Since they got rid of the headphone jack and started selling disposable Bluetooth earphones I don’t pay any attention to fairphone.
It’s not just the headphone jack quality has plummeted since the 3, yes you can get security updates but the warranty returns mean you’re probably putting more into landfill than buying a Motorola every 2 years.
Hands appear differently in different positions all over the frame in the photo so I maintain the hand pattern is less consistent and harder than lens blur.
But you’re right as the blur is a fingerprint you can match it to a lens and prove a photo is real that way.
It could be a useful tactic as much of AI detection is a way to find and prove AI fake so far.
Just my guess. I could be wrong:
As the lens blur is mathematically fairly simple and spread across the whole image it’s likely already consistently replicated by AI in a similar way to real photos.
It’s easier for generative AI to spot, “understand”, and replicate a mathematical pattern than the number of fingers on a hand or limbs on a body.
With Dijon mustard!
Because Biden paid them with grants to build in the US. It’s that simple.
Beyond that there’s stability and the likelihood of not being invaded or facing natural disasters.
There’s meant to be government, legal, and financial institution stability too.
As well as intellectual property defense, trade secrets and NDAs.
Material supplies are meant to be stable too.
When you’re investing in something as specialised as chip manufacturing, labour is a fraction of your concern. Both short and long term.
Real complaint.
“For the amount of space it takes to include a second speaker or second camera it doesn’t really make sense when you can just plug in an external one”
You sound like an idiot.
I can buy a phone from HMD that’s more repairable, more modular, and has sustainable features.
Fairphone has been a busted flush since they ditched the headphone jack. It’s just the most obvious sign amongst many they started making landfill phones.
You got to benefit from the 80s and selling off of all our national assets to prop up our economy for 2 decade’s
You lived in the good times and called it “the cold war”.
From a millennial give us our stuff back (to the state who gave it to you).
This happened with appliances. They ended up with the silly A++++ ratings added in 2010 as otherwise everything would be an A.
In 2021 they decided to redefine grades instead. A fridge at A+++ became a C. A became the top grade again.
It’s also worth noting that as they push the whole scale and G into being more efficient that essentially bans products that can’t achieve a rating.
if everything becomes an A the system has worked and increased the efficiency across the market. They’ll adjust the goals every 5 to 10 years.
The EU battery life measure is going to be the most interesting battle ground in my opinion. “All day battery life” will have a measured metric in hours.
If the EU have managed to make that metric representative of an amount of screen time in a busy day it could become the first thing consumers look at. Or at least a deal breaker when that number is too low.
Edit: Disregard. I have the 13, not the 12.
~~Normal laptop formfactor. You can have a touch screen as an option but it doesn’t do the full 360 fold round into a tablet.
I own one and the hinge goes 180.
It’s an excellent laptop, I grabbed one when the first AMD board was available and it runs Fedora flawlessly and has windows on an SSD when I need it.~~
To exclude certain Semites from the definition of “antisemitism” based on religion…
The definition of antisemitism is anti Semite.
As long as we come across people playing language games while excusing a genocide.
It’ could be reasoned it’s not accurate to call Israel’s actions “antisemitic” as that has been chosen as meaning only Jewish related hatred.
It can also be reasoned that it’s perfect valid to call Israel’s actions “anti Semitic” as this is a genocide against an Arabic speaking Semitic population.
No headphones jack.
Trash generating hypocrites.
HMD are doing everything better than fair phone now with their latest models. More repairable, more flexible, long term support and updates.
Cheaper too.
It isn’t that simple. Solar power wasn’t economical until China made a push to manufacture at scale.
Wind power received that push in Europe. Then China and India have joined in.
Not buying the massive nuclear reactors and buying smaller units could be possible. They exist. Alternative technologies also exist.
But nuclear generates heat, which we use to heat water into steam. Which drives a turbine to produce AC electricity.
Massive steam turbines are massive because they are efficient. Multistage turbines range from near 70% efficient for massive ones to 25% efficient for the smallest ones in serious use.
NTAC-TE is a technology that converts the radiation into electric current. Like solar panels converting the sun’s radiation into electric current.
NASA uses it in space craft.
If we can get that working at an efficient rate smaller radioactive units will produce power without the efficiency loss of small steam generators. Then we can talk about small modular nuclear energy.
Unfortunately every pro nuclear person parrots the same gumf about nuclear being good, therefore we need to build the massive nuclear reactors.
They only consider talking about any other technology to try and defend nuclear when you point out why they shouldn’t be built anymore.
So in 20 years, if we stop building massive nuclear reactors with the money, we might be able to complete some research and start building the correct nuclear technology at scale.
But that 20 years is vital and we need to spend that on carbon reduction now. That’s reducing usage through insulation. That’s renewables being added to the supply directly now. That’s grid level storage to allow us to stop relying on massive steam turbines to hold a steady grid load.
In 20 years we can talk about nuclear again. Add an additional time for every wasted effort on a reactor like Hinckley C or Olkiluoto 3. Starting out as a thin justification and just economically viable.
But then spending 400% of their budget meaning carbon reduction would have been much higher investing elsewhere.
Agreed.
Also, don’t waste money on experimenting with the others. Just build renewables and grid storage.
And they are all uneconomical.
The nuclear industry only works economically when either we need weapons grade material as a byproduct or we happen to produce electricity as a byproduct when making weapons grade material.
They aren’t an efficient use of resources.
Amazon had their walk in walk out stores.
AI was meant to track what you put in the basket and charge you without you going through checkout.
They launched as an AI store.
Humans were looking at cases and were just meant to be “error correction”.
They were doing 80% of the work of tracking the images and barcodes into actual products.
Amazon closed the store.
Lots of “AI” systems are currently in this state. A computer can do the easy 10 to 20% of the job. Humans are doing the rest.
Venture capital are just investing in anything that looks like it’s working on “AI”. Even when it’s currently taking more human labour than the work did previously.
Companies are launching now as “AI” gambling on getting that percentage up otherwise they end up late to market. Lots will fail to actually use AI and probably fold.
Then they can tell us where the budget comes from then fail to explain why it’s worth five times the price of other renewables with grid storage.
Germany shut down it’s reactors as they reached end of life. It isn’t economical to build new reactors.
Nuclear has always been a military and strategic concern. Better than importing fossil fuels from potential bad actors during the cold war and you get some MAD weapons along with it.
If you support the weapons proliferation, you support nuclear. You believe in the cold war stand off and think it’s valuable. If you don’t, want nuclear war, you have to count that as another negative.
Arguing it’s an efficient way to produce electricity, even if it’s replacing fossil fuels, is disingenuous.
Pick two out of powerful, efficient, safe. That’s nuclear power.
I’m not sure that works. There were 20 shillings to the pound.
So £0.75 a week.
This inflation calculator:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator
£75 in 1843 is equivalent to £8,310.96
So 15s then is equivalent to £83.11 a week, £4321.72 a year.
40 hour week (which is implied to be too low). ~£2.08 an hour
So if he worked over 40 hours you’re talking a sub £2/hour wage. Around $2.70 in US money.
I suspect the stat relies on converting to dollars before applying inflation as GBP to USD was about 1 to 5 then instead of about 1 to 1.33
It’s fun but I wouldn’t want to denigrate Dickens by saying he got poverty wrong to make a political point.