←back to thread

A 10-Year Battery for AirTag

(www.elevationlab.com)
673 points dmd | 2 comments | 18 Dec 24 18:17 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jmull ◴[19 Dec 24 19:42 UTC] No.42465013[source]▶
I know this is useful (for something), but I'm stuck on the plot holes in the motivating story...

Why didn't they replace the battery when the app complained?

How long would a thief really keep the AirTag anyway?

If the thief did keep the AirTag and you tracked them down, then what? A confrontation has a fairly high chance to have a worse result than losing some equipment. You could try to get the police to do it, but that's going to take more time, during which the thief is even more likely to ditch the AirTag.

Anyway, you're really swimming upstream trying to think of aigtags as an antitheft device. They're really for something lost, not stolen. Generally, they are specifically designed to not work well in adversarial situations.

replies(28): >>42465128 #>>42465202 #>>42465292 #>>42465303 #>>42465460 #>>42465554 #>>42465750 #>>42465858 #>>42466486 #>>42466585 #>>42466656 #>>42466744 #>>42466798 #>>42466905 #>>42467422 #>>42467653 #>>42467777 #>>42468238 #>>42468266 #>>42469043 #>>42469231 #>>42469724 #>>42470989 #>>42471280 #>>42472799 #>>42472809 #>>42477976 #>>42481533 #
tonymet ◴[19 Dec 24 20:17 UTC] No.42465292[source]▶
order results from consequences. it's ok if you want to be timid, but don't shame others for helping restore order.
replies(2): >>42465396 #>>42465773 #
criddell ◴[19 Dec 24 20:28 UTC] No.42465396[source]▶
Is fear of punishment the main reason you aren't out there stealing the things you want and killing those who get in your way?
replies(6): >>42465512 #>>42465527 #>>42465745 #>>42465771 #>>42465797 #>>42466621 #
knowitnone ◴[19 Dec 24 21:22 UTC] No.42465797[source]▶
Yes
replies(1): >>42465948 #
dylan604 ◴[19 Dec 24 21:38 UTC] No.42465948[source]▶
interesting. the concept of that's not yours and is actually someone else's isn't the most compelling reason? very interesting
replies(1): >>42466235 #
lotsofpulp ◴[19 Dec 24 22:10 UTC] No.42466235{3}[source]▶
That concept encompasses a ton of gray area. For example, did the ancestors of the person you are stealing from enslave your ancestors? Or more simply, are you or your children going to go hungry?

At the limit, the rule is always might makes right. Until then, the question is how much are you willing to give up to re-order the status quo? (A reordering that may or may not end up in your favor)

replies(1): >>42466382 #
1. dylan604 ◴[19 Dec 24 22:27 UTC] No.42466382{4}[source]▶
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. You're saying a double negative makes a right? Vengeance is mine sayeth you?
replies(1): >>42470498 #
2. lotsofpulp ◴[20 Dec 24 12:21 UTC] No.42470498[source]▶
Almost everyone can be put into a situation where they rationalize a “negative” into a not negative, most easily visible in cases in which the item being disputed is a scarce resource essential to survival.

> the concept of that's not yours and is actually someone else's isn't the most compelling reason?

At its core, this concept is more of a truce where multiple parties agree that the costs of physical violence are not worth it, because the alternative is more acceptable. Hence the saying that “society is only 3 or 6 or 9 meals away from revolution”.