It’s all about durability. For example, that phone is not going to be up to the standard of an iPhone when it comes to water resistance. What’s better constantly being able to fix your own phone or never needing to fix your phone. It is a spectrum, but I think for environmental and most consumer reasons, one wants it to be more towards the later.
"Never" is a false hope when the average lifespan of a phone is something like 2.5 years.
The battery will fail, it's just a matter of time. The screen will become cracked. The charge port will become corroded or loose. Water intrusion will happen and be unrepairable because it's inaccessible and uncleanable, not because anything's been dissolved.
Yes, eventually the hardware will be inadequate to keep up with modern apps and websites, but I think we're to the point of diminishing returns on laptops and close to it on smartphones.
And yes, eventually the software will not be supported, but that's a problem of hardware churn and economics, not engineering and durability.
A short lifespan is largely because it's not repairable, not in spite of it being repairable.
Dropping the phone in water is a possibility, the battery becoming useless is a certainty. Repairability is important.
The Samsung S5 had a removable back with a silicone seal, this was one of the first widely available water resistant phones. I'm sure they could come up with an even better version now if they wanted to. Glueing it shut is not a requirement for water resistance.
Drop this plastic phone onto concrete, drop a glass iPhone onto concrete. Phone cases should not need to exist, nor be as ubiquitous as they are - they are band-aids on bad durability.
You could probably bend this thing easier than an iPhone, I don't know how much of a metal frame is in this one, but they could add one make it as sturdy. Screws do not preclude this.
It's not all about durability. Screws have a minimal impact on durability compared to materials. It's about a sleek design for sales, with the added benefit of planned obsolescence.
Noah is a genocide apologist and kinda gross. The big take away is Israel needs help to defend itself and should be taking orders from the US, not the other way around.
Besides SAG-AFTRA, lawyers and doctors also have unions and it's essentially the only reason they're highly respected, since they've psyched everyone into thinking they're rare and valuable by making themselves rare.
Nonsense, the screen actors and writers guilds are formal unions and their members include all of the top Hollywood stars that pull down 7 figure+ paychecks from films.
You are talking about tipping points and those are most certainly covered and inserted into IPCC models. AMOC and permafrost has been covered in the most recent report.
You either are getting your shit from Reddit or worse.
I highly question the veracity of your comment. It looks like copy pasta from one of climate subreddits.
FYI, you've been shadow banned. I think it's mostly because your comments are needlessly confrontational.
> You either are getting your shit from Reddit or worse.
I am not going to state my bonafides here, but if you followed the citations, you would know that it's true. These tipping points are mentioned in the reports, but they are not included in the models. To quote the Woodwell Climate Research Center,
> This is done using a simplified, preliminary estimate that both assumes a linear relationship between warming and permafrost emissions and excludes a number of critically important thaw processes—notably abrupt thaw (thaw-induced ground collapse that exposes deep permafrost) and fire-permafrost interactions. As a result, the projection (3–41 GtCO₂ per 1°C of warming by 2100) is underestimating permafrost carbon emissions potential in the budgets.
Or straight from the horse's mouth,
> Scientific advisers must resist pressures that undermine the integrity of climate science. Instead of spreading false optimism, they must stand firm and defend their intellectual independence, findings and recommendations — no matter how politically unpalatable2.
and
> Climate researchers who advise policy-makers feel that they have two options: be pragmatic or be ignored. They either distance themselves from the policy process by declaring that it is no longer possible to stay within a 2 °C-compatible carbon budget, or they suggest practical ways to dodge carbon-budget constraints3.
> Many advisers are choosing pragmatism. This can lead to paradoxical positions, as exemplified by shifting assumptions in climate economics over the past few years.
> Each year, mitigation scenarios that explore policy options for transforming the global economy are more optimistic4 — and less plausible. Advisers once assumed that the global emissions peak would have to be reached before 2020 and that annual emissions-reduction rates of more than 3% were not feasible. Those assumptions keep changing.
> For example, the fourth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, stated that emissions must peak by 2015 to stay within 2 °C of warming; yet the fifth IPCC report, released last year, refers to 2030 emissions levels higher than today's that are still compatible with this limit, albeit with annual emissions-reduction rates of 6%. The annual Emissions Gap Report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had an original deadline of 2020 for its analysis of how to fill the gap between global emissions levels compatible with a 2 °C target and national pledges; the 2014 edition extended it to 2030.
> In both cases, climate economists got around past 'make-or-break' points for the 2 °C target by adding 'negative emissions' — the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere during the second half of this century. Most models assume that this can be achieved using a combination of approaches known as BECCS: bioenergy (which would require 500 million hectares of land — 1.5 times the size of India)4 and carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology.
and most damning of all,
> “ Policy-makers view the IPCC reports mainly as a source of quotes with which to legitimize their preferences.”
We are already far beyond the worst case scenario as shown by the initial reports. The models that power the graphs exclude many known feedback loops and include these types of hacks to achieve what people want.
