I'm a recreational diver. I wouldn't use this as my _only_ computer, but I would say the same for the computers I currently use. I always dive with 2 computers just in case one fails, a battery dies, etc. As 'latchkey said, never rely on a single piece of equipment. With that being said, I would be willing to swap out my wrist computer for the Apple Watch Ultra. The superior display and UX would actually be a big quality of life improvement over my current wrist computer. And, I'd still have my backup computer in my SPG to compare against or fall back to.
Personally, I'm comfortable diving with one computer... provided I also have an analog SPG (as a backup for an air-integrated computer) and run the dive tables on paper as well. If the dive computer fails, I just revert to paper.
Slight clarification: the Apple Watch Ultra has a water resistance rating of 100m. The Oceanic+ app has a 130ft/40m limit because that's the recreational diving limit.
There is virtually zero risk of an oxygen toxicity seizure in the 1.2 - 1.4 atm range. I don't think there has ever been a confirmed case of a sport diver toxing at that level. We normally target about 1.2 atm for the working phase of the dive (reduce slightly for long exposures) and 1.6 for deco (with back gas breaks for long oxygen stops).
Narcosis is an issue with nitrogen and oxygen (as well as most other gasses). Helium is the exception. It is a noble gas and has no real narcotic effect; rather the opposite. Other noble gasses such as argon are much more narcotic than nitrogen and aren't used as diving breathing gasses (outside of a few limited experiments).
The other problem with nitrogen and oxygen is that they are relatively dense and so at greater depths they cause increased work of breathing, which in turn causes CO2 accumulation. CO2 is itself highly narcotic, and has other negative physiological effects. So for deeper dives we add progressively more helium to the mix.
Oh, cool! It looks like that's the limit of Apple's Depth app, as well, which is what I found when I searched, and assumed it was the limit of the watch.
Well that's definitely better - I wonder what happens when you go under 130 feet, though. A dedicated dive computer would at least provide accurate information, rather than throwing you to the wolves because you exceeded some legal limit.
Also on the plus side, some of the existing air pressure transmitters use bluetooth, so if they could get that working, they'd actually be one of the cheapest air-integrated computers on the market.
(edit: they do not use bluetooth, they use low-frequency radio ~38khz)
I think I'll stick with my Shearwater Peregrine though, pros and cons considered.
DC Rainmaker showed what happens to the watch when you take it past the max depth in his review [1] (using a pressure chamber).
I think your concerns are valid and merited for your very advanced level of diving, but at the same time the vast, vast, vast majority of divers aren't going anywhere near 130 feet. If I were going on a standard "simple" dive to <60 feet, I think I'd be pretty comfortable with just the apple watch ultra, a dumb watch + cheap depth guage and a written back-up plan.
Yes, agree completely. Would be happy to have just this on a 60 foot dive. And will be happy to see it on the wrists of other divers on the boat, as I think it will make them safer vs the status quo. Just wouldn't _buy_ it for that purpose myself, I think there are better options if you research a bit.
Also, I never dive past recreational limits, I'm not a technical diver by any means. I would simply have philosophical concerns about a piece of equipment that could provide accurate information beyond recreational limits, but simply doesn't for "legal" reasons. It probably makes sense to people - "oh they don't want to be liable for giving advice past recreational limits", but other companies seem to have navigated this legal issue and choose to provide accurate information regardless of this arbitrary limit.
As another commenter pointed out, I have no idea what it does past 130 feet, but the disclaimer that it _cannot_ be used past 130 feet, rather than one that says you _shouldn't_ use it past 130 feet, is somewhat concerning to me, even if I don't approach those limits.
I'm not assuming anything - and I'm not speaking as a pundit on Apple, I'm speaking as a consumer in the target audience with specific, important questions about a safety-critical piece of equipment. The answer to my question is not clear from this marketing release, and I'm simply saying that affects my likelihood to purchase.
Also, in the case of lack of evidence either way, assuming it would shit the bed is _definitely_ the right approach in diving.
Knowing the current state of software development and Apple's tendency to make pretty things on surface but that breaks down when you actually use it, I'd expect it to tell you you can swim as fast as possible to the surface without decompressing, even from 100m deep.
