Fuck, I'll look at code I wrote like a month ago and be like, "what was I thinking?". So I try to fix it, run into some stupid issue and be like, "oh, right."
And this is why comments are useful on code who's purpose or reasoning isn't super obvious or even looks counter intuitive.
It doesn't have to do with Star Trek. That's just the name of the Lemmy instance that uploaded it. The community it's uploaded to is [email protected].
They'll never include it as it needs the headphone jack. Unless they expect a huge market for radio, that is big enough for them to offer a mea culpa and give back head phone jacks, it's never going to happen.
Would people love to get headphone jacks back? I'm sure. But I don't see the market being there to get companies to give in on that.
Many people have phones without those radios. If they want that feature, it's available to them right now via another device that is better suited to the task.
I mean, I don't know their other practices, but the removal of the headphone jack is hardly green washing. I'd bet it actually is more sustainable to not include it tbh, plus it is likely more affordable. Beyond that, with just looking into it, as I expected, they're a more sustainable and repairable set of headphones compared to the rest of the market. Moreover, I highly doubt dropping the jack would drive folks to decide to buy these if they weren't already. They're not tiny earbuds. They're over the ear which is generally something folks buy when they actually are looking for them.
Sometimes accelerated progress can lead to waste, but holding onto legacy tech for too long can also lead to waste.
I didn't say a USB headset is inherently better. The one on your phone isn't inherently better either if you're using a 3.5mm jack either. So the argument can work both ways. And to be honest, no phone really has amazing onboard DAC, and especially not the Fairphone.
You can still use a wired headset if you so wish with your $3 connector. But when someone wants wireless, it's nice to have the option.
I don't blame Fairphone trying to make their product less expensive to produce. It's not like they're the biggest sellers in the world or benefitting from economies of scale as much as other companies.
At that point you're getting a very specific phone for a very specific purpose. It's not the rule but the exception. So it doesn't apply as a reason for any other phone. You've argued why the LG has a 3.5mm jack, not why Fairphone should have a 3.5mm jack. I'd also be curious as to how powerfully it can even drive headphones at that point. It must also have a stronger amplifier than most phones too. It'd be meaningless without it. What's the point of high fidelity if it can't drive headphones that can utilize it.
This is all getting away from the purpose of the Fairphone. It's not a dedicated music player. It's not advertising high fidelity music, psrticyij relation to other phones. I don't think anyone is calling that LG phone "green" either.
Congratulations to anyone who can think of an edge case that wouldn't apply to the Fairphone. Might as well mention a tensor chip not being in the Fairphone.
I despise people repeating comments. How is making the device cheaper, more sustainable, and more reliable greenwashing? I would love anybody who just loves complaining about the headphones jack to explain that. No one else has. I doubt anybody complaining really cares about the environment either. What phone do you currently have?
Ok, Fairphone lied I guess. You obviously no better than the manufacturers. It's not like other phones with those jacks likely cost more to water proof those jacks or anything. Everything is always exactly the same and doesn't cost extra to do anything differently.
Based on what? Cost? The whole premise is sustainability and ensuring the people who build it aren't working sweatshop workers like with every other major phone. I say this knowing full well I'm using one of those phones but Fairphone has only recently become available in my country.
So it depends on if you want a bad deal by parting with some extra dollars or it's a bad deal for the workers that are getting exploited so you save a few dollars.
For more cost. And again, their question was how does it affect reliability. I provided other reasons. This is like fucking whackamole. Folks just responding to the random comment that was responding to one specific thing and then pretending like it's the entire fucking argument. This whole thread is filled with idiots. Jacks have been left out of most flagship phones for a couple years now. This honestly smells like a fake grassroots attack on the Fairphone because they pay people fucking living wages instead of goddamn slave wages. The headphone jack was never a selling point of the phone. And it's not like you need to buy their headphones.
And headphone jacks are absolutely prone to failure. That's just objectively fucking false ignorant of electronics. It's an additional component. Maintainability and reliability inherently goes down if you add components. It's not magically a part of the fucking PCB. It's soldered on and then anytime a headphone plug is put in, it will put stress on the solder joints anytime it moves. Did you just fucking guess and hope you're right about "it's just as reliable"?
This thread is shit. I'm done here. Can I just block an entire post to stop seeing asinine replies from jackasses who probably don't even have a headphone jack on their current phone?
This post has devolved into shit and filled with a bunch of whiners complaining about the same dumb shit that isn't a goal of this phone. Might as well whine the new iPhone doesn't cost under $400 for as reasonable of a complaint anything on this post is.
Rep. Matt Gaetz is planning to attempt to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy from the role this week after the House leader worked with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown on Saturday.
That's great for the future. But the government needs to operate prior to that time. If there is no speaker, then there's no vote for keeping the government open past mid November
Space forecaster? "Today there will be mostly nothing with a small chance of satellite showers in the evening. And when is the evening? I don't know. It's space."
Over the top is the correct way and I will die* on this hill.
not really, at most I'd probably reply once, maybe twice, to a rebuttal if it is interesting. And then id just forget it. But oh boy, the next time it's brought up, I'll claim to die on that hill again.
It's not the same as an artist being inspired. It's more like an artist painting something in the style of someone else. AI can generate anything new and it doesn't transform things in its own way. It just copies and melds together. Nothing about it is really it's own. It's just a biased algorithm putting things together. Moreover, the artist could actually forget what the painting looks like, but still be inspired. If you erase something from the LLM, it will change it's output. It's basically more of a constant copying.
