This almost always means "security patches" but the general public almost always interprets this as "feature updates" and tech journalism never manages to draw the distinction.
And they just release iOS 16.7.8 last month, that was the 4th update this year for iOS 16, that goes back until the iPhone 8 from 2017.
They also released iOS 15.8.2 this last march, this one goes back to the iPhone 6 from 2015, a device that is 9 year old and still getting security updates.
So while they are only making a commitment for 5 years, in practice they are doing, and have usually done, for much longer then that.
If they really wanted to, they could offer two versions: one which includes a charger, and another which does not and donates $5 to an environmental charity.
Why do some people believe that deliberately and carefully trying to fix a problem and inadvertently introducing an unforeseen side-effect is worse than deliberately choosing not to do nothing about a disease that leads to sickness and death?
It appears that a "gene drive" was introduced into the Florida Keys in this case, and that is much more targeted and specific to a species that it is intended to destroy.
I am a pretty big advocate for good faith communication and think the article is right that it is necessary. The thing that disheartens me though, is the asymmetric nature of the problem: good faith communication is hard. It takes time and patience. Bad faith communication is easy. You can write 20 bad faith drive by comments in the time it takes to post one thoughtful reply. And due to the wide open nature of most of these platforms you're rarely interacting with the same person twice. So it's hard not to feel that that effort is entirely going to waste.
I agree, I think it's also likely that in many scenarios bad faith communication is more successful in the short term. You can appeal to a persons emotions, disparage the person making the argument, exclude nuance to make simple memorable statements, etc. Which is where I struggle with settling on a strategy for dealing with it (and trying to prevent myself from doing it), since so much of our lives are geared towards/optimised for short term results
Commercial property tax rates (incl rental) should be higher than residential. All things being equal, it would be preferable for someone to own the house they live in, rather than pay rent to another party indefinitely for exclusive access, and our tax code should incentivize in that direction.
The mosquito "needle" is highly evolved. Less painful than a thumb blood sample. Don't push them off prematurely and you get less itch, IMHO. Don't scratch and you get less itch, too.
No it's not, it's looking to enshrine that standard by law for everyone. Nothing is stopping consumers from demanding phones that are self-serviceable, they just simply aren't willing to accept the tradeoffs involved (larger size, worse thermals, higher price, etc). If you disagree, there's an unserved market segment wide open for you!
> No it's not, it's looking to enshrine that standard by law for everyone.
That's what's necessary IMO - since if it isn't required for all consumers than there is no motivation to make it available for any customers, we'll continue to be dragged down by the LCD as devices get less and less serviceable. Manufacturers don't like options - options cost money and each additional model you offer drives up how much you spend in storage and production line configuration, so they'll target the majority which probably does want to be able to repair devices but either doesn't realize it's still an option or doesn't have the financial freedom to invest in a higher quality device that has a higher upfront price tag but a lifespan that outlives that difference by leaps and bounds.
Let's set aside software RTR, which at first glance I believe has no increased costs associated (besides a decreased profit margin from lack of shortened support windows and a locked-down ecosystem).
Could you expand on the specifics of what changes RTR would necessitate the hardware to have? Let's say beyond the fact that a non-reversible bond/connector would otherwise be the cheapest option (saving perhaps fractions of pennies on the BOM).
Mandated right repair would raise weight for battery containers and latches, higher failure as connections would not be soldered in place and hinges and latches may fail, less water resistance as seals may get bumped loose, easier access for hardware hacks for bad actors, more potential consumer injury device damage during repair attempts, and more likely fire scenarios in planes and public areas from incorrectly installed parts. It is attempting to deny consumers those benefits.
Sounds like exaggeration or either overblown concerns. It's also ignoring the fact that manufacturers going out of their way to make a device deliberately more difficult to repair rather than just implementing tradeoffs.
It's one thing to have a waterproof phone that you need specialty tools to fix it, it's another thing when manufacturers try to make repairing deliberately more difficult than it should be, such as limiting the sale of OEM components or using security screws.
Either way, your thought what Right to Repair is only one version/proposal of what RtR.
The right to repair doesn't mandate any of that - you could have a product that has glued internal batteries and internal seals yet still release the schematics and allow your suppliers to sell the components to consumers.
Just look at motor vehicles - people have the right to change their own brake pads yet or even engines! This is arguably way more dangerous than a badly repaired small electronic device!
