I think it might just get more complicated because without government's monopoly, and as shown in places where that wanes, anyone can decide people making money this way or that way are a problem they want to fix..
> whether they want to spend $89 for a battery or $890
No, they can pay less than $120 on a new phone in the budget tier which will be at least comparable in capabilities to a 5 year old phone in any tier and also have about 2 years of life.
I don’t know how happy many people would be going from a $900 flagship to a base-tier budget phone.
Granted it might be faster (though looking at Geekbench scores between budget Android phones [0] and the 5-year-old iPhone XS [1] I’m not overly convinced of that either), but the price of manufacturing “nice” doesn’t drop nearly as fast as silicon.
Budget phones often compromise on build and camera and screen quality (even though the latter two often look great on spec sheets) and I think the average person would notice that far more than raw performance.
Aside from all the other problems a genuine pixel 3 (or iPhone XS) battery is bellow 3000 mah, so like replacing your redmi battery with a defective one.
If they are price sensitive, they would have gone for something like the $399 2016 iPhone SE, which is currently in it's seventh year of support, having gotten another security update last month.
That works out to around fifty bucks per supported year, and you aren't creating a mountain of e-waste by throwing away a perfectly good phone every other year.
Buying something like the Samsung A14 every 4 years would cost about the same and seems a lot more realistic than aspirational.
I think its great that phones are being supported for 7 years but in a way it is a marketing chip based on consumer's using unrealistic linear depreciation.
Some consumers can pass down, repurpose, or only need very basic things, but most consumers need much of the relative performance they first bought, break screens, can't handle embedded battery replacement logistics, etc, so most probably have replaced something like the iPhone SE before 4 years is up and are paying more than they would have expected.
To me that's just a marketing induced cognitive blind spot. You don't have to know what $200 phone you buy in 4 years, but you want to harp on one 90% imaginary one you will hate when there's almost no chance a choice made 4 years in advance is better than all possible choices with actual information. If for example, mediatek continues to widen their gap then Samsung will choose another one that can match the last generation in Moore's law.
A refurbished iPhone SE 2023 that has a new battery and working screen is probabilistically worth more than the iPhone 2023 you buy today, and will be less than $200 unless there's a serious shortage because they have a high failure rate?
In my thinking the cost of similar products in an industry like tech is the best available estimate of how much environmental damage is involved (I.e. upgrading tooling is itself likely to produce waste) so planning to buy a $400 phone once every 7 years and actually buying one every 2 is much worse than trying to get 3-4 years out of what people have tried to make with popular runs of somewhat outdated commodity parts.
Is that really down to the medium? I thought rights issues of music videos meant they preferred cheap content they totally owned. I.e. Beavis and Butthead couldn't release complete DVDs with videos implying MTV was excluded from revenue streams until they made non-music video shows.
What could be cheaper than broadcasting content that other people produced, at zero cost to you? Problem is, just showing videos back to back like a radio station doesn't equal ratings, and no ratings means no advertising revenue.
They were addicted to the big budget videos and glorifying production costs at a time when special effects were still very expensive, but the benefit to doing that was inherently dropping since any artist that could expect millions more in increasingly cheaper CD sales had alternatives to an expensive Ad/giveaway.
That doesn't answer any question for me of whether the video medium was good or bad, clearly MTV's monopoly meant the only way to release videos was an economical disaster.
It looks very partial lock down period oriented though, which makes it a not very representative study. For example, the socializing hybrid provides may have been a lot better than almost no socializing with people outside the home, but far fewer WFH people today may be that isolated.
I think I would more easily be convinced that Madoff deserved rehabilitation than SBF.
There are certain behaviors in fraudsters that make me think they are psychopathic fraudsters and really incapable of dealing with the world without deceit. That naturally overlaps other dark triad traits that make it hard but not impossible for someone to put aside deceit and allow some deflation of their ego, etc.
I tended to get this impression with DDG because I use !g or !b only when I am dissatisfied with a ddg result, but !g seems worse than !b despite the expected overlap between ddg and Bing. Of course if you get adequately niche then Google should find something and not have spam, but I think they turned results off for anything sophisticated enough to return few results.
You've just demonstrated the anthropic principle. Intelligent contemplation requires a lot of things so we will see them and can see them as fundamental, but they might be obscure in the universe.
No, you are misunderstanding the anthropic principle. That merely explains statistical things such as why it might be hard to find intelligent life elsewhere.
The anthropic principle is a concept we've created out of our conscious observation of the universe. But take away our consciousness and you take away any and all of our knowledge of any universe whatsoever.
Consciousness cannot be "obscure" when it is the basis for one's own experienced reality, the substrata underlying everything else. Consciousness experience is fact; our conceptual understanding of the universe is mere theory. Well-tested theory, but theory nonetheless.
> Consciousness cannot be "obscure" when it is the basis for one's own experienced reality, the substrata underlying everything else.
That you can do any of this has consciousness as a precondition, it is of significance to us but we are most likely a statistical anomaly in the Universe. It is statistically probable that we have this rather fragile viewpoint on the Universe, that's only available in small places for short times, because consciousness has preconditions.
For people who work in or consume TV and film maybe the video camera seems fundamental to the nature of the world, but it wasn't very important before it was created.
The start of the Rohingya genocide precedes the civil war. The military controlled troops and the civil government controlled police in genocidal operations. A lack of rule of law, but not in the sense that some benevolent government just lacked power to act.
Sounds absurd and abusive to me. Companies should feel pressure to have good perks such as useful education that could be used elsewhere and if they can't retain people they certainly don't deserve a kick back for sucking.
I don't want to play in a job market with parasitic companies full of indentured servants who are afraid to demand the wage correspond to their role.