Interesting how this summer all we heard from Musk was how Twitter was overflowing with bots and spam, but now that he runs the place he sure spends a lot of time bragging about all-time high "user" counts.
Interestingly, my reports on racist posts are being accepted much more often than they were before, so this is in fact not happening.
The site was also consumed in horrific discourse for the last week (topic being "is making chili for your neighbor racist, ableist and oppressing autistic people?") so all in all it seems to behaving as usual.
Exactly what kind of views do you think moderates were worried about not being tolerated? Going by the definition of the term it seems unlikely that anyone, much less millions, was previously deterred by policy.
He wasn’t banned (only suspended for a few hours) and that was directed at a single trans person. That last part is almost certainly the reason why he got that warning unlike the many people who have generically expressed similar beliefs.
Their previous CEO said they saw on the order of 500k bot signup attempts daily, and the reports last week specifically mentioned layoffs affecting those teams and things like reporting. Put that together and I’d be careful about comparing numbers before and after this month since they’re almost certainly not measuring the same thing.
Catastrophe tourism. Also, contrary to Elon’s shitty graph with cut off y-axis (can we stop doing that?), that’s like a 1% change around a major American event.
Honestly, this is a good thing. No one should be buying mechanical watches as investments expecting them to be appreciating assets. This shouldn't hurt Rolex, Patek, AP, VC, etc, as there's plenty of demand for their products and they're not selling them on the secondary market anyway. If it does end up hurting them, it's only because they allowed their ADs to participate in all kinds of shady behavior that ultimately drove up the secondary market pricing.
I agree with you, although perhaps for slightly different reasons:
As of 2022, within the vicinity of almost any mechanical watch, there are likely to be tens or perhaps hundreds of inexpensive satellite-based location-estimation devices (GNSS) - inside smartphones, vehicles, internet-of-things devices, etc. There are also purely radio-based clock signals.
Those receivers, which are usually entirely passive (receive-only) measure accurate time signals as a component of their functionality.
It's important (and useful!) to track time accurately, and there's certainly nostalgia/envy aplenty to be had in the notion that our ancestors (who may have grown up in an era prior to GNSS) express their devotion through the symbolic hand-me-down of mechanical watches, but... perhaps it's sensible not to be pressured by the hype and -- nowadays -- irrational financial cost (of which, despite the ostensibly factual nature, I think this article is part).
I guess a less trite and more actionable way to state this would be: consider saving yourself the economic cost of a mechanical watch (first-hand or second-hand), and instead spend literal time with the person you love and intended to provide it to - potentially using the amount saved to help fund and remember the moment.
Similarly: if that person would have preferred an expensive timepiece to actual time spent with you, then.. I suppose it's a good deal either way?
This sounds pretty much ideal. Two people [vaguely] familiar with a problem working through it together. Both have the opportunity to evaluate each other. This is exceedingly rare in practice. Obviously you got (and accepted) an offer.
Some of the best interviews I've given and taken have gone roughly this way. It's nearly impossible to set this up intentionally, though.
This looks great, and I'd love to replace AWS SSM (at least for the purposes of instance access) with this! One question I have is have is around device limits.
With SSM, I can easily run an agent on every instance. Tailscale has pretty tight device limits on the Team and Business plans. I have no idea what the custom pricing looks like, but I'm guessing it would exceed my budget. What's the intended way to use this with a large number of servers? A small team can easily have more devices than 5x or 10x the number of users. Should we just set up some "gateway"/"bastion" instances to access via Tailscale SSH and then use regular ssh from there? Some sort of more limited device mode that doesn't count against the device limit (for ssh only, perhaps?) would be great.
You could do a Tailscale SSH bastion thing, yeah. But before you build a funky setup to avoid pricing concerns, at least reach out to the sales folk to see what it is. We're usually pretty flexible on exact quotas and realize that different orgs have different user/device shapes.
In the interest of adding another data point, the situation in Seattle is pretty similar, albeit not quite as bad in my experience. It occurred to me last month while walking around SF that Seattle politicians would be wise to pay attention to the situation in SF and try to learn from it.
