Met you
I just found out that the HT cover soldier was inspired by banksy,did you know that?(,i only knew that Mike liked him)
Plug ??
Heeeeyoooo yeah, all good, a muddy mess here lol
We’ve had fair amounts of rain so makes work messy
Getting ready for Christmas early this year, finishing up assignments for courses by next week, and yeahhh
How about you? How is the daughter’s ankle coming along?
Do not drown in a puddle of mud man … ( had to bring this reference ) but seriously take care!
The ankle could heal quicker- she loses patience even faster than her mom… … next week is the appointment with the doc
And about xmas myside I’ve to confess it comes like a hurricane from out of nowhere- quick- powerful and hopefully passes without further destruction … but definitely looking forward to the upcoming break
Hope your working day passes quickly- almost lunchbreak- isn’t it?!! Stay strong my friend
Looks like there’s a new button on the forums where you can have a link to a thread you’ve made on your profile card. The link limit seems to be 1.
This is a very unscinetific video that I’m having a very hard time taking seriously.
- Why is it so short?
- Why isn’t there a better explanation of what’s going on?
- Why doesn’t he have reference values?
- What is he actually trying to prove?
- Why isn’t that meter detecting any significant noise?
- What frequency is he scanning? (From experience and knowledge I know it’s probably ~2.45GHz, but Joe average doesn’t know that).
- Why is his sample size limited to n=1?
- Why doesn’t he compare to other devices?
- Why doesn’t he cross check with readings from multiple meteres?
- Why doesn’t he say what the legal limits are?
- Why doesn’t he compare to legal limits?
- Why doesn’t he test at multiple proximities? (He even mentions in the video that they have to be glued to the meter or you get next to nothing).
- Why hasn’t he presented a proper data set after his experiment?
- Why is the title of the video misleading? (Stupid question, obvious answer is clickbait).
All he did in that video is prove the for once Apple’s tech works like it’s supposed to. I know that the legal limit for RF radiation for things like phones (at least in the US) is around 1.6W/kg (kg of tissue). The fact that he was using measurements of mW/m^2 to begin with is a bit odd for consistency’s sake. He said that the max he saw was around 300mW/m^2 which approximately converted (it’s not possible to convert between mW/m^2 and W/kg without making major assumptions, for obvious reasons) is 0.015W/kg. That means it’s about 107 times under the legal limit for such tech.
All tech is rigorously tested to a plethora of legal standards before it’s released. This isn’t even for the sake of human health. You don’t want to release a toy RC car only to realise that you’ve accidentally used the same frequency that planes use for their uplink to airport control towers. My point is, that if Apple have released this, and it has been on sale for ages, it’s safe.
Of course it is possible that the guy in the video has some Chinese knock-off (whether deliberately or not is irrelevant in this case) that doesn’t adhere to any standards. This is exactly why I said that the sample size should be a lot bigger than n=1.
On a side note, why do you hate wireless comms so much, @rickvanmeijel? lol
Duuude! not gonna answer all that since I don’t wanna write a book here. I don’t hate wireless tech, just wanna try and make people aware of the potential dangers of it. Especially tech like airpods, which many people wear for many hours a day up against the arguably most critical part of their body.
If they’ve bought air pods, they really have nothing to worry about as there’s nothing there to be affected in the first place.
Oh goodness! That’s flood of questions
And they should all have been answered in the video if it’s to be taken seriously.
Mike really out here trynna catch us slippin
And?
The answer?
I’ll let others reply this, I already know the answer.
Same here, Mike is on a low level still yawnnnn
Second lol