Maybe. Depends on what you are asking. If you havent signed up with a carrier, i dont think you can enable wifi calling. But if you have no cell tower connection and youve previously set up wifi calling, it looks like you can still make emergency calls:
“Emergency calls on your iPhone are routed through cellular service when available. In the event that cellular service isn’t available, and you have enabled Wi-Fi Calling, emergency calls may be made over Wi-Fi, and your device’s location information may be used for emergency calls to aid response efforts, regardless of whether you enable Location Services. Some carriers may use the address you registered with the carrier when signing up for Wi-Fi Calling as your location. When connected to Wi-Fi calling, your iPhone may not receive emergency alerts.”
30% will always vote Republican no matter what. You’re going to have to get the other 30% that stay home to get off their asses and get to the polls. Are people pissed off enough to actually participate this time, or will they continue to just complain and do nothing about it?
SOS is what a phone displays when it can reach a cell tower, but cant find an valid account associated with its SIM card. Its so you can make emergency calls to things like 911 from any phone, regardless of whether you’ve paid a carrier for service or had your service cut off. Or the only cell tower you can reach has no connection to your carrier, but other carriers on that tower are available to make emergency calls.
I really don’t give a shit what this idiot has to say. His opinions are not well sourced and change every other day anyway. While he might have actually said something that makes sense this week, next week he’ll just be saying the opposite.
What they’re saying is that a web server can create a traditional jpeg file from a jpeg xl to send to a client as needed. So you’re saving backend storage space… sometimes. Until widespread adoption by browsers, you’re still creating and transmitting a traditional jpeg file. And now you’ve increased the server space needed because you’re having to create and store two copies of the file in two different formats.
Developers are already doing this with webp and everyone hates webp (if your browser doesn’t support webp, the backend sends you the jpeg copy). I dont see any advantage here except some hand waving “but in the future” just like has been done for most new formats trying to win adoption.
How is it backwards compatible? Everything I’ve read so far says the opposite — That it requires recoding the image into the new format, and keeping around or generating an old copy of the image in current jpeg format for older software.
Are you saying a browser or app that currently only supports Jpeg can open and render a Jpeg-XL image?
Edit: Yeah. It’s not backward compatible. And system admins are already doing the “make two copies of an image thing with webp and the current jpg format.
So are stockholders going to figure out Nadella is killing Microsoft? Or will this be another Elon situation where the company loses customers, but the stock price continues to rise?
Stop posting crap from CBS News. Find other sources.