VLC

Exceptions are possible. Money isn’t everything for everyone.

Honestly, Zoom just has a hilariously high frequency of vulnerabilities being discovered.

There are sandwich artists and sanitation engineers. Everyone knows they get paid like crap.

Unfortunately “prompt engineers” seem to be getting paid small fortunes when their job is essentially using a massive amount of computing power to commit various levels of intellectual property theft they hope no one will notice.

The problem is artists often make their actual living doing basic boiler plate stuff that gets forgotten quickly.

In graphics it’s Company logos, advertising, basic graphics for businesses.

In writing it’s copy for websites, it’s short articles, it’s basic stuff.

Very few artists want to do these things, they want to create the original work that might not make money at all. That work potentially being a winning lottery ticket but most often being an act of expressing themselves that doesn’t turn into a payday.

Unfortunately AI is taking work away from artists. It can’t seem to make very good art yet but it can prevent artists who could make good art getting to the point of making it.

It’s starving out the top end of the creative market by limiting the easy work artists could previously rely on to pay the bills whilst working on the big ideas.

I’m sticking with relevance. A >25% rise is what we’re talking about.

A 0.001 difference on a 0.004 total would be worth showing.

No it doesn’t.

It’s meant to illustrate a change and it does so perfectly fine. It’s not a scientific paper.

It’s a 32-34% increase looking at the graph. That’s significant enough to shout about.

Imagine any change you could make surprising competition by 25% in any market. That’s huge.

During setup there is a keyboard shortcut to get to command prompt.

Then a command you can use.

Then the machine restarts and you can setup without a Microsoft account.

(For reference I’m on my dual booting Linux phase. I’d like to ditch it altogether but Wayland isn’t quite there yet and x never will be.)

Absolutely. The reason these things don’t last is because it’s not worth the investment to redevelop and maintain.

I’m just pointing out that’s the reason to move to where there is investment and sustainability in the product.

Firefox cut funding for maintaining an option due to low usage. Speculative investment in a replacement fell flat.

Google cuts investment for the same reasons and that happens often. They speculate on a new product then cut it if it doesn’t work out for them.

Neither company doing this is a bad thing.

The problem most people have is they are late to move to a mature product, which then having reached maturity is assessed as either a success or failure. Then due to low usage it’s cut.

Then they’re looking for the next mature product. Again ignoring sustainability. Which is then also cut.

Firefox has also had issues in this regard.

“Firefox’s built-in support for web feeds and Live Bookmarks was removed with the release of Firefox version 64 in December 2018.”

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/feed-reader-replacements-firefox

They pushed “Pocket” over RSS.

Now they’re depreciating the Mac pocket app and it’s clearly not going to do well in the future.

5 years of moving people away from RSS to another service, to then start to depreciate that service.

5 years from the major redesign of google reader from 2008 to 2013 and closing it down.

My lesson. Expect to change your software for the web every 4 years or so. If it lasts longer it’s a bonus. But chances are if you make the effort to move to the best (and most recently developed) candidate every 4 years you’ll be in a good place.

You know when software gets stale, you know when there are better options, use them.

Sometimes your current choice gets a new round of development, sometimes it goes stale.

The EU and Nokia are at the forefront of what you’re asking for.

Ultimately the more appetite for sustainability the better and the less custom sent to companies which are not actually sustainable the better.

Fairphone isn’t a sustainable company it’s pretending to be one and taking market share from more reputable companies.

They’ve probably lost to the competition already.

Nokia are more sustainable and offer more options for a lower price.

Fairphone are a virtue signalling brand at best now and a hypocritical one at that.

Anyone with a fairphone 4 might have made an honest mistake, a 5 or later and they’re just gullible.

A Nokia.

5 years of security updates. Cheap. Repairability commitment.

Headphone Jack Dual SIM

Very good camera.

Making a modular phone is complicated.

If they can’t deal with complicated things they should shut up shop and get out of the way so someone genuinely ethical can take their market share.

To be clear, if they only failed to produce a phone with a headphone jack I’d be happy to just not buy it.

The fact they went on to produce electronic trash in making Bluetooth earbuds means it’s clear they’ve reached the enshittification point They are just out to make money from their user base now like every other manufacturer.

The hypocrisy of encouraging waste while pretending to be against that is what I’m calling out.

They’re hypocrites and the worse they do the better a competitor for the ethical market can rise.

To be honest I’d just buy a Nokia. They’re more committed to actually producing a sustainable product at volume.

Making up theories that don’t match reality.

Is talking to you worth any time at all?

All dongles break, especially the fairphone ones.

They are initially unnecessary to manufacture, then become unnecessary waste.

I’d prefer a smaller phone too but my main problem is fairphone ditched the headphones jack.

Then sold Bluetooth earbuds.

They don’t care about electronic waste, they want their customers to throw away wired headphones and buy earbuds with batteries and wireless.

No headphone jack means fairphone now encourage Bluetooth earbuds and electronic waste.

They’re dead to me.

Adapters are more electric thrash.

I strongly disagree.

I have yet to buy a phone without a headphone jack.

I’ve got earphones that are 17 years old and sound great. An audio jack in the car that connects way faster than Bluetooth. A hifi older than me.

The amount of electrical waste and incompatibilities caused by ditching a universal standard is not small.