bigschnitz @ bigschnitz @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

94

Joined

2 yr. ago

Different guy, but mine heats up with any use. Google maps is particularly bad, as is anything that uses GPS or cellular data.

Mine is borderline unusable compared to my pixel 5.

Is it summer and am I outdoors? Phone will shutdown due to overheating.

Am I using Google maps and the phone is mounted in direct sunlight? It will throttle dark mode to manage overheating .

Have I been using the phone throughout the day? It needs to be charged before I leave work.

Honestly I'd say my p7p is the worst phone I've had in a long time, it's hard to go back without considering how phones were for their time, but my instinct is that the last time I had a phone this comparably bad it was a Samsung Galaxy s3.

I'd trade my pixel 7 pro back for my old 5 in a heartbeat (were it not destroyed). Besides the better form factor and better android 11 UI on the pixel 5, which are admittedly subjective, the pixel 5 can do several things the pixel 7 pro cannot:

• be used outdoors in summer (or in direct sunlight anytime),
• get a through a full day without having to charge,
• includes a better fingerprint sensor (more reliable, has capacitive gesture, doesn't spit out blinding light, more ergonomic position),
• includes a far better screen (curved edges with persistent glare are the literal worst - not to mention how breakable they are).
• be placed on a surface without a case and without sliding around on some stupid frictionless and delicate glass back panel.

People always down vote when I point that out as well lol. Windows mobile was already moving towards icon based UIs pre iPhone, so while the UI was a definite improvement it wasn't the revolution it's made out to be. The iPhone 1 had no app store or 3g so was not good for emails and, back in 2007 when flash still mattered, couldn't access most of the Internet where windows phone could. I'm pretty sure it was successful purely based on the iPods popularity, at least until the iPhone 3gs and app store came out and the iPhone became arguably a better smartphone than those that came before.

Apple was literally founded and initially successful off Steve jobs monetizing Woz's genius. It is not at all a stretch to claim Steve Jobs never innovated a thing.

In modern apple, of course they are far more likely to buy innovative technologies and fund development or copy competitors. Why would they spend money funding R&D when they can more cheaply buy out worthwhile concepts?

You can be atheist agnostic - you don't actively participate in religion or worship but believe it is fundamentally unknowable if there is or is not a god, you can also be theistic agnostic (though this is rare in the modern lexicon) which would be where you do participate in religion (or religious practices) but still believe it to be unanswerable. To be gnostic is to believe it is knowable (and perhaps that one does know), it too can be either theist or atheist in nature.

Atheist is literally "not theist" which would include nothing, none, agnostic (the belief that it's impossible to determine the existence or absence of, in this context, God). It could even be argued that people who believe in God but do not participate in theistic practices (eg lapsed Catholics) are atheists. It does not require or even imply some position against religion.

....the middle managers suffering from irrelevance of not being able to physically wield power over employees

Imagine thinking middle management have any more influence than the rest of us working peasants to influence over the ruling the 1%. What an utterly bizarre thing to claim.

I am shocked that a market based healthcare system that prioritizes profits manages to lock people into lucrative consumer cycles where they're conditioned to rely on medications or treatments that don't cure them. I am shocked.

Completely unrelated, it's very noticeable how everyone is medicated and has mental health problems since I've moved to the US, weirdly back in Australia where the health system is different it's less common. What are the odds of that...

Mid 30s Aussie living the the US. Yes I can drive a manual, yes I do drive a manual and yes I think it should be mandatory for 100% of learning drivers regardless of whether they plan to daily drive an automatic or manual when licensed.

The quality of driving here is considerably worse here than what I've experienced in Australia or Europe and I'm convinced requiring people to drive in a machine that forces them to consider the next ~100m leads to higher quality, more mindful drivers.

You came across as super patronizing so I responded the same. It's not that big of a thing man, chill out.

