There's basically two mobile worlds in India. The middle class has mobile plans basically like the rest of the world, while the poor (especially the rural poor but also to some extent the urban poor) have a pay-per-use account that also functions as their bank. So sending a text might cost 2 rupees, and an MMS might cost 6.
I read they are popular with drug distributors. They ship their merch world wide using various hidden channels and couriers and this helps keep track of the merch.
Sounds like one of those "what if..." things someone made up.
AirTags are terrible for surreptitious tracking, alerting every iOS user nearby of a tracked product following them around.
I mean, years ago people, such as stalkers, would use it for this purpose, but Apple rightly gimped that. There are a lot of specialized, self-connected trackers that creeps and criminals use.
And simultaneously gimped the theft-alert use case. I embedded one into my labelmaker, which is a notoriously high-theft item on jobsites. I can still track it in case I leave it behind, which is great.
But if someone steals it, they get an alert that there's an airtag traveling with them, and they can go through their loot to figure out which item it is, and ditch it, or destroy it. In the first case I get my labelmaker back, but I never bust the thief.
I've only been notified about a device traveling with me one time, and it was when a relative was riding home with me in my car. When we got home, I received a notification that there were AirPods Pro traveling with me.
This is consistent with my understanding that it only goes off if it travels with you for a very long time, or to your house. (Of course, at that point it's too late because they know where you live already.)
To all available information, your home has nothing to do with the alert. The alert occurs if one of the trackable items (airtag, airpods, etc) is moving with you, but the registered owner is not within bluetooth connectivity of the device. I've had it happen with my son's airpods a number of times because he let his phone battery die, triggering the alert for any other iPhone nearby if moving simultaneously with this tracker.
I'm not sure what I'm to make of your absence of your alerts. Perhaps that happens because you have no such trackers moving with you? Like, are you saying you do and there are false negatives?
Apple's documentation indicates that notifications are in some cases triggered by the fact that a device has followed you to your home or other "significant location". [1]
It goes the other way around. Enabling significant locations allows your device to queue up notifications like that to basically be "you have arrived" updates, versus while you are driving or otherwise engaged having a sudden notification go off, which some people find alarming. It doesn't require significant locations, but that's when it might decide to wait to tell you.
I have followed this issue somewhat carefully over the years and my understanding differs from yours. Can you show sources that indicate that it is the other way around? I have experienced the notification coming at home even when the phone was not set to a driving mode beforehand, so notifications would not have been silenced.
Well, to be historically accurate: Apple has pretty much been forced by the backlash to notify people that they're being tracked and even then it only worked if you had an iPhone.
They knew what they were doing and I'm sure the stalking aspect helped their sales significantly as it seems to be a very popular behaviour in the US.
> the stalking aspect helped their sales significantly
while not denying people have done this, I do have problems thinking that it was a significant portion of the sales numbers. exaggerating problems is not necessary and actually reduces the credibility of the people doing the exaggerating
Sure, that's accurate. I actually never said otherwise, nor did I saint Apple. They were basically forced to do it.
Virtually any tracking or surveillance has a knock-on effect that we often overlook in our enthusiasm, but Apple absolutely should have foreseen the abuse that would happen, and certainly profited off of it.
This is not at all clear to me. Reminded of that joke of how "A month in the lab can save you an hour in the library", thinking about some of the best science in history, the researchers often had very strong theory-based belief in their hypothesis, and the experiment was "just" confirmation. Whereas the worst science has people run experiments without a good hypothesis, and then attach significance to spurious correlations.
In other words, while experiments are important, I believe we can get a lot more distance from thinking deeply about what we already have.
We already have military bases there and I'm sure Greenland wouldn't have cared if we asked for a few more. This is all to stroke someone's ego and get their name in a history book.
Currently USA only has one base left: Pituffik Space Base (previously called Thule Air Base). They used to have about 17 bases and several thousand military personnel, but now it's down to about 200.
If USA wanted it, they could establish all the bases they wanted and send more people, but they chose to cut down on military presence over the past years.
Source: Have worked on that last base several years ago.
Also check wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base
They do not really care until the United States takes Greenland. Or NATO outright attacks Russia. Then they do care.
Because controlling Greenland means whoever has it gets excessive control over the Arctic Sea. And both parties, but especially Russia, do not want a party like the United States to have this amount of control given the Arctic is in their backyard.
I'm not talking about military strength, I am talking about shipping lanes.
Something you can already see in Venezuela as we speak: The Trump Administration has essentially blocked countries like Russia and Iran to ship oil from Venezuela.
If they capture Greenland and can build a big Naval presence there they are in a great position to confiscate every cargo ship destined to Russian harbors in the north, and close off China's trading route in the Arctic aswell.
About 0%. China really has no serious interest in Greenland, and Russia isn't going to trigger direct confrontation with NATO. At least, unless NATO splinters, which is looking somewhat likely now with this foolish US administration.
Russia and China are just made-up excuses for Trump to do what he wants to do: steal territory, at gunpoint if needed.
Lets just say that Russia or China does some surprise attack and lands a bunch of troops in Greenland.
OK, great, they've got troops in Greenland. Now they have to keep them supplied. How are they going to do that? Well, either through the air or by sea.
Does either have a navy that can do that? No. Does either have an air force that can do that against US opposition? No.
So it's really unlikely. Even if China or Russia were stupid enough to do that, they could never hold it.
Now, perhaps the more interesting question: How likely does Trump think it is? Does he think it's real, despite the absurd impossibility of it? Or is he just saying fact-free stuff that he hopes some people will believe?
But can't be bothered to avoid Palantir or Microsoft.. that would be TOO tough! Learn all those new buttons (once) and that confusion with ~ instead of C:\. Oh the difficulties! :D
It depends on your shell. I think MINGW bash has `/mnt`? maybe it's just `/c`, `/d`, etc.? but for cmd, it's the command `cd D:\apps && D:` and powershell handles it gracefully with one command for drive changing `cd D:\apps`
reply