• 0 Posts
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 29th, 2023

help-circle
  • Connecting a classic (non-Google TV) Chromecast to a new WiFi (or heaven forbid a hotel WiFi with a capture portal) was always such a pain. And casting over networks without mDNS is flaky at best and otherwise downright impossible.

    By contrast, I’ve loved taking along my Chromecast with Google TV to hotels, along with:

    • A VPN client installed it already,
    • An Android phone that can create a WiFi AP while connected to the hotel WiFi,
    • A Bluetooth speaker and my Bluetooth headphones paired to it so I get great audio as well.

    This has been a complete gamechanger and a genuine upgrade over yesteryear’s Chromecasts.





  • It would be better if direct sales were allowed, but unfortunately dealerships are required by law in almost all US states. The shady bit is how Tesla got one of the few exceptions and continues to be exempt despite being among the leading car manufacturers in the USA. All other leading manufacturers are required by state laws to sell their vehicles through dealerships.

    Tesla’s NCAS chargers only began to allow non-Teslas to use it from 2019, so this is kind of recent history in terms of car ownership and network coverage.



  • Regarding the sales process: in Tesla’s early days, they received an exception to the requirement for needing to use dealerships. Generally this is very shady and is outright unfair towards other car manufacturers—even Rivian didn’t get this same special treatment because lawmakers saw how Tesla abused it.

    Tesla’s growing monopoly on charging networks isn’t something to be proud of, in my opinion, and neither is their proprietary charging cable. We need open standards.

    Also, Tesla’s mileage estimates are notoriously exaggerated. Perhaps technically you can get the claimed range if the entire trip is downhill…




  • Allow me to clarify:

    • Limited support for AirTags has been added to Android, that is the context of the posted article and the experience you are describing.
    • Apple neither supports account access on Android devices or provisions access to their tag network on behalf of linked accounts, so unless you have an Apple device, you cannot stipulate that a tag that belongs to you.

    Consequently, the solution offered by Google appears to have been effectively built without Apple’s support. Goggle’s added support for AirTags despite Apple’s cooperation—and support for other tracking devices—is a net positive for privacy.



  • Android has no way of knowing if a tag is “unauthorized” because Apple does not provision access to their tag network. You could, in principle, ignore tags that you know about, but you’d have to do it by identifying it by some arbitrary hexadecimal GATT ID.

    As always, Apple wants to keep it that way, because it gives a poor experience on Android.

    Theoretically (and I might be wrong about this), without attempting to reverse engineer how Apple assigns these codes, there would be no to differentiate AirTags, AirPods, iPhones, etc.



  • There is a much more sinister issue that Google is trying to resolve with this: it’s currently possible to stalk somebody by placing a tracker fob in their bag or on their car, so long as you know the victim’s device doesn’t support it.

    Suppose some creeper with an iPhone is stalking a victim with an Android phone. So long as they use an Apple AirTag, the victim will never know they have a tracker trailing them wherever they go. And in reverse, the issue is the same.

    Apple isn’t concerned about this, because they hold a monopoly in the market they care most about and can leverage this as an iPhone-only feature. After all, so long as you have an iPhone, you’ll be warned about an AirTag you don’t own following you. Apple wants to leverage this as an exclusive safety feature and have no intention of allowing other devices to do the same.

    Apologies for providing this background as I know that this goes against the circle jerk of accusing Google of infringing our privacy. Feel free to disregard this context of it being beneficial to our collective privacy.





  • Credit can be given to the excellent safety culture, but also the safety mechanisms of the A359: while only three evacuation slides could be used, these slides remained inflated and illuminated well after the evacuation completed and most of the fuselage was a raging inferno. Furthermore, the carbon fiber body held strong despite the impact and well into the subsequent blaze.

    I believe there still remains an opportunity to improve, as the evacuation was only completed 18 minutes after the collision. JAL can consider themselves extremely fortunate that the cabin was not more severely affected by smoke.

    I have provided sources for this in my detailed write-up on the incident.


  • Last updated Jan 2, 11:20 UTC; this post is superseded here

    JAL flight 516 (registration JA13XJ) Airbus A350-900 from Sapporo to Tokyo’s Haneda Airport collided while landing with a coast guard aircraft JA722A De Havilland Canada DHC-8-315Q MPA “Dash-8” that belonged to Haneda Air Base, which was awaiting departure to Niigata with aid following the New Year’s Day Earthquake.

    The Washington Post reports:

    All 367 passengers and 12 crew members escaped the passenger plane, while five people on the coast guard plane were still unaccounted for, NHK reported.

    The pilot of the coast guard aircraft had evacuated and contacted officials.

    CNN reports that 17 passengers on board JAL516 were injured.

    A later press statement from Japan Airlines SVP Noriyuki Aoki clarified that “only four” passengers went to hospital for “feeling unwell,” of which two for smoke inhalation, while the pilots are now being interviewed about the final moments of the flight. Eight children were among the 367 passengers.

    Regarding JA722A, CNN reports:

    Five crew members died on the second aircraft, a De Havilland Canada DHC-8, according to Japan’s transport minister, Tetsuo Saito. Public broadcaster NHK said the plane’s captain was in a critical condition.

    Airbus has also issued a statement that a team of Airbus investigators are joining the French BEA and Japanese JTSB.


    My more detailed analysis is being maintained here.


  • Last updated Jan 2, 11:20 UTC; this post is superseded here

    JAL flight 516 (registration JA13XJ) Airbus A350-900 from Sapporo to Tokyo’s Haneda Airport collided while landing with a coast guard aircraft JA722A De Havilland Canada DHC-8-315Q MPA “Dash-8” that belonged to Haneda Air Base, which was awaiting departure to Niigata with aid following the New Year’s Day Earthquake.

    The Washington Post reports:

    All 367 passengers and 12 crew members escaped the passenger plane, while five people on the coast guard plane were still unaccounted for, NHK reported.

    The pilot of the coast guard aircraft had evacuated and contacted officials.

    CNN reports that 17 passengers on board JAL516 were injured.

    A later press statement from Japan Airlines SVP Noriyuki Aoki clarified that “only four” passengers went to hospital for “feeling unwell,” of which two for smoke inhalation, while the pilots are now being interviewed about the final moments of the flight. Eight children were among the 367 passengers.

    Regarding JA722A, CNN reports:

    Five crew members died on the second aircraft, a De Havilland Canada DHC-8, according to Japan’s transport minister, Tetsuo Saito. Public broadcaster NHK said the plane’s captain was in a critical condition.

    Airbus has also issued a statement that a team of Airbus investigators are joining the French BEA and Japanese JTSB.


    My more detailed analysis is being maintained here.