owf @ owf @feddit.de

Posts

0

Comments

28

Joined

2 yr. ago

Can someone provide some context? What new standards are they talking about?

I haven't touched the thing in three years.

I just remember that it had pace where it should have average speed. That is all.

Now go away. I'm not interested in defending myself to someone like you, who's been nothing but nasty.

A 2022 Toyota Corolla gets around 40mpg highway and squeezes 5 people inside so it uses 0.5 gallons per person per 100mi.

5 people in the Corolla is 2–3 times as many people as are at all likely to be in there. That's a very skewed number.

When using realistic numbers, cars come in at about the same per mile as large commercial airliners. (Flights tend to be far, far longer of course.)

A fella figured out how to cash in on VC-subsidised deliveries by ordering from his own restaurant.

That's not the Vivoactive cycling app.

Nah you’re right and this person has obviously never used a Garmin.

You mean that you didn't bother to read my comment properly before personally attacking me. Let me guess, you're from Reddit.

I only cycle, so I couldn't comment on the other apps.

They were Vivoactives. They had pace, not average speed.

Regardless of what the focus of the watch is, the cycling app should show cycling stats.

It's incredibly low effort to get something so basic wrong.

I said average speed. Learn to read.

Apple Watch.

I had a couple of Garmins before and the difference is night and day. The Apple Watch isn't perfect, but it's clear that a lot of thought went into it.

The Garmins on the other hand, were lowest of low effort.

They blatantly didn't talk to even a single cyclists while building their cycling app.

Cyclists use average speed, not pace. Even the junkiest $3 cycle computer from Ali Baba gets this right, but not Garmin. They just copy-pasted the running screen.