somewhat smelly and prone to attacking other cats without warning.
It doesn't. You can set it to never lock automatically unless you press the button. It'll kill your battery the first time you think you pressed the button and didn't, it will make a stolen device much easier to keep alive while waiting, but if you want that option, you can select it. Alternatively, maybe they meant that the user had not set a passcode so it could be unlocked by anyone, again a nondefault behavior which you are certainly able to select.