they got banned on a technicality: they said children are almost immune from covid. this, to a regular person means there is almost no danger to children. which is absolutely true. so the thing to do here, is to ditch twitter and move to a free platform. one that let's you post text, and for others to reply. so about a thousand other services. twitter can do what it wants, and we are free not to use it. free speech is free speech, and to have our government's speech censored by corporations is just funny.
talk about disconnected from society. a lot of people have seen him on a magazine or heard the name on the news. along with about 20 other names. every day. for decades. and the name is forgotten an hour later, with a thousand other names.
as far as your point, the 1% of people here reading recognized the name. didn't know why, then googled and remembered. the jury is not here. it's '12 random people from the dmv,' and they don't recognize it, nor will they care to google it. they don't even know who steve jobs is, and won't google it on their iphone.
no one claimed it was a feature. it has a jack, some phones don't, so they state it does. this does not mean 'feature.'
it's a part of the spec, so they list it. it's not sad or bad or good -it just is.
for me, i want just usb-c, and no headphone port is a plus. same for sd card, same for removable battery. i thought all of those were important to me, until i realized i haven't actually used any of this in 10 years. yes, a headphone port adds just a tiny bit of thickness and weight. so does the removable battery. so does an sd reader. it all adds up, and adds a little cost. for things i don't want.
so not a feature, not advertized as one, and for a lot of people, not something they want. you do, so get the phone that suits you.
Yes, and it is a good feature. I don't really want a car with 1 axles. And tires are expensive enough, so I don't want one with three axles. Just because it is not an awesome, whiz bang feature, doesn't mean it isn't a feature
why would i google it for you -do it yourself if you don't know instead if asking people to do it for you.
hint: it does not mean 'spec.' for example, on a phone, lcd screen is not a feature. oled screen is a feature.
now, what is not a feature for most people may be a feature for you. just like if you like tap water, a restaurant filling your glass from the faucet may be a feature for you. which does not make it a feature.
edit: since the snowflake replying disabled replies.. no. it's more like claiming 'lcd screen' in the spec is a feature in the world of oled phones. so not a feature.
Note: you can’t disable replies here. The system does it automatically when a thread gets too deep too fast to prevent flame wars. You can reply if you just wait a few minutes.
dear googler. fyi -this is what that thinking and lack of integrity and support does:
you have gcp. working for vars over the years, per year i sell over $10mil of solutions that run or dr to cloud. i have not once put gcp as an option in front of a customer - all azure or aws. google has, and will, lose millions in gcp revenue. because of me. and this is true for most vars.
now, as far as others in my office -8 people like me. only one puts gcp in proposals. he's new.
this is very common. we don't trust or respect your offerings -too flaky, not going to risk our customer relationship when you drop the ball and we get the hit for proposing a bad solution. and yours are all bad solutions. not because of function -because it's risky for a business to be involved with you in any way, or count on you for anything.
you probably lose 50-80mil annually from my office alone. and it's not just lost cash. it goes to your direct competitors.
and i don't know a single person who wants you to fix your practices and act like a real company. only 2 real cloud players drives up prices, and we get more on our spiffs.
and last i checked, aws and azure have been, are, and will always be kicking your ass. because even if you fix your business practices now, you'll have to wait 30 years before all the sales staff and company decision makers retire. and that is eternity in tech time.
that's cute. 2011 you say? you can run android 10 (current latest release) on galaxy s2. released in 2011. and it's actually usable, because screencandy has been removed to give it a perf boost. can you run ios 13.6 on your 2011 iphone 4s?
i know in the iphone world it's important how long apple updates it. in the android world that doesn't apply. the manufacturer doesn't have to. because literally anyone can, and does.
> in the android world that doesn't apply. the manufacturer doesn't have to. because literally anyone can, and does.
I have two problems with this model. The first is that it really only applies to the kind of people who would be in this thread on HN - consumers at large are not updating their phones based on some community-supported Android rom.
The second is this: do we really want to train non-technical people that it's ok to let random organizations on The Internet control the operating system on their phones? These are deeply personal devices that can be relatively trivially turned into 24/7 remote surveillance stations, and say what you will about open source but with rare exception these roms are not undergoing line-by-line code audits.