That analogy is what a bunch of people who want to sell AI art try to pitch. It's the difference between content and art.
I think you're missing the point. You're still generating something purely based only on other things. There's nothing of an artist in there. There's no message. There's no art. You created content. You aren't in there. And I know this seems odd because there's no way to know this without extra knowledge, but something is lost. And it's not an artist's tool. It's a non-artist's tool.
I'm not arbitrary. I explicitly gave a reasonable difference between content and art. You can create content without soul, that's fine. I'm not saying you need to mix your own paint. I'm saying art is inherently human by definition. You can pump out all the content you want, but it will just make finding decent art that much worse. It's like saying ChatGPT can pump out android apps more quickly, but I don't think anyone would argue it'd raise the quality of the Android app markets.
You're just thinking of everything from the point of view of middle management. Quantity over quality.
When you remove humans from the equation, it's not art. It's content. It's disposable fluff. It's mass produced. It's soulless. But sure, think yourself intelligent because you literally put money over anything else. Why don't you just flood the market with remakes and remasters at this point. It fits your argument.
You can't raise an expectation of art by literally removing any meaning to it.
Every word has an impact that you can't predict. So no. All your words and condescending tone speak more about what you don't know. You are are hitting a button and continually trying new things until you get the results from the AI that you want. That is not the same. Especially since you'll start just changing things just because your original intent didn't match what you want so you'll start reaching for other synonyms and the like.
It simply isn't the same as human inspiration. There's a reason courts voted against giving rights to AI generated art to the prompt creator. Their reasoning holds.
Just because someone might not be able to tell the difference between a forgery and the real thing doesn't make them both equally art.
Same holds true to your example which I literally already used and explained why it didn't work. Are you even reading my comments or just ranting?
If it's specifically what you want, it's not AI otherwise you'd be over fitting.
I'm not talking about any specific tools. I'm talking about the actual theory. I'm glad you can contradict yourself by claiming very little can get you immense details (except it's also exactly what you want?)
I'm sorry I offended you and that you're getting ridiculously angry and defensive when I said creating something via AI isn't art.
You seem to be misunderstanding my position entirely. I suggest you read my first comment again. Cause you're using a lot of words and details to explain useless stuff.
Edit: I don't disagree it's a tool. I disagree its the same as a person being inspired by others. And I am against the claim that they should freely use whatever they want without credit.
Keys are usually stored in the TPM chip and/or tied to Microsoft accounts if you use one. If you don't have an account, there's actually a limit to how often a key can activate new hardware. If there's no TPM, there's simply a limit within a certain timeframe that it can be used to activate on the same hardware.
Usually calling Windows support, they'll give you a key if you just tell them you replaced some piece of hardware due to failure, assuming you haven't been transferring the same key around for awhile. They tend to be more invested in keeping you in the Windows ecosystem than they are are just getting one more license sold.
The answer is a resounding maybe. If you activated with a Microsoft account or if there's a TPM chip, the chances of it still working increases. There are different kinds of licenses, but if it fails, there's a better than not chance calling MS support and just telling them you had a hardware failure on your laptop and you need to reinstall, they'll get you going. Not a guarantee though. And I'll caveat and say this information is a couple years old (I don't work in tech support anymore).
Someone having money isn't an excuse to not call out poor behavior against them. Making nonsensical posts that are not even accurate from an IT perspective helps no one. At best, it's just lies to get fake internet attention, at worst, it exposes a lack of understanding of the technology.
Have you looked at "System Configuration" (just type it in the Windows search box)? There's a Boot tab that should allow you to set a default or remove others.
Not everyone here is a Lemmy user. I just don't like people making idiotic comments. There's plenty do criticize about Windows without having to make stuff up due to lack of IT knowledge. If you claim calling out someone's incorrect IT knowledge as a defending Windows, that's just you being an idiot and knowing nothing of IT.
It's amazing, bro that you expose your woefully inadequate knowledge. If you want to troll, don't pretend to be anything else.
It doesn't though. At best, it messes with the boot record (which has been mentioned) which isn't deleting a partition. Windows can't delete a partition it doesn't actually use.
You can continue your inability to understand the actual details of what you're talking about. I'm not defending Windows. I'm defending telling the truth about PCs. You can continue your fanboyism and inexperience with operating systems and hard drives.
Wait, What Is Happening Here? (kerala.party)
Recycling (startrek.website)
Phones should have FM radio again (www.spacebar.news)
The Fairphone 5 is less about what comes in the box and more about what you get over the years (www.theverge.com)
Matt Gaetz says he will attempt to oust Kevin McCarthy from the speakership this week | CNN Politics (www.cnn.com)
Rep. Matt Gaetz is planning to attempt to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy from the role this week after the House leader worked with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown on Saturday.
How To Turn Off Google’s “Privacy Sandbox” Ad Tracking—and Why You Should (www.eff.org)
Google did it again.
deleted_by_moderator
They have feelings too (startrek.website)
When someone replies to this and says 'stop making everything political' they mean to tell you to stop challenging the status quo (lemmy.world)
Your website can now opt out of training Google's Bard and future AIs (techcrunch.com)
You can no longer activate new Windows 11 builds with Windows 7 or 8 keys; maybe last chance to activate using Windows 7 or 8 keys, for 22H2. (www.neowin.net)
Windows eats partitions (lemmy.world)