Blademaster91

I don't trust HP's claim of losing money on printers, given how crap most of their printers are, they have to be making money on them.
 

That's an interesting argument.
 
"Our printers are so insecure, and have so much control over the devices that connect to them, that inserting a cartridge can cause it to fill your entire network with malware."
 
Sounds like the problem is the fact that the printers are so insecure, and have so much control over the devices that connect to them, rather than a problem with evil, infected ink cartridges of doom.

Battery chemistry and degradation for any given workload is something apple should know enough about to know how to properly size a battery.  By putting in slightly smaller battery they ensured (either intentionally or out of straight up ignorance) that they would die early and then require an unannounced patch to mitigate the crashing issue.    Those who used and recharged their phones more aggressively would have had the issue way sooner than someone who rarely used the phone and kept it charged most of the time.  
 
This is why cheap phones die earlier than quality devices (we can see it clearly across the android market as there is a larger range of phones with difference sized batteries but similar power draws).   The more cycles for a given time period the short the battery lasts and there are only two ways to reduce battery cycles, one is to use the device less the other is to put in a bigger battery.    
 
Seeing as the issue here was batteries failing before they should have (compared to similar iphones with bigger batteries) and it is unreasonable to ask consumer to use a premium product less for fear of it not lasting as long,  the proper thing for apple to do was to admit the batteries weren't up to the task and offer to replace them on effected devices up to 2 years and discount for upto 4 years.  That way they wouldn't be paying for normal degradation but only for the portion they cheaped out on (i.e the devices that ceased to work as intended too early for the asking price).   
 
 
Also, just a note, the US judicial system is a shambles when it comes to corporate anything,  you just can't trust a court that ignores absolute evidence in favor of emotional tropes.   Just because they found Apple guilty doesn't mean they had proof (not that you need any when they released the fix to an issue that could only be caused by them). 

That is a defective battery if the battery cannot provide the necessary voltage so the phone can function as it was designed to, if it has to be throttled then the device no longer functions as it was advertised to the consumer. Throttling doesn't make it work any better as its now slower, you only get a device that works longer even though it might be painfully slow to use, that isn't a viable ownership experience if the device is suddenly slower for no reason. The average consumer isn't going to realize their phone needs a new battery which is why the communication is important, a suddenly slow phone is going to get people to buy a new phone, not replace the battery which is an anti-consumer move.
The failure to communicate is the main reason apple got sued for it, yet people here still want to insist apple did nothing wrong.
Ah yes, when apple does something wrong, it's a "media pile on" not the media doing their job to report on the news. /s
 
As for a toggle being in the settings, of course no apple user would actually use it as apple users don't go poking around in the settings.

Throttling devices with no communication to the consumer isn't consumer friendly at all, and yes they do deserve to be criticized for slowing down phones when that isn't a fix for a defective battery.
Throttling doesn't make it work better,just longer, which again isn't fix as the batteries still needed replacing.

Well its more of a safe option to assume all ads are bad, because these companies don't care as it is with scam and malware ads, I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon either so I leave an ad blocker on for everything.
And I struggle with how people defend these corporations as if they need your money while they want to force intrusive and dangerous ads onto everyone. Ad blockers are simply a solution to the problem these companies have caused, people don't want to view ads and have lost trust with seeing ads at all given that even allowing them is a security risk.
Most companies are going to sell your data no matter if you pay or not, especially with Youtube, so IMO people should have no issue with using an ad blocker, just support the content creators you watch if you feel like you want to support them.
Except youtube/google will still collect data regardless if you pay for it, so it isn't free as a user.
Also as Rossmann points out in the video ,YT/Google wants to verify your home address after you sign up for YT premium, IMO that sounds like an invasion of privacy. But YT/Google won't ask for that if you use an ad blocker instead of paying to remove ads. The point of the video is people shouldn't be so accepting of paying for things and still getting treated like crap or getting an even worse service than you could for free.

Well its more of a safe option to assume all ads are bad, because these companies don't care as it is with scam and malware ads, I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon either so I leave an ad blocker on for everything.
And I struggle with how people defend these corporations as if they need your money while they want to force intrusive and dangerous ads onto everyone. Ad blockers are simply a solution to the problem these companies have caused, people don't want to view ads and have lost trust with seeing ads at all given that even allowing them is a security risk.
Most companies are going to sell your data no matter if you pay or not, especially with Youtube, so IMO people should have no issue with using an ad blocker, just support the content creators you watch if you feel like you want to support them.
Except youtube/google will still collect data regardless if you pay for it, so it isn't free as a user.
Also as Rossmann points out in the video ,YT/Google wants to verify your home address after you sign up for YT premium, IMO that sounds like an invasion of privacy. But YT/Google won't ask for that if you use an ad blocker instead of paying to remove ads. The point of the video is people shouldn't be so accepting of paying for things and still getting treated like crap or getting an even worse service than you could for free.

ok, ok... but ublock pretty much blocks 99% of all ads, and also how would *you* know which ads are malicious...?  hint: you don't lol
 
no, its to block *all* ads, and tracking, and *especially* "malicious" ads... all ads are "intrusive" by nature... 

I have had ads on Facebook try to give me malware. So yes in my eyes all ads are bad because these dumb fucks refuse to verify who they are selling ads to.

I missed that, looking at the tweet again yeah they weren't signed it I guess it wasn't obvious the first time I looked at it.
I've been using an ad blocker for a long time so i'm not used to seeing an ad on youtube at all.