In my opinion, the world is better served when companies support their own hardware.
If it turns out that Apple is spying on users, we have legal recourse. If orchiddroid928 on GitHub is doing it, that's a different ballgame.
linux is community supported. just like you can get linux from redhat, you can get your android rom from large companies. lineageos is a popular one.
i won't argue with the rest of that, as you are arguing open source is inferior. one you convince every enterprise out there not to use open source, you can revisit this with me.
you are also arguing all servers and consumer pcs should be made by microsoft, since they run windows.
I don't know what Linux has to do with this and I won't litigate the open source dogma, but on this point:
> you are also arguing all servers and consumer pcs should be made by microsoft, since they run windows.
That's not really what I'm saying at all; this isn't like e.g. expecting to get Windows updates through Dell, it's more like expecting that Dell will continue to deliver compatible drivers for their hardware that enable the updates I get from Microsoft to keep working.
That's a basic expectation when we buy PC hardware, in part thanks to the relative standardization of PC components - if I couldn't update Windows ~2 years after I bought a laptop and Dell's answer was "maybe someone in the community can help you", I'd be incensed.
In the smartphone/tablet market, that's just business as usual.
The only reason that PC hardware is standardized is because MS and Intel came up with standards in 1995 and continue to update them along with other committees.
Dell doesn’t have to release new drivers. I installed Windows 10 on a Dell E6500 Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz laptop that was sold in 2009.
My mom still occasionally uses my Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66Ghz from 2006 with Windows 7. This was without any drivers from Apple. Windows 7 recognized everything.
Going even further back, I bought a DX/2-66 DOS Compatibility Card from Apple in 1994 that came with Windows 3.1. I upgraded it to Windows 95.
Microsoft figured out how to nourish a platform over 25 years ago. Google and Android - not so much.
you update drivers on your phone? i just flash a new rom. it's got all the drivers i need in it. and on a phone from 2011, i can put the latest operating system. you cannot. you then spout the superior glory of being stuck on an outdated version because you got a security patch. how is that superior to also security patches, and even latest os if you want?
you don't need anything from dell to update windows. you literally just install windows.
the reason i bring up linux isn't clear? because android runs on it.
a normal person downloads a recovery app and the rom, and uses the app to flash any rom they want. what you're saying is you'd rather get your windows updates from lenovo. software and hardware are different things.
I’m all in on Apple phone-wise due to having too many Androids die on me in one year but the point about 3rd parties supporting some old hardware is very true. I have an ancient Barnes & Noble Nook tablet that I flashed with a custom rom and the thing is really snappy and responsive. The battery holds a charge and everything it’s really surprising.
can your mom upgrade windows 7 to windows 10 without you helping her?
i actually do know what's in the rom. and so does. anyone else who wants to check. and you have hundreds of 3rd party people who do. source code is available. you're literally arguing hardware and software should be tied together to the hardware manufacturer. the entire world of computers disagrees.
>can your mom upgrade windows 7 to windows 10 without you helping her?
Quite possibly, yes! I recall Microsoft pushed upgraded to Windows 10 quite aggressively at the beginning to the point it basically scheduled automatic upgrade. That was 5 years ago, I might not recall correctly.
The big difference between iOS/Windows 10 upgrades and installing custom ROM is that in the iOS/Windows 10 case, you click one button (or even let it install automatically!) and it installs itself. It cannot be easier probably. I can expect it was reasonably tested and that it's reasonably safe.
With custom roms, it really needs to be your hobby to do that. For majority of people, it's not viable solution to do that - they lack time and/or knowledge.
