How can other posters take this article at face value? This reads 100% like a fake ad (I mean stylistically and in terms of presentation, like the kind of thing you see "Advertisement" written in small text over the top of while it's run in the New Yorker or wherever. I read them. I like it. Because they're amusing.) The only thing that keeps it from being one is that it's on macworld.com. Like, really? Industrial espionage, a real "professional job"? "Big Battery"? Everyone here has worked on way more interesting technology than a metal sleeve and a farfetched tale - which is all this is - and who breaks into our offices to steal our tech? It doesn't happen. Nobody would do it even if the device works exactly as stated.
Do these prototypes look to you like something that came out of a test lab? The only work put into them is the branding, "Batteriser" a word that is mentioned 43 times in 2000 words, including the first word of the title.
I'm not calling this native advertising but if it isn't, it seems the only one more gullible than this journalist is everyone else who swallows this hook, line, and sinker.
You could have written the same article but with some doohickey that lowers gas mileage by increasing oxygen mixture, and gets stolen in a brazen act of industrial espionage, a real professional job.
come on. we're adults here. this article is insulting. Where are the details of the break-in, such as date or what precisely was stolen, or where it happened - you know: journalism?
I was thinking if I lowered the RF exposure from my cell phone using one of those stickers you put on the battery, using some magic battery gadget in combination might very well turn my phone into a perpetual energy device.
Hey, man, I know people who will swear the 100mpg carburetor is real. They almost bought one, but then some strange men came and shut down the garage and when it reopened the new owner knew nothing about it.
> like the kind of thing you see "Advertisement" written in small text over the top
After the first 2 paragraphs I was searching all over that exact text. I turned off ad block, thinking it might be hidden. I searched and searched and saw nothing.
Because those other posters have used boost convertors in the past (as long as say 8 years ago?)...
Whether or not the efficiency claims hold up is something to wonder about but the basic principle works just fine and you can slap one together on a breadboard for a few $.
I make exceptions for really clever ones, but I think these low-effort comments fail the substance test[1]. If you encourage this stuff you'll start to see karma trains like the other commenter tried to start, and it won't be long before you have to scroll past the puns and maymays in order to read anything of substance like you do on Reddit (save for some subreddits that are aggressively moderated for serious replies).
Aggressively moderated subs like /r/askscience enforce the content rule for top-level comments, not children. It works there because you can collapse a thread very easily, unlike HN.
Do these prototypes look to you like something that came out of a test lab? The only work put into them is the branding, "Batteriser" a word that is mentioned 43 times in 2000 words, including the first word of the title.
I'm not calling this native advertising but if it isn't, it seems the only one more gullible than this journalist is everyone else who swallows this hook, line, and sinker.
You could have written the same article but with some doohickey that lowers gas mileage by increasing oxygen mixture, and gets stolen in a brazen act of industrial espionage, a real professional job.
come on. we're adults here. this article is insulting. Where are the details of the break-in, such as date or what precisely was stolen, or where it happened - you know: journalism?