I'm reading it as they have YT premium but still get an ad below the video anyway, I don't see how people are reading that otherwise except wanting to defend youtube/google.
So not only do you pay and google still takes your data, now you get an annoying ad below the video.
It wouldn't surprise me if youtube is testing a paid with ads tier by throwing in ads even if you pay.

I agree upscaling makes games look worse once you notice the artifacts or weird glitches, it has its uses like on lower end cards or games with terrible optimization. But IMO it shouldn't be pushed on $1200+ GPU's just to run games in 4k yet Nvidia seems to be pushing the marketing really hard that every gamer needs DLSS in order to run games.
Full featured until Nvidia wants you to buy the next new card, because Nvidia made upscaling features exclusive to the RTX 4000 cards, I would expect Nvidia to do it again with the next series.
Nvidia is more of a software company nowadays, they're pushing software features on excessively expensive cards you'll have to replace if you want to use the latest features.

What i dont like is the very obvious one-sided reporting of a repair industry wide issue.....

I agree, the article does seem very one sided, when first party repair has been caught violating user privacy. 
The other problem I have with this article is no mention of recommending people to remove the storage drive, or backup and do a fresh install.

What im telling you is the root of the problem, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
 
 I can, i will, and you canmot do anything against it. You better come back down to earth otherwise sooner or later you will be in for a very rude awakening.
Besides, this is just anotger futile attempt and will fail like the rest.

yt already has background play, either you have to be in the USA (for some reason lol) or you just use like some browser that can do it. 
 

 
its called "picture in picture", invented sometimes in the early 90s... or probably even earlier. 
 
 
im still baffled how these kind of malicious ads are allowed,  it's not like google is a small family business,  no its literally "the biggest evil company™" known to mankind.  

The fault is not on people using ad blockers, and it's not because of ad blockers, ad blockers are just a solution to the problem.  The problem is the ad companies selling scam ads, ads installing malware, and youtube allowing such ads, while also doing things like putting 10 minute ads in a 5 minute video.
And no, i'm not going to pay $168 to remove youtube ads, every user is already paying youtube through analytics which google will still collect even if you pay $14 a month to remove ads.

The fault is not on people using ad blockers, and it's not because of ad blockers, ad blockers are just a solution to the problem.  The problem is the ad companies selling scam ads, ads installing malware, and youtube allowing such ads, while also doing things like putting 10 minute ads in a 5 minute video.
And no, i'm not going to pay $168 to remove youtube ads, every user is already paying youtube through analytics which google will still collect even if you pay $14 a month to remove ads.

YouTube kinda is a garbage site since the throw ads into a video like every 2 minutes now. If they bloc ad blockers l will absolutely straight up stop watching YouTube 

A few more dollars in electricity per year for lightbulbs that could last twice as long, the trade off would be worth it in less waste of lightbulbs being thrown away.  Cost of electricity isn't an issue if the electric company isn't ripping off the consumer on kW/hr. cost.
Also heat load is only a problem in hotter climates, incandescent light bulbs are great at adding heat as electric heat is very efficient.
Things designed to a cost usually means the cheapest component will fail, and to a cost means the company wants you to replace the whole thing sooner rather than fixing it because the company won't sell you the part or charges way too much for the part so most consumers will replace something instead of repairing it.
With washing machines the whole thing turns to e-waste if something on the control panel fails, instead of replacing one switch or button you have to replace the whole control panel, getting a simple washing machine with a mechanical control panel isn't an option unless you spend more on a heavy duty washing machine.
Overbuilt in a car meaning that things won't fail except basic wear items, and Toyotas are for the most part overbuilt, people whine that Toyota uses outdated engines and transmissions in their SUV's like the 4Runner for example, but the components are proven to be reliable. Other things I would rather have in a car are regular buttons and switches, and mechanical dash gauges. Buttons are easier to replace than a whole info screen that the manufacturer will probably just say is obsolete after the car is 10 years old.
I think right to repair should be an option, but there are loopholes companies can get around with right to repair laws, also while Magnuson Moss does apply, there isn't much a consumer can do unless they can afford to sue the company for refusing to repair or trying to force anti-consumer anti right to repair policies.

that's just not true,  they're designed to fail...
 
why make a product that lasts basically forever? 
Explain to me why a company would do that? 
 
phoebe cartel also was super innocent, right.
 
"to cost"... the irritating thing is you almost seem to believe this nonsense,  wouldn't surprise me if you actually make your living with stuff like this...
 
"to cost"... hell to the no lol.
 
 

IIRC there was a whole thread on this, and people were trying to justify planned obsolescence,  that is the problem I have with people trying to justify crap like that, there are better light bulb designs but companies don't want to use it because it would cost them money.
 
The issues with cars, or the example you use with washing machines, or light bulbs, the electronics are the thing to fail first and are usually designed cheaply down to a cost, a car or washing machine might last longer than it ever has before, but some $2 part can fail and e-waste the whole thing.  A car or washing machine should be overbuilt, rather than down to a company maximizing their profits.
IMO there should be some sort of regulation against companies designing things to fail on purpose because it is planned obsolescence.

Obviously not because that is a choice you made, not something that was forced on you by the manufacturer.

Only a 4?
 
That would be a 0 in my book. If you have a known working screen in your hand and a phone where the glass is cracked on the screen but it works 100% fine otherwise and after swapping it refuses to work without having to PAY apple to allow it to work you have a non user servicable phone.
 
 

This was always the biggest thing I thought was lacking from iFixit scores, they only scored the physical side of a repair, but software has become just as important to the repairability equation. Who cares how easy it is to get to switch the screen if doing so bricks the device?
 
Great change from them.