Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_ir8zk64 wrote

Reply to comment by Ticeben2 in Great news for everyone by bk27465

That’s kind of hard.

We’d still be charging at 2007 speeds if they didn’t change. There’s a huge difference between older and newer cables.

1

Ticeben2 t1_irbl7d9 wrote

Yeah, but at some point we have to hit a cutoff or you can keep arguing charging speeds forever. In terms of environmental safety do we need to charge our devices any faster than we currently do? I personally do not think so. Unless it’s some giant instant charge leap in tech, things do not need to change. I mean if we stopped updating our phones they would last much longer. I can’t remember the last time an iPhone update mattered since Bluetooth headphones. Our main battery killer is advancement.

1

[deleted] t1_irbmenj wrote

There's a lot going on that you are unaware of, frankly. The least of which is network tech.

If we had kept 3G like in 2009 our phones mostly would've stopped working entirely as 3G was incredibly inefficient on the network. Even early LTE was inefficient compared to LTE-A and current 5G tech. Not only are they faster, they use the airwaves better. Phones have to advance to do better with existing frequencies. More people on more devices wanting to do cooler things.

Just because you don't care doesn't mean I don't. My phone is my travel modem, it's my primary computer most of the day. I care a lot that I can do lots of things.

Edit: Also, cables have only changed like two or three times really in like the 15 years of smartphones. USB to USB2 to USB3.

So you'd go back to an iPhone 4/T-Mobile G1?

0

Ticeben2 t1_irbn7do wrote

Dude, the world is crumbling and you are talking about “wanting cool things”, this is why these laws are being put in place, because if people keep “wanting cool things” the world will turn into a giant dumpster. We have only been causing real issues to the planet since the Industrial Revolution, 1790. I’m also not talking about putting a pause on things back in 3G, I’m talking about putting a pause on it now.

1

[deleted] t1_irbo1qh wrote

Humans have had a major impact on the environment since humans existed.

We likely contributed to the extinction of megafauna in the Americas: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07897-1

We literally changed the biomes of the Americas through farming and burning: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1805259115

So tell me, how was that PS5 you bought?

1

Ticeben2 t1_irbp4hf wrote

I’m talking about minor advancements in cool things not ps4-ps5, but do new iPhones need to come out every year? Their should be a certain amount of advancement proven before products from major companies are allowed to be brought into production. I know people who update their iPhone every year, or Android every 6 months to the latest “thing”. It’s a stack of little laws like this that will help, anyway I’m not arguing this anymore, I doubt we will agree on anything.

1

[deleted] t1_irbraun wrote

So who decides who gets to bring things to market? And what is considered an "advancement?"

Standards are one thing: you can make a case for a standardized connector via IEEE (and I think that it make sense for regulators to work on that.)

But deciding that we should stop letting companies release new products based on what you think is necessary is pretty unusual.

Why should Sony be allowed to release the PS5 when the actual changes were minor compared to the PS4? Seems even less necessary to me, and I work in gaming.

2

Ticeben2 t1_irbuer1 wrote

I’m not going to argue anymore because not going to get anywhere, but I agree with you about the ps5, it should not have been made. Personally I think games should just stay at the ps4 lvl. They do not need to get any better. I hope ps6 never gets made.

1

[deleted] t1_irbzl4x wrote

Hey, at least you're consistent. I'm sorry that you're not willing to explore your ideas further, as this is an interesting good faith discussion.

At a point it becomes a question of whether we need anything ever other than food and a lean-to. I suppose a simple life has benefits but should we also get rid of medicines and just accept death more gracefully too?

It gets weird when you start talking about no longer making new MRIs or new medications. Would you accept an earlier death that was preventable as long as it's painless? Lots of physical goods go to medicine.

1