I play guitar and have since I was a teenager, and have been hoping that one of my kids would get into music and I finally got one because my daughter's music class has uke's and she asked for one for Christmas. I was a little worried because I know what guitars cost, but you can get one of these for like $40 that's totally fine.
whofearsthenight
joined 2 years ago
He used an unauthorized, insecure Samsung Galaxy S3 or something like that, actually.
How is that not false advertising? Why should companies be allowed to magic up a fake example of their product actually working, and sell that to customers, when the real product doesn’t actually work yet?
For Apple, we can stop right here, the product worked as described. Apple did the demo, and then released the things they said they would in the time they said they would.
It’s like the Tesla “robot” that was clearly a person in a weird suit. Why are they allowed to advertise things that functionally don’t exist? Why are they allowed to sell unfinished products with promise they may one day be finished (cough full self driving cough)?
Snake oil salesman in the dictionary should just be updated to a picture of Elon Musk. Elon has a long track record of saying shit and not doing it, whether that's full self driving, cybertruck (well, that finally came out), solving world hunger, etc.
I mean holy fuck it’s like Beeper offering paid access to a service that allows Android and PC users to use iMessage, but Apple keeps breaking each new iteration every few days… Like there was no long-term plan to make sure that the service would work long-term before asking people to pay for it.
Android, Windows Phone (the “metro” rewrite from scratch - not the WinCE one), Palm WebOS, etc were all well and truly in development and close to launch and most of them were being developed in the open. Apple who was cutting corners everywhere to leapfrog those products. It took Apple just four years to go from initial planning to a shipping product.
This is ranges from just misleading to factually wrong. WebOS, for example, didn't launch until 2009, 2 years after the iPhone demo in question.
In 2008, Microsoft reorganized the Windows Mobile group and started work on a new mobile operating system.
An early prototype had a close resemblance to a BlackBerry phone, with no touchscreen and a physical QWERTY keyboard, but the arrival of 2007's Apple iPhone meant that Android "had to go back to the drawing board".
For ARM, I have to go with a "sort of?" Apple has been tied to ARM 80's so that's correct, but my phone prior to the first iPhone was one of these bad boys: the Palm Treo. It used a Intel PXA270 312 MHz. In my use, the Treo had better battery life, though admittedly that may just be because I rarely even tried to do things like use the internet on it because it was such a jank experience, so my primary use was planner types of things, texts, and since it was 2005-6, phone calls.
Anyway, back to the poster you responded to:
What competition? At that point it was BlackBerry and WinCE. Oh, and PalmPilot. [sic: by this point they had dropped "Pilot" which was actually a device type, not a company/brand.]
The actual timeline makes it pretty clear that this comment is almost objectively correct. However, even this is not correct because Apple didn't set out to compete with what we considered "smartphones":
He said Apple had set the goal of taking 1 percent of the world market for cellphones by the end of 2008. That may seem small, but with a billion handsets sold last year worldwide, that would mean 10 million iPhones — a healthy supplement to the 39 million iPods that Apple sold last year.
Bold added for emphasis.
Or, you can hear it straight from the horse's mouth: Jobs at the original iPhone keynote.
Anyway, I was alive for all of this, iPhone 10000% caught literally everyone flatfooted.
I have a hard time even figuring out what the issue here is? it'd be one thing if the first iPhone shipped and was riddled with bugs and promised/demoed features weren't there, but that wasn't the case. Launched more or less rock solid, and iPhoneOS 1.0 (as it was called then) was far from the buggiest wide release.
I really, really doubt that this is going to be a concern. First, while technically Mastodon can interact with Lemmy, in practice how often does it happen? It's not zero, but it's not a lot, either, and I doubt that Threads will change that much because while it's a neat technical feature, link aggregators and micro-blogging platforms are pretty incompatible culturally.
And then we have to remember that we're talking about Threads normies. Do we really think that a bunch of Swifties and Kardasholes and other influencers are going to look at the absolute zoo of Marxist/Anarchist/Linuxist users on Lemmy and be like "this is the type of content I've been waiting for, I need to interact more with that community"? This reminds me a lot of neckbeards saying they wouldn't date Megan Fox because she has weird thumbs.