You are not describing homelessness. Andre has a home. You are describing a class that has resorted to this type of activity due to inequities in society.
He is the kind of person who would have been homeless were it not for a government program. Many people assume the problems associated with homelessness (e.g. crime) will go away if you give people free housing and other social support.
Andre is evidence that simply giving people what they need is not enough to stop criminal behavior.
> Andre is evidence that simply giving people what they need is not enough to stop criminal behavior.
But who is to know what Andre's life would have been like if he had been given what he needed when he was 14? You can't expect someone to spend some of their most formative years on the street and then bounce back just because they suddenly have a roof over their head.
Providing housing certainly is not always sufficient to solve everyone's problems. Plenty of people who've never been homeless commit crimes, develop drug habbits and find other ways to destroy their lives.
Housing is however, necessary, if you want to have any luck helping people. Fixing economic, psychological, substance, or emotional problems becomes many times harder. When people are desperate and are treated liked outcasts regularly, deterring criminal behavior also becomes several times harder.
So yes, housing does not fix everything. It is however a necessary first step in any plan to deal with the homelessness and its comorbidities. Any approach that doesn't start with housing is doomed to fail.
By "the kind of person who would have been homeless were it not for a government program" you mean someone who chose their parents badly and was homeless at 14, a literal child?
I think they literally mean “they receive government assistance that allows them to have a roof over their head”. Where does the part about “choosing parents” even come from?
The comment you were replying to wasn’t making any sort of a judgement, what they said was straight up just factually describing the current situation. They weren’t blaming Andre for becoming homeless. They were using him as an illustration that just giving free housing isn’t some magic pill that will solve everything, and the effective solutions need to be more comprehensive than that.
"Choosing parents" is mocking a frequently-held attitude that when people do bad things, it's 100% of the time 100% their own fault and nobody else ever had anything to do with it. "Andre steals stuff because he makes bad choices. If he'd just stop making bad choices, he wouldn't be in trouble so much. It's all his fault."
The reality is that people often do make reasonably good decisions from the set of decisions available to them - and that set is often quite bad. Andre's only source of income is selling stolen goods. If he'd stop doing that, wouldn't it be worse for him because he'd have no income? People will say "he should just get a job" but have you tried getting a job? Like, ever? It's far from trivial, especially if you have a criminal record! So, given the choice between A (easy and effective) or B (difficult and probably ineffective) or C (having no money) the best decision is obvious. Choosing A is a good decision. And if we don't want Andre to choose A, we need to give him a better option.
Oftentimes it starts with growing up:
> Andre said he has struggled with homelessness on and off since he was 14. That’s when he started selling at 3rd and Pine. He’s been there almost everyday since. He’s 30 now.
If Andre had a computer at 14 he could be commenting on Hacker News today. Or with other factors he could be an athlete, an artist, an entrepreneur, idk, anything. But he got started on the "petty crime to pay bills" path and that constrained his options from then on.
When we combine this known fact - that his crime begins with not having a stable childhood, which is largely determined by who you have as a parent and how your society treats them - with the attitude that "everything you do is your fault" - we come to the conclusion that it must be Andre's fault that his parents were poor and homeless, which is absurd.
And in this case, the takeaway of “See? Exactly as I would have argued before I read this story, government intervention just doesn’t work!” feels so myopic. Plenty of interventions do work, you just don’t see them on 3rd Avenue.
Putin has been saying for the past decade that he would not tolerate further eastward expansion of NATO, a thoroughly anti-russian alliance. It is a reasonable position. No, invading independent countries is not reasonable. One can hold both these thoughts in their head.
It's like me telling my next door neighbor they can't be friends with another neighbor. It's none of my business, and I'd be an asshole for demanding it.
You have to also consider that it involves more than just being friends, it also involves putting airbases, missiles, and possibly nukes pointing at your house.
A) NATO has had nukes pointed at Moscow for half a century already, so that wouldn't be anything new.
B) Ukraine isn't much closer to Moscow than Lithuania is (and hugely father away from Leningrad than Estonia is), so this seems irrelevant.
What your neighbours and their friends put on their lawns is none of your business. If it's a lot of stuff usable for defending against arsehole neighbours, maybe in stead of attacking them you should think about what kind of a neighbour you are.
It is not. Russia does not have any say in what alliances other nations choose to join -- apart from the "last argument of kings" of course, and what's scary to me is that there are so many people like you around that seem to have this Clausewitz idea of war being "politics by other means" even in the present day.
Your comment clearly makes excuses for Russia's actions, so no, in your case you are not keeping both of these thoughts in your head.
Would you be so quick to defend the United States in the same manner if they had expressed concerns about Mexico's foreign policies for the past ten years? Or an invasion of an alternate-reality Cuba with a democratically elected government tomorrow?
Yeah but the fact that he invaded an independent country makes all of his other claims baseless. NATO didn't expand to Ukraine, he invaded anyways, so there is no point in appeasing him.