Which... gets back to cable. A decade or so ago? Pretty much everything WAS in one spot for about a hundred bucks a month. Get premium cable to get most channels and then spend extra for HBO or sports or whatever. And comcast and verizon both had a lot of VODs available too. Many of which didn't even have ads. And the rest? you DVR it and then fast forward through the ads when they show up (... which is better than hulu). REALLY like movies? Get cinemax too.

You're projecting an American perspective, but I suspect you're talking to an Australian.

Cable in Australia has always been considerably more expensive than in the USA, and includes considerably less content. Except for movies, it was also never available adfree. It was changing in the last 5 years when I left the country, but it wasn't even close to competing with the likes of Netflix on price or service and I don't think there was any ad free option (despite the dramatically higher cost to consumer) - there was a whole media oligarch conspiracy to sink the national broadband upgrade because they knew they had the market cornered with their monopoly and streaming would disrupt that.

You can eat and not pay attention with a manual transmission, I don't know why we'd pretend you can't. If you're just on the highway cruising both are just going to be in one gear all the time.

I never claimed you couldn't eat and drive a manual. I said that people who claim autos are better because they make it easier to choose to drive distracted (alternative phrasing - who choose to drive like a reckless asshole) shouldn't be on the road.

Either way, the problem is that people have to drive even if they don't want to engage. The popularity of automatic transmissions proves that (to most Americans at least) cars are an appliance and something people do because they have to. Fuck cars.

Well, yeah, that's always been the case. There are some enthusiasts sure, but for the most part a car is seen as a more convenient bus. But people riding the bus seldom choose to behave dangerously while commuting, there's something about the mentality of these people (choosing to drive distracted) that is at odds with normal, acceptable behavior

You don't need to assure me of the blatantly obvious. My point wasn't that you can't eat and drive manual at the same time, it was that all these people claim automatic is a better transmission on the basis it facilitates their choice to drive distracted shouldn't be on the road. I didn't see a single person saying "oh I like driving manual better because it makes it easier for me to be an irresponsible road user".

All of these people responding that they prefer auto so they can eat or otherwise not pay attention in the car are the best (only?) argument for why everyone should drive manual.

Whatever your transmission preference is, if you're not engaged in driving you shouldn't be on the road!

I've never seen or heard of this but I'm skeptical that there is any speed hump design that wouldn't be a negative for emergency services, increase wear and tear to vehicles that cross them and that wouldn't be less of an impact to lifted chassis vehicles. These problems are avoided by the other, better solutions so why are humps even a part of the conversation at all?

Speed bumps are the worst possible solution, they often mean if you're in a conventional car you have to come to a near complete stop and if you're in a large SUV you can cross at 20mph. This reinforces the trend away from conventional cars to higher ride height vehicles which is a disaster for road safety (especially pedestrian and cyclist safety).

They do successfully slow down the flow of traffic (and also cause traffic to follow alternative paths, at least until speed bumps are saturated in the area) but it fucks up emergency vehicle access and damages cars (increases wear and tear). The other road design solutions (more narrow roads, inclusion of roundabouts, addition of choke points etc) all are equally as effective as humps at reducing speeders and diverting traffic away from roads (in some cases they are better) and have none of the negative consequences, speed humps should never be used imo.

To take real estate from notifications (is it somehow a benefit to Google to add scroll interactions?). I'm not sure what the endgame is but the only other thing it achieves is making them always trigger when you're holding the phone to your ear, which no matter how tinfoil I get I can't see any potential motivator for that. It's pure bad design, for the life of me I can't work it out.

Money isn't an investment, it's a currency. Of course it's a bad investment and investing in forex is barely a better investment than crypto (purely because there's less risk of a sovereign currency devaluing to 0).

Investing in capital, like stocks, property, equipment etc does not require someone to lose money for the capital owner to profit. If I invest in a stock, each year I'm paid a dividend based on the profits of that organisation - no losers required. I could later sell that stock at the exact price I paid for it and come away with profit from those dividends. What determines whether it's a good or bad investment, is the ratio of profit to the capital owner compared to cost of the asset. Crypto generates 0 profit, so it has 0 value as a capital investment.