Putting Android 10 into Samsung Galaxy S2 is kinda like putting Corvette V8 engine into VW Beetle. It's possible, there are people that did it, but it requires skill and time to do that.
their 'automation' of support, from my experience, is actually basic idiocy -not a plot. it's actual people thinking they just need to make their 'ai' better. not understanding that a huge switch statement is not an ai. it's hipster trash writing code.
i ordered a pixel2xl for over $1k. week later, days after promised arrival, status unknown on fedex tracking#. called fedex -they have no idea where the package is. no way to reach google on their webpage where i bought the phone. after a couple of days, i started a chat with play store support, asked them about the phone. they had no idea, i said refund, now. also, order is cancelled -i refuse delivery if you find the lost shipment. 'ok.'
a week later the phone shows up. i have my refund. i said come to my door, pick up the package. amazon can do it with returns, and mail services offer this. they said 'no -you must bring it to a fedex office and mail it back, or we'll charge you again'
blocked google from my amex, flashed a custom rom, typing this on my free phone now, years later. super fast, only needs charging once a week.
and in my work, i sell solutions that often do failover to cloud. but i don't even offer google cloud to customers. because i care about customers, and google will randomly cause them issues. google has lost literally tens of millions in business. by causing me to dig and find out how shitty and dangerous dealing with them is, which was caused by me getting a free phone, and them threatening to close all my google accounts, and fraudulently charge my card.
google is a bully. an incompetent one. while they make money, they are also missing out on a lot of money, by sheer stupidity. myspace was big too. and yahoo was big too. big because of dumb masses -and dumb masses are driven by emotion and lack of logic. super volatile.
I would not have blocked the charges; I would say that the FTC has ruled that items you did not order are yours to keep. As you should never have received the item, it is perhaps negligent in the part of the delivery company not to halt or recall the delivery, but that may not be available on all shipping options, and exercising this option may incur a fee to the shipper. As you were in possession of the device, I think that Google would be within rights to attempt to charge you in this instance, all the same. And yet I also understand your stance. I just don’t understand your justification for keeping the phone.
Keeping it, I get that. Who doesn’t want a free phone? I knew someone who had a box show up at their desk at work with a refurb phone inside. It was seemingly new and yet had a SIM card inside. So I showed them how to replace the SIM, and reflashed it. It’s theirs, and the responsible thing to do for any, every phone that’s new to you, is to replace media and/or wipe media, reflash firmwares, and reinstall the OS. Just good data hygiene for the previous owner and for the new one. As a worker bound by HIPAA etc for certain sites and jobs, it’s just a habit, and hopefully soon an automated process, and then a startup maybe? I probably do it 10+ times a day. But I digress.
Free phones are real? I’ve seen it.
If you get another free phone let me have your old one lol
i kept the phone because they refused to pay $8 to the mailing service to pick it up at my door. when shit shows up randomly at your door, you do not have the obligation to spend an hour of you time taking a trip to the ups location, standing in line, mailing it, then going back home. now if like with amazon they come to my house to pick it up -it's theirs. but they thought they could force people to mail it. they lost.
my justification is: a random person cannot mail me crap and expect me to spend free time and effort to mail it back. they're free to pay ups to do that, or get it themselves. at my door. my justification is, entitled people in a high horse can do whatever they want, but they have zero power over me to get me to do something.
no. instead the prosecutor will fall off his high horse and see he only has power to harrass regular citizens, which he'll go back to doing. the police unions are directly asking for these fed gestapo to come and bring them outlawed weapons. this da is an idiot if he thinks the cops will arrest the guys they are on same team with. the da is not on that team. cops don't care what he wants or thinks or orders.
This DA isn't reliant on the Philly police department for enforcement - he's in one of the few states where DAs have their own law enforcement officers on staff[1].
The "D.A. detectives" referenced in the article are key to his stance, as they're employees directly under his control that are recognized by the state as equivalent to and having the same authority as a normal police officer.
In Ohio we have an antique provision for the county prosecutor to employ their own investigators. They're not quite the same thing PA has, though. See Section 309.07 of the Ohio Revised Code here: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/309.07v1
the detectives referenced in the article are just a loud da posturing. it's the special operations division, and all they can do is launch a probe -not enforce anything, or arrest anyone.
just because you have a secretary employed by you doesn't mean she's allowed to rewire your electric because you tell her. if the detectives try to actually arrest police or feds, they themselves would be arrested. by the police and the feds.
this da is simply on a power grab, just like trump, while accusing trump of a power grab. 2 monkeys throwing poop at each other in a war about how different they are.
At that point, it's state violence against state violence and what practically happens depends on who brings a bigger gun.
