It was rare to see this but when I did it was a Samsung and it had been dropped.
Yeah I agree with you there I've experienced the same, it's almost always a Samsung with an OLED screen and curved edges, that gets dropped with a hard impact on one of the corners.
With my experience in repairing smartphones, I've found that those with curved edge displays are the most susceptible. I remember when the s7 edge launched, a ton of those phones got the green lines across the screen. So I'd imagine phones with folding screens are also more susceptible to this damage.
In the article, the two phones mentioned have either a curved edge or a folding screen. It seems that any curve or fold in the OLED display makes it easier to damage.
I've updated my first response.
But as for looking at it in a Marxist way (obviously you are correct in that Marx did not mention unequal exchange, the chapter of Capital based on international trade never saw daylight and it is impossible to know what Marx would've written), Samir Amin came up with two accumulation models.
I have proposed two accumulation models, one involving the center and the other the periphery. The model involving the center is governed by the articulation of Capital’s two Departments, I and II, which, by that fact, expresses the coherence of a self-centered capitalist economy. Contrariwise, in the periphery model, the articulation that governs the reproduction of the system links exports (the motive force) to (induced) consumption. The model is “outward-turned” (as opposed to “self-centered”). It conveys a “dependence,” in the sense that the periphery adjusts “unilaterally” to the dominant tendencies on the scale of the world system in which it is integrated, these tendencies being the very ones governed by the demands of accumulation at the center...
These conditions, governing accumulation on a world scale, thus reproduce unequal development. They make clear that the underdeveloped countries are so because they are super-exploited and not because they are backward...
The “two models,” nonetheless, constitute but a single reality, that of accumulation operative on a world scale, and characterized by the articulation of Marx’s Departments I and II—grasped henceforward at the global scale and no longer at the scale of societies at the center. For the periphery’s exports, at this scale, become constitutive elements of constant capital and variable capital (whose prices they lower), while their imports fulfill functions analogous to those of Department III: that is to say, they facilitate the realization of excess surplus-value.
There is no unequal exchange. Workers in more developed countries get paid more because they produce more per hour.
...
There are statistics showing the amount of steel or the amount of grain produced per man-hour of labour in India might be 10-100 times lower than in the USA or UK (because workers use more technologically advanced tools).
The important question to ask here, if we want to work within this model, is why countries in the periphery do not use the labour techniques and tools used by by centre and combine this with their lower peripheral wages? Surely this would generate more profit than using their inefficient techniques. Secondly, if this could be the case, why hasn't all capital fled from the centre to the periphery, as this would make the most profit. Lastly, given the current distribution of techniques and technology being what it is, one has to ask the question: is the international division of labour that results from that, with the centre specialising in certain branches of production, and the periphery responsible for other branches, compatible with equal exchange? If it was, the fractional share of products the centre produces that are exchanged for what the periphery produces, at a single price for each product, should be equal. But is it?
One possible answer here is that labour is not exploited uniformly; the rates of surplus value are unequal. And this needs to be explained in terms of value, rather than in direct prices. And how is this unequal exploitation of labour manifested? It is manifested through unequal exchange. It is this unequal exploitation of labour, and the unequal exchange that results from it, that dictates inequality in the international distribution of labour. Demand is distorted structurally across a global scale, which accelerates self centred acculturation in the centre, while hindering dependent, extroverted accumulation in the periphery.
It's pretty toxic to call people that disagree with you robots in the first place. That's the original toxic discourse.
Yeah exactly you're right, why overcomplicate the problem like the Reddit comment did? I guess that's just typical Reddit thinking that being pendantic and using lots of fancy words and long explanations makes you smart.
The SPEs on the cell processor are actually pretty good at rendering graphics. In a lot of late gen exclusive PS3 games you can see that the developers utilised them more and more for graphics rendering. So the plan was to have the SPEs on both cell processors do all the graphics.
Imagine if Sony executives got their way and the PS3 had two cell processors and no conventional GPU. It would have been even more of a nightmare to work on.
Hundreds of Latin plant names had a version of the K-word racial slur in them, wtf.
Glad that South African Scientists advocated for this change. That is a horrific word. For Americans here, imagine if hundreds of plants had a variation of the N-word in their name. That's how bad that word is.
Need For Speed Underground 2. That was a great racing game. Shortly followed by Burnout 3 Takedown. Got a PlayStation 2 bundle with both of those games for Christmas as a kid.