For those not aware, the 100Wh limitation is not Apple, but imposed on them by the airline industry (IATA)[1]
Anything over >100Wh && <160Wh requires airline approval at individual passenger level. Anything >160Wh is classified as dangerous goods and must be prepared and packaged correctly and put in the hold.
It would be cool if they had an add on battery that fit seamlessly. Or imagine a swappable battery? And then ensure you only use the 100wh when flying?
The airline rules are a bit arbitrary. They have allowances for mobility devices but don't seem to take any extra precautions for them when they have bigger batteries. There are still a lot of dangerous gaps in airline safety when it comes to lithium batteries.
> The airline rules are a bit arbitrary. They have allowances for mobility devices but don't seem to take any extra precautions for them when they have bigger batteries. There are still a lot of dangerous gaps in airline safety when it comes to lithium batteries.
They're absolutely arbitrary. From what I've seen, one of the major problems is wild variation in quality. An 80Wh battery from six-random-letters-off-Amazon is going to be more dangerous than a 160Wh battery from a reputable manufacturer.
> An 80Wh battery from six-random-letters-off-Amazon is going to be more dangerous than a 160Wh battery from a reputable manufacturer.
I think the point is more the amount of energy stored in a fully-charged or 80% charged battery.
In that respect it doesn't matter if your 160Wh battery is from a leading manufacturer or some knock-off factory. 160Wh is 160Wh.
Also the airlines have to draw a line about what level can be permitted without specific permission, what level needs authorisation and what level needs dangerous goods handling.
So suspect the numbers feel arbitrary because its the result of various committees having consulted with various different interested parties and then having the unattractive job of needing to write some rules at the end of it.
It is an inevitable part of the process that some numbers will need to be picked which can easily be explained to passengers, and are workable for manufacturers and the airline industry.
And yet you can carry a 100Wh spare battery and a 100Wh laptop and a 15Wh cell phone...
Ultimately, an 80Wh battery and a 160Wh battery both have more than enough energy for overheating to start a serious fire. The much more important consideration is the quality of the battery controller and the physical protections on and within the battery. And it's also important that many planes now carry burn bags that they can quickly put a runaway overheating battery (or phone or other device) into.
It would make more sense to have a battery certification and require batteries to have that certification in order to carry them on a plane.
I used to use nvALT extensively, and I waited and waited for nvUltra to come out of beta, but it's been Coming Real Soon Now for more than 5 years, and I don't even use macOS as my primary OS anymore.
Fortunately, we are spoiled for high quality note taking and knowledge management apps these days, and many of those either support markdown syntax in writing (e.g. Outline, Trilium) or are directly markdown based (Obsidian).
Both articles include some of the same things, but Techrights provides some additional context behind the whole GNOME CoC situation, rather than being a mere "resend your censorship requests please" blog post.
Title is misleading. It would have a load of about 50 MW, substantially more than any single other customer of Colorado Springs Utilities (next listed is about 10 MW), but not more than "Colorado Springs."
Underground conductors for wind and solar plants are typically aluminum with copper concentric neutrals. Ground wires are often copper, but copper-clad aluminum is becoming more common.
Utterly breathless, in the "OMG these loss prevention people are amazing!" sort of way. Awful to read, truly awful. No discussion of privacy, of whether this kind of stuff is overly invasive, nothing. The closest it got was noting that the "studies" the corporations refer to are highly suspect. Overall, this is just corpo-friendly garbage.
That tone you detect is deliberately over-the-top: it’s breathless as a satirical technique. The author entirely agrees with your concerns; they’re mocking the corps and the researchers, or rather, letting them mock themselves by pretending complete credulity.
The article even concludes with advice on how best to shoplift, given what’s been learned!
For me I would have preferred a slower, more thoughtful and researched approach - but make no mistake, this writer ain’t “corpo-friendly” in the least.
Edit: I was incorrect, I thought I had clicked the 16" spec page but had not. The 16" MacBook is still at 100 Wh.
reply