Hold down the large button on the right side while also holding down the top button on the left side. Slide from left to right on the "Medical ID" if it pops up on the display. Hopefully that should have their name and an emergency contact if they set it up.

Also try taking the case off and see if there's any information on the inside.

Think "product placement" instead of "position placement".

Generation 1: You're searching on a keyword or a web page has a keyword and advertisers who have bid on that keyword place ads on that page. Search for "car" or go to a car related website and you see Ford ads.

Generation 2: Information about you is being tracked such that a profile gets created suggesting you'd be a match for a product that an advertiser is willing to pay to show an ad for. Chat about wanting to buy a new car and see Ford ads across any website you visit.

Generation 3: Same as above, but now as you seek out content, that content is being customized for you around that advertiser's product.

Remember when CNET got busted recently for AI generated articles? Imagine if every user got the article written slightly differently around products based on the collected data of a user profile.

So now an article about the transition to electric vehicles is focused on the new electric Ford Mustang as opposed to the Tesla, because there's enough profile information on you to customize the article that way.

>[less than 1% of net worth and it's a tax write-off] If the money donated is actually used for charitable causes, does it matter?

Yes in two ways.

First there's the issue of this being newsworthy and the context of judging him as a person. The reality is a larger number of Americans donate a far greater percentage. His percentage is nothing special other than it's incredibly low considering how much he has not only as disposable income, but billions upon billions that could never be reasonably personally consumed. This compares to taking away 1% from some people and they're missing meals.

The second way it matters is that we have a society where we have elections and vote on issues. We the people have a government that collects taxes and we decide what we're going to spend that money on. We can collectively say how much we want to spend on education, the military, healthcare, infrastructure, etc...

But when we allow someone to take their share of taxes and spend it only on what they want to prioritize, then it's taking away from the democratic process. Again, it's even worse when the diversion of money ends up directly or indirectly benefiting him.

>What? $11 billion personal tax in 2021 not good enough?

Just looking at his wiki page as I don't want to spend too much time on this... he had a net worth of $27 billion at the start of 2020 and that ballooned to $300 billion in November 2021. So no, I don't think $11 billion was enough.

It's hard to find exactly what his tax rate is for a variety of reasons (including a likely deduction on that $11 billion), but a lot of sources are showing between 2013 and 2018 he paid 27 percent. Yes, that's way too low.

It's less than 1% of his net worth.

It's a tax write off.

It's essentially him saying, "Instead of paying my ridiculously low relative share of taxes, I'm going to take as much of that money as I can and allocate it to causes I want to further in my own personal interests".

Since it's not transparent, we don't know how much is being given to things like AI research or other things where he may be directly benefiting from those donations.

All of this combined makes the headline not quite what it appears to be.

The post is misleading. This has absolutely nothing to do with cassettes and the Walkman never went away having evolved to CDs, DAT, MiniDisc and their first DAP ("mp3" player) in 1999.

This is just the newest DAP model of Walkman targeting audiophiles. It runs Android and can download or stream over WiFi. Its specs are impressive if you're into that sort of thing. It's like the restaurant in The Menu only its audio instead of food, but probably attracts the same cast of characters. For almost everyone else, phones are the way to go.

Counter argument:

Maybe don't do this at least not as a routine as the author suggests, nor at the levels the author suggests. I've never done this on my iPhone, although I'm imagining it was cleared when I transferred to a new iPhone on September 16. My cache is at 128.4MB. That certainly doesn't seem like much in terms of either storage space or what would bog down web browsing.

Cache serves a purpose and can really speeds things up as it's loading data locally as opposed to fetching over the Internet. Unless Safari, Chrome, etc... are absolute sh*t at managing cache, it's likely to be purged before hit-misses on cache slow things down.

Further, as the author states...

>clearing your cache also signs you out of pages, so be prepared to sign in to everything again.

That's likely to consume far more time.

I could see doing this if you're experiencing problems or if your cache was huge, but otherwise, doing this as if it's some needed routine is just baselessly assuming that Chrome, Safari, etc... aren't properly managing their caches.

This is really bad advice.

Instead, you should learn how to organize your digital life, utilize basic utilities (notes, reminders, etc...) and sync through various means like cloud or local if you prefer.

This could be possible...

1. In Control Center, put an icon of a semi-lock.
2. When enabled, the app you're in remains available, but if you exit the app, the phone locks.
3. Additional restrictions may be defined such as inability to delete or send items.

This would work for photos, perhaps restricting it to an album or date range, but it could also work for handing your phone to a kid to play a game, or letting someone make a phone call.

To everyone saying, "duh, because they're being force to". Yes, of course, but...

The EU requirement if signed into law by the end of the year, is that new products released by the end of 2024 must be USB-C. Apple could use lightning for the iPhone 15 and iPhone 16 along with any accessories through 2024. They wouldn't need to switch until the iPhone 17 in the Fall of 2025 (assumptions in naming conventions aside) and could still sell existing products at that time with Lightning indefinitely.

Gurman is saying that Apple is going to transition sooner than the mandate requires, and that 2023 will be the year of transition.

I tend to agree with that, and also think that Apple will lean into it with marketing when it comes to the iPhone 15 by promoting that they are using faster data and charging protocols.

You can see my example here:

https://imgur.com/nUQEMtC

While there are 57 records, you can only see the last record (Flea Street Cafe for a yummy dinner with my wife).

You can turn the setting off and/or clear history:

Settings->Privacy&Security->Location Services->System Services (scroll to bottom) ->Significant Locations (again at bottom)

It's also worth noting that you need Face ID or passcode to not only unlock your iPhone, but again to get to that screen. So if you handed someone your unlocked iPhone, they wouldn't be able to see your last record unless they did a second unlock at that page.

In fairness, the NY Post is older than The New York Times and Washington Post. It was founded by Alexander Hamilton as the NY Evening Post and then became the NY Post in 1934. Murdoch purchased it in 1976. He was forced to sell it in 1988 due to federal regulations, but was allowed to repurchase it in 1993.

>It's disgusting.

I couldn't agree more.