And then we have the whole thing with the actual fediverse and the tech behind it. There is still going to be no algorithm artificially inflating the popularity of what are thinly veiled ads. Meta has no mechanism for introducing ads into the Fedi. Lemmy is not suddenly going to be massively interested in the vast majority of content on threads and start upvoting to the moon.
And the dev team behind the fedi I would wager is going to prevent any sort of real technical takeover, so that means that at any point defederating is possible, and with basically no loss to the fedi.
Serious question though - how would you? Meta can't push content in your feed. The only reason you're going to see Meta in your feed is if the community here (or people you follow on mastodon) decide they want to show it.
Im equally likely to curb you if you use an iphone.
If all of you that judge people over their phone can get together and not fuck, would really be doing the human race a solid.
I think it's even slightly different in that Firefox has some dependence on Google (a scary level, actual, if Google ends that deal Mozilla is pretty much fucked) that the fediverse doesn't - the people on the fediverse right now are enough to keep Fedi alive and moving, and I'd find it really, really hard to argue that they aren't there deliberately to avoid being subject to the whims of Meta/Twitter/Reddit, etc. Like, in a lot of ways, it's a sacrifice to be on these services because the bulk of content still exists in the proprietary silos. Because the actual protocols and main developers are also intrinsically motivated by the this separation, it's hard to picture how they could even try to extend/extinguish here.
Like, if Threads fully federates, I'd guess that quite a lot of people block their instance just to keep their hands clean. Those that interact with Threads via Fedi probably fall into the boat that I would. I want some particular content or to follow some people, just not shoveled at me however Meta decides it should be, and not in a way that they can profit from showing me ads. If Meta pulls some bullshit, it's likely the Fedi would more or less just block them entirely then give up and start a Threads account. And I have a hard time seeing a world where they go to Eugen or basically any of the other driving forces in the Fedi and are like "we need you to change Mastodon so we can [do some typical Facebook bullshit" and Eugen are like "yeah cool with me."
I think its more likely that Threads users are eventually going to see fedi users dropping a long comment or some post that is about how it's nice to have a clean ad-free feed and move clients if not over to the fedi in general. It won't be enough to really matter for Meta other than to say "see we don't have a monopoly!" and hey, if the fedi gets a little bigger it's all good for the rest of us.
I mean, he died in 2011 and pretty much all of his worst behaviors are well documented and I think he's well regarded in spite of those things, but importantly also because he seemed to learn and grow through his life. The worst things Jobs seem to be responsible for are barely a Tuesday for Elon these days, and the level of talent are also so disparate that putting them in the same sentence is a little absurd.
Holy shit I've argued with you a few times, this comment is actually something I can totally agree on.
So it's felt like this to me basically since I became an adult. For one, I work in an industry where the holidays mean nothing. And two, now I have adult shit to do, so there isn't a ton of time to just sit around baking and watching Christmas specials and what not. Also can't really stand the consumerist side of things and while I do like giving gifts as a thing, I don't like the idea of "just buy some shit" or "whoever gets the most presents wins."
Now all that said, when I think back to what used to make the holidays special for me, I realized that was adults deliberately making the holidays special. And the shitty thing about being an adult (unless your SO is like, from the Clause family) is that you kind of have to do that for yourself, and you're probably going to have to do boring adult shit to make that happen. Like, you might literally be putting something like "Bake cookies/Watch 'The Grinch'" into your calendar. There is a lot of little things you can do as well - play some music, get some scented candles, stick a bowl of decorative pinecones out, etc.
I think this also helps a lot with other people, or in my case, my kids. I don't have a ton of friends (I'm very much a person with a small circle, but all people i know I can call if i need help moving if that makes sense) but we do some small get togethers. With my kids, I try to do more of the things that make things feel special for them. Lights on the house I could take or leave (back to being lazy) but I do my best and I put them up, even though it was just a few days ago because that was the first day that wasn't pouring where I was at home when it was light out. I make it a point to watch some Christmas movies (and let the kids come to a consensus on which) and bake some cookies or whatever. We usually go every year to that neighborhood where every house has cool lights, even if that is an hour drive away. Lots of little things like that.
Anyway, I feel like the holidays are very much a "fake it til you make it" scenario. I tend to think about it like "what do I remember that I liked about holidays" when I was a kid, and then force myself to do those things. What I've generally found is that there are definitely times I've regretted not doing anything like that, but I never regret when I forced myself to do something like this, and I rarely remember the "forced" part.