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.

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.

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?

This is a ridiculous analogy. It’s also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.

And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you’re doing is trying to claim I’m making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn’t communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn’t been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I’m not even claiming communism can or can’t work. Just that the arguments provided don’t support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn’t give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I’ve even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.

You act as if it’s been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it’s not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

And it doesn’t devolve into it. It’s simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you’re unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don’t know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn’t devolve into authoritarianism. They’re not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It’s like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn’t devolve into one. They’re not the same thing.

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.

It’s a shame that it’s even considered “radical” since it’s basically a copyright holder upholding their end of the bargain in the promise behind the origin of copyright. To incentivize creative content, a creator is given sole ability to monetize it for a fixed period of time. In return for that protection, the public gets it at the end of the term. Today’s copyright is so far off course that it defeats the intent. There’s no incentive to create anything new if you can keep milking existing content. And the public never gets a return for offering that protection.

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”

It seems odd to say the authorities aren’t trustworthy so let’s give authority to yet another person. Why do you want to give more power somewhere because you don’t like the other people that have that power. It’s still a corporation. Why trust corporations over government?

Edit: keep in mind one is supposed to abide by law, the one you want though is only beholden to itself.

Isn’t the official repo for Lemmy on GitHub?

No. No it wasn’t. I’ve been here since YouTube started and have never seen this. People thinking they’re experience is everyone’s experience is wild.

Sweet Jesus.

Yes, apparently it does taste very sweet.

I’ll see myself out.

I mean, it’s not just any excretion. It’s a byproduct of sorts of the aphids digestive system.

From wikipedia on “Honeydew (secretion)”:

When their mouthpart penetrates the phloem, the sugary, high-pressure liquid is forced out of the anus of the aphid.