I'm currently in that boat. My phone is functional and I do not yet need to upgrade (Google Pixel 6a)
But at the same time I've been trying to rid myself of relying on American companies and services in my life.My phone, being a Pixel, is a Google device, running Google services, and receiving updates from Google. I can instal alternative apps like Proton Mail and Ecosia search, but at it's core it's still a Google device.
Fairphone is European, and that is part of the reason why I want to see them become succesful. We need to forster more home-grown tech companies to counter our reliance on America.
As a bonus I also higly respect their mission statement. We need more repairable devices on the market, and I also want their company to be succesful to prove that that demand exists.
So I've been considering upgrading, even though I technically don't need an upgrade quite yet. Maybe I'll wait a few more months for the price to drop to 450 euro-ish and then I'll switch.
There is a difference between human-scale and humanoid.
Human-scale just means the robot needs to fit in a space where humans should also fit, while humanoid means it is supposed to resemble a humans not just in size, but also in shape. A humanoid robot would generally have a torso, two arms, two legs, and probably a head.
As an example, a roomba fits in a human environment but is not humanoid. You could hypothetically make a humanoid robot that is capable of using an ordinary vacuum to vacuum the same space, but it would be significantly more complex and more expensive to do that. A purpose-built roomba is a much more cost-effective solution for cleaning up after humans.
Given that it's a humanoid robot, I suspect that this is more of a marketing stunt than any practical deployment of robots.
Humanoid robots don't make a ton of sense in manufacturing. Why mimic the sub-optimal anatomy of a human when you can make your robotic work slave have any appendage you want, which are designed to be optinal for their task along the assembly line?
Humanoid robots mostly only make sense in spaces that need to be designed for humans (like homes or hospitals) where the robot needs to regularly interact with human infrastructure.
I'm not sure if the question "How do you travel to work?" paints a complete picture.
I live in the Netherlands, and like many fellow countrymen I commute to work by car because it is the most convenient option. But other trips I make on a daily basis are usually either on foot or by bike, and if I go somewhere in the weekend I regularly take the train.
Hypothetically the police could come with a warrant and force you to hand over the footage you recorded. It's a higher barrier than if footage is being uploaded to the cloud, but it can still happen.
And even if the cameras are not uploading their footage to the cloud, it still wouldn't sit well with me if every other house has a camera pointed at the public street
Where I live it is technically illegal to record the public street with an automated camera, but it's not really being enforced. So there is Ring cameras everywhere.
Big companies using the informal you in formal communication can be seen as a way to try to make themselves feel smaller, more approachable, more person-like than they actually are.
I'm not saying that is necessarily the reason behind it, but formal or informal you do invoke different feelings and associations when they are used.
Formal you (u) shows respect, whereas informal you (jij) is more personal and buddy-buddy.
I'm also Dutch and I still occasionally use it when I want to be polite to an older person I do not know very well, or to someone who is in a position where I want to show a certain form of "respect" (higher social standing?)
That is probably also why the government uses "u" in its communication. It is proper to be seen as being respectful to your citizens. And saying "jij" after "u" is less likely to offend anyone than saying "u" after "jij"
The rules are a bit vague when you are supposed to use it, and most people will go "zeg maar jij hoor" (you can say [informal] you) after you start with "u" (formal you)
The green dots represent electricity-generation plants, and the red dots represent plants that are used to generate both electricity and (presumably district) heating. Figure is from a paper from 2014, which I found after a quick Google.
The greenhouse emissions problem depends on where that garbage would otherwise end up, and what would happen with it.
If the garbage would otherwise be recycled fully then incineration would seem like a worse option. But if the garbage would otherwise end up in a landfill, it leads to decomposition and methane production. Methane is one of the worst greenhouse gasses out there, so incineration might be preferable to just leaving it be.
I'm no expert whatsoever, so take my comment with a grain of salt.. I may be misinformed
With that line of reasoning there is nothing the Chinese state can do that would ever get your approval.My comment was also not in reference to China burning garbage, but your blanket statement that burning garbage isn't eco.
I'm no fan of the CCP, but I prefer to at least engage with the point rather than automatically dismissing anything they do as bad.
From my understanding it can be done relatively cleanly with filtration, and its much better for the environment than letting it sit on a landfill generating methane
Okay, but then don't come crying that your "allies" aren't helping you the next time y'all decide to invade the Middle East