fresh

joined 1 year ago
[–] fresh 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s a good point. If iPhones are more expensive to repair, then many people will dispose of them rather than repair. But I looked this up, completely expecting you to be right, and it looks like android phones like Samsung are often even more expensive to repair. So I’m still not seeing the justification for the original claim that iPhones are more disposable.

[–] fresh 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Are Samsung and Sony providing repair kits in “good faith”? I think they’re all horrible, but no one has a problem getting their phones fixed.

[–] fresh 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like we’re getting old. Is this our “kids these day can’t even change their own oil” moment?

[–] fresh 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

No need to be rude.

Again, youre wrong. Both Apple and Samsung release repair manuals and provide replacement parts. Literally no one has a problem getting either phone repaired.

I’m all for right to repair, but android phones suck for planned obsolescence so acting like they’re better about this is delusional. Don’t give them a pass.

[–] fresh 4 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Why does epoxy matter for it being “disposable”? No one has a problem getting their iPhone fixed.

[–] fresh 3 points 1 year ago

On The Media - a podcast analyzing the media, giving historical and scientific context to news coverage. In the process, it turns out to be the best in depth news shows. Academics and journalists love this show but it doesn’t seem to be as big of a hit with the greater public. I recommend this show very highly.

Also listen to a bunch of nerdy academic podcasts like The Dissenter and New Books in Science, Psychology, Philosophy, etc in the New Books networks.

[–] fresh 6 points 1 year ago

Anything that I will experience the use of a lot. Computer, shoes, daily bag, etc.

I think a daily takeout coffee that lasts just half an hour a day, on the other hand, is an expensive luxury.

[–] fresh 6 points 1 year ago

That’s a good point. Maybe subsidized insurance should be available for existing developed areas. But should we subsidize new sprawl in flood plains? It’s also a vicious cycle because the more wet land we pave, the worse flooding risk is for everyone.

[–] fresh 8 points 1 year ago

I think that really understates the financial difference. Before Musk, Twitter was at just about break even for years and even had a few profitable years. Now, X is near bankruptcy. It’s saddled with a billion dollar loan while revenue is simultaneously way down as advertisers flee. When I say that Twitter was stable, I also meant financially stable. They had runway to raise more funding or take out loans, and the user base and advertising was growing. X doesn’t have any of those benefits.

[–] fresh 2 points 1 year ago

I can confirm. It feels like it’s down even less than Reddit when I used to be on there.

[–] fresh 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They do this in the US. I’m torn though. Doesn’t this just incentivize building in high risk flood areas?

[–] fresh 10 points 1 year ago

We spend billions subsidizing oil and gas, which are industries with dimming importance in the future. Meanwhile, we have some of the best artificial intelligence, computer science, cognitive science university programs in the world, and we send all of our graduates to the US.

We should nurture a tech sector in Canada, not just focus solely on natural resources.

view more: ‹ prev next ›