Important distinction here! Right to repair does not prescribe design considerations! You can glue/solder/integrate all you want! Just need to make sure replacement parts are available and documentation is clear!
History is full of things that people did not want to mandate via their purchases, but we as a society decided was important... so we made it legally mandatory.
> Nothing is stopping consumers from demanding phones that are self-serviceable
It's not like anyone asked the consumers. Nor were the options put on the market, for the buyers to vote on them with their wallets. The conclusions are assumed in advance by the companies. Meanwhile, consumers choose from what's actually available on the market - not from the space of all possible products.
> they just simply aren't willing to accept the tradeoffs involved (larger size, worse thermals, higher price, etc).
No customer can truly evaluate the tradeoffs involved. For starters, necessary information isn't publicly available. Companies don't publish reports from their product teams that describe the trade-off space they're working on. Would a user-replaceable battery make the phone thicker? How much? Does the glue actually helps with thermals? What's the price difference? Nobody knows, outside the people involved in these decisions.
Secondly, marketers run interference. Maybe a Joe would pay $100 extra for a fully repairable phone, so that Jane could fix it for him when he unavoidably breaks it in six months. Maybe an environmentally conscious Carol would go for one with user-replaceable battery, because she can only afford a cheaper, mostly integrated device. But they won't, because those issues aren't even on a typical person's radar. Instead, the marketing focuses on vague appeal to emotions, misrepresented specs, outright lies, and bait-and-switch "value-add" services. Most people who know better than to fall for such nonsense will just look at the one clear indicator - price.
The point is: when you have a system connected to a bunch of input signals, you can't say that a particular signal doesn't affect the system, if half of the other inputs are flooded with noise that's 20dB higher than any legit signal would be. You first need to shut off the noise!
> If you disagree, there's an unserved market segment wide open for you!
Not for me. There are too many capital barriers to entry around designing and manufacturing high-end electronics. You can't just start a business in this space and hope to offer a comparable price to established magnitudes.
Now if an established company like Samsung or Apple dared to try this, then we'd know. Maybe it would turn out there's no market for repairable smartphones. But I haven't seen anybody giving it a shot in a meaningful way.
> To the extent that interpretive canons accurately describe how the English language is generally used, they are useful tools. … [But w]hen this Court describes canons as rules or quotes canons while omitting their caveats and limitations, we only encourage the lower courts to relegate statutory interpretation to a series of if-then computations. No reasonable reader interprets texts that way. [Alito in concurrence]
Why would it be horrible if there were a well-defined grammar for legal texts?
Disagree. The abandonment of advertising in favor of paywalls in media is directly contributing to the increase in polarization and consumption of disinformation. Quality journalism is getting harder and harder to access. People might subscribe to one or two, but they are unlikely to shell out for a publication that does not align with their preexisting views. Meanwhile the propaganda and fake news remains free to read.
Advertising is directly contributing to the increase in polarization. If you want to get ad revenue, you have to produce in increasing quantities every year (by directly reducing the quality of the content) and use shady tactics like clickbait and polarizing topics to increase page views.
Are you perhaps misunderstanding how the newsfeed works? People can write all clickbait they want, always have, but it wasn't until that content was forced in your face by Facebook's newsfeed algorithm, or youtube recommendation algorithm or twitters feed algorithm that you are really exposed to that stuff.
And even without clickbait stuff people search for the news that satisfies them and their value system.
All of this happens on data voluntarily shared with the platforms people complain about like Facebook, and there's no end to this in sight.
Advertising in this forum is at the same time useless and barely works (cue the 50% advertising is wasted, don't know which one, and other similar sentences) and the most powerful tool for mind control ever existed.
Facebook and Youtube are also powered by advertising and suffer from the exact same issue. Content producers using these platforms have an incentive to create the maximum amount of content they can and use polarizing topics to get more views.
Any revenue model based on the number of views (like advertising) is fundamentally flawed and will suffer from the exact same problem.
Advertising and targeted advertising are not the same. Youtube creators bake in ads relative to the videos (or not) via sponsors and they make more money off that than the ads Google puts in front of the videos.
It seems that the same argument could be made about hyper-targeted advertising. In the days where everyone was watching the same network newscasts or reading the same newspapers, they were also all seeing the same advertisements.
The trend towards segmenting people into ever-smaller classes to serve them more targeted ads is another cause of, not a solution to polarization.
