pjhenry1216

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.

You can get a phone jack adapter for $5 moron.

Because everyone in the supply chain is being paid a fair wage and not being exploited.

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.

You have $5 options.

It allowed them to increase the IP rating, allows for simplified manufacturing, and easier maintainability and repairability.

How is not including it considered greenwashing (I notice you didn’t ask about that, so I assume you know the answer)?

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?

Weird. I could have sworn software comes on it too. Your phone doesn’t have software?

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.

Who is listening to music on the same headset while making a phone call?

And why use your phone’s onboard DAC at that point if you want quality headphones?

Income share isn’t actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn’t mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn’t buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you’re unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you’re actively misleading people.

You’re technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don’t believe communism would work either. Communism isn’t the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren’t actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.

Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.

Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.

Workers wanted an increase in pay, so shareholders needed to offset that by even more. Workers can’t get a raise without shareholders getting a raise.

Inflation is majority driven by profit, not wages. Dems barely attack that angle. Republicans actively work against it.

Let’s not be confused here. Specialization is what allows for free time. If everyone has to farm and hunt, that’s all you’d do. Specialization is a good thing for humanity and diverse institutions and industries to arise.

No, you can change parts of it, but you can’t just arbitrarily say any part can simply be replaced willy nilly. That’s just childish. Changes have impact and consequences. You’re literally ignoring cause and effect. I can see nothing is worth discussing with you though if you’re going to respond with something a child would say. So we’re done here.

That’s not the way any of this works. You can’t just change a portion of the system. The US imports a ton of food. Banning something is actually a realistic ability. Ingredients have been banned before. Creati ng a system that is doomed to failure due to not thinking about it for 3 seconds is a different class of ability. We’re talking about changing the laws of a country, not breaking the laws of math and physics. I’m pro-socialism but this is an awfully thought out take. It would cause worldwide economic collapse and less to starvation around the world due to such an event.

I mean, if we’re talking about impossible things, changing the world economic structure is one of them.

You can’t socialize food production without socializing the entire economy of the world. Many countries rely on food production as their number one source of income. So you can’t just socialize one industry. Let alone getting the world to play along.

An incentive could be “offer healthy alternatives otherwise something bad will happen.” It requires meddling with the system and ignoring the free market, but sounds like I don’t think you’d disagree with disruption in the free market.

I think we just need a way to incentivize corporations to provide healthy alternatives as well (and not just HFCS, but high sugars in general, etc). Not sure of the best approach, but the bigger issue is that when every corporation is pushing cheap sellers that are addictive, its no wonder most people eat them. Like, McDonalds alone isn’t responsible, but corporations in general because their basically saying they can’t be held responsible for being successful. But they’re putting so much money into being successful and trying to be successful, that it’s difficult when you have such large entities pushing that way but then saying “it’s not our fault people are going in the direction we push”

Isn’t the official repo for Lemmy on GitHub?