... but the spectacle of CBP officers (and hired mercenaries) and Philadelphia D.A. officers shooting it out might clue some people into precisely how off-the-rails this federal administration has become.
do you have a source for that? because my source: one closed eye, tells me very clearly i do use binocular vision for 3d - 3d being how far something is.
you don't need 'much' information. you know the distance between the eyes, and then you have the 2 lines from each eye to the object. that's called a triangle. do you know how to calculate the height of a triangle? because that's your distance.
If you read my comment again, possibly all of it this time, you'll see that I'm not saying that we don't have or use binocular vision. I'm saying that there's a limit to how far out it's useful. That means adding a second camera is only going to be useful for a small number of tasks.
Messing about with triangles is called convergence. The accuracy falls off quite quickly with distance, and it's completely useless out past about 10m. Your brain has much better sources of depth cues before that point.
There are at least another 12 mechanisms humans use for depth perception, only one (arguably two) of which uses both eyes. I'll let you do the googling.
i don't need to 'google' what closing one eye does. that's the whole point of my comment. you claim it's unreasonable when people use their eyes for basic information. i say having to google what your own eyes tell you is what is unreasonable.
umm, no. to all of that. the mentality is that the reason we have china producing our crap vanished a long time ago, and the only reason we're still using them is because change has a high initial cost. they don't make high-tech complex things. they take our design and put up a factory to stamp it our. or they used to. now they tend to outsource it to lesser countries and collect their middle-man fee.
what you are talking about is short term pain that goes away in a year as the factory in china moves to a factory in india, and the supply cost of an iphone goes up. after that, it goes way down, because at this point, china is actually no longer cheap.
we don't need to 'disempower' china -who gives a crap about their power. we, 'the buyer' don't need to think about them, 'the seller.' we go to a different store, which results in short term supply costs, and long-term savings.
the power they have is they are a market. they can cut our companies out of that market. worked out great for the ussr. where i lived. we had 2 pulse dial phones. because no tone dial, and no call waiting. and no answering machine. in 1991. because the ussr closed that market to western companies.
let me ask you -how much do western companies care about that market, with chinese buying stuff from an american company, that was made in china? my wife is chinese. they don't buy it. they buy some local cheap fake ripoff. and the rich people who get that iphone? they'll still get it, as a status symbol, and either import it, or buy it overseas. apple still sold them one. except now it was made in india.
and short supply chains are not good. comparative advantage is good. a town that makes screws is good, and it makes them more efficiently, located near an iron mine. a town that makes glass is good -located near a lot of sand. shipping screws around from one large factory is a lot better than having to ship iron to fifty small screw factories, each of which is not running at optimal output, since demand varies. demand varies a lot less if you're making screws for 50 different industries, instead of for a microwave only. same reason mutual funds are a thing.
the reason china seems efficient is nine of the true cost is ever evident. it's all fake, it's all regulated by the government. chinese solar panels are a great example. cheap, not due to that efficient 'solar panel town.' because they lose money on each one.
instead of disempowering china, what we need is to focus on empowering ourselves for long-term cheaper stuff, and take that initial short-term hit on higher supply prices while we move production. and the tarrifs, the bans, and pissing off china with moves like in the article, so they start treating our companies like crap, is exactly the way to accomplish that. as far as our farmers selling their soybeans? demand goes down, plant something else.
i do care about people. myself included. why do i, paying insane urban rent, subsidize a farmer who already gets my tax dollars to grow too much corn? it costs probably $10 to deliver a letter to his farm. he pays ¢42. i pay the rest. his letter should be $10. mine should be a penny. you know - the actual cost of delivery, paid by the actual person.
How much does it cost to provide accurate pricing?
Often the cost of metering can drastically outweigh the economic value of a simple, easy to understand/predict shipping service. This is why flat rate packaging is so popular across FedEx, UPS and USPS.
What are you on about? UPS and FedEx will happily charge you more to deliver to high cost locations, whereas getting a 50lb parcel overnighted from one low cost location to another is usually around $30 if you have a volume rate.
There is hefty price discrimination against high cost to serve customers baked into UPS and FedEx's model, and smaller couriers like DHL and Amazon Shipping happily blacklist large parts of the USA due to price.
I believe it’s a reference to the Private Express Statutes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes ). I don’t remember the law requiring flat rates, but the rates are regulated and effectively required to be more than the post office’s. FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc. can’t legally compete with the post office on price.
United States v. John C. Gilmore. the supreme court determined it was illegal, and the people providing letter service, which was cheaper than usps, were arrested.
when people say 'mail' they mean what your postman puts in your mailbox. a letter. with a stamp on it. that is what the discussion is about. letting other companies compete on delivering letters. this is the post, this is what has been on the news, this is what 'the billionairs' are pushing for. they already provide parcel service. no one is arguing they should be allowed to start doing what they already do.
you should educate yourself on the point before arguing such a strong strawman. this battle has been going on for over 150 years, and it has nothing to do with parcel service. start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
that's what i and the whole country is 'on about.' welcome to the conversation.
when the cost of his letter is 10x more than he was charged, and the of mine is 10x less than i was charged, i don't pay more? seriously you don't understand? wow.
we go to dinner. you get a side salad, and i get a steak and some wine. we split the bill down the middle. cool? i'm not trying to diss you. i want to be friends with you.
It’s more beneficial to have a flat postage rate that doesn’t price people out of living in certain areas simply due to postage rates. First class mail is an essential service.
it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service.
soo how that works?
locations have different expenses. farms have cheap land. they have expensive delivery cost. taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities. it's benefitial to farmers. how about everyone pay their own expenses, and we don't shuffle around other people's costs. it's not benefitial to me to pay for a farmer getting fifty junk mail catalogs a week.
> it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service.
All first-class letters of 1 oz or less are identical. Housing is not identical, which is why it’s fine to have varying prices for housing. Many places have rent controls in place. The utility of having flat rate letter postage for every citizen outweighs any benefit realized from privatization.
> taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities.
This has been done for quite a while in the US, as crop subsidy payments. People in cities benefit by having stable food prices.
> it's not benefitial to me to pay for a farmer getting fifty junk mail catalogs a week.
you don't know it's a federal crime for anyone but usps to do letter service. you don't know a company was shut down by the feds for trying. you don't know the whole argument people have been debating now and for the last 150 years is to allow private companies to handle letters.
so you looked it up, saw you were wrong, and changed your argument to 'parcel service' = 'letter service.'
you were given examples of why people want letter service from private companies, and how urban citizens pay for rural letter costs.
your argument at that point us 'you don't pay for it, the money to cover costs comes from a magic place, but if you do, quickthrowman has determined it's worth it, so case closed.'
you are bot forced to use the usps, you are not actually using it, so you are not paying the rest.
these sort of imbalances generally disappear in aggregate (sometimes your letter goes to a farm) and/or are worth the simplicity anyway, should you ever choose to take part.
Literally no one else on earth can ship first class mail aside from the USPS. It is a federal crime. The USPS has a government enforced monopoly on the delivery of mail which is why UPS can only deliver packages.
you know litetally nothing about this. we are literally, by law, forced to use usps for letters. this is what people have been fighting against for 150 years. letting private services deliver mail. the last time a company tried this, in 1854 i think, they were shut down for breaking the the law - procecuted by the government.
it's not 'worth the simplicity' to me, living in a high rent city. literally every piece of mail in an urban area is 10x it's actual delivery cost, which pays for the farmer's mail, and him getting all the spam, which actually costs 10x more than he pays. exponentially more people live in cities. every time you get your bank statement delivered in a city, you and 20 others just paid for a single letter to be delivered to a farmer. through shittier interest rates in your savings account. yes, i rarely mail letters. like 10 times a year. and same goes for the 3 million other people in my city. and yet because of low farmland population, urbanites still mail many more total letters vs farmers.
we're not paying for it? whi, pray tell, do you think is paying for that farmer to send a letter? he pays half a dollar for a stamp. the post office spends about $10 to deliver it. my letter costs a penny to deliver. i pay half a dollar too.
so no, it is not 'worth the simplicity' to me, to pay for that farmer. but federal law forces me to.
