Did not know about Lineage either, now I'm interested too.
For the last 2 years I've been using a similar device from Unihertz's competitor, Cubot. Namely the King Kong Mini 3. No issues, very solid. Given how tiny it is, it gets lots of attention and marks me out as an eccentric (no objections). But stock Android, of course.
If we were rational creatures we might choose to do such things while seated at home in front of a comfortably sized screen, rather than squinting at a pocket gadget on a street corner.
IMO the word "need" is doing all the work here. I have a fairly complex financial situation and yet - with a bit of intentionality and organisation - I get by fine without any banking apps installed on mobile.
My take on the RSS-renaissance chestnut: The original sin is the name. Only clueless nerds could come up with such a soporific, opaque, geeky moniker as "RSS". It should have been called "Webfeed". Then there would be no explaining to do.
I think web feed is a good name, though I also think invoking "Web" might put off some users. There are a few things that are unknown to new users:
1. How do you subscribe?
2. How do you post your own?
3. Do I need a browser to read feeds?
4. Can I view my feed from any device?
The current status quo for web feeds is very unfriendly to new users. If you click on an rss icon or an rss feed link, it takes you to a white page with a bunch of text that you don't understand. It just makes you think you're not supposed to be here, so you close the tab and leave.
Many feed readers are old and look dated. The UI can often be confused for an email client. And many of these readers don't support synchronizing feeds with different devices.
Chat gpt is a great name though — you “chat” with the “GPT” so its self informing (even if you dont know what a GPT is), it’s 4 syllables that roll off the tongue well together.
RSS, has no vowels, no information, and looks like an alphabet term you might see at the doctor’s office or in an HR onboarding form at a corpo.
In Japan it's now known colloquially as 「チャッピー」 ("Chappy" or "Chappie"). High praise that it has received such shortened and personified version so quickly.
The number of people who will recognize that will only go down over time. I'm not exactly ancient (at least outside tech) at 32 but have no recollection of ever seeing that icon or confidence that I'd recognize it, which I'd argue puts a rough lower bound on how old someone can be while considering it "well-known". Maybe if people only a few years older than me consistently recognize it then my instinct here is wrong, but I'm skeptical that there are enough people who consider this well-known for the supposed renaissance to take place purely from that.
(It's possible I'm entirely missing that this was intended in sarcasm, but it at least seems like it's was intended seriously to me)
Viewing a GPX file that I also view on Osmand (Android). QGIS can be configured to display the POI colors by `type` ("restaurant" is red, etc). Combined with a handrolled script which adds Osmand's non-standard markup, I am granted the superpower of... being able to distinguish between points on both mobile and desktop.
They want more users, so logically it cannot be intentional. More generally, we cannot know others' intentions, so the speculation is always redundant.
Indeed, and this argument ("it will be too bloated") is often used by developers themselves to avoid (or hide) advanced features. I never quite understood it. Just put all the mysterious flags behind an "Advanced" menu, which normie users will know not to touch.
This question IMO reveals how the abstraction of numbers can imprison our minds.
It literally makes no sense to say, "I prefer to have an extra hour in the evening" (the morning and evening will always have equal numbers of hours). Or "I hate it when it's dark at 5pm" (translation: "I hate when it's dark at 5 arbitrary periods after an arbitrary moment that may be hours either side of solar noon").
My solution: pick the time peg closest to the "correct" one (i.e. standard time) and stick to it. People who want year-round "summer" evenings can continue to have them by the simple expedient of doing what DST forces them (and everyone else) to do already: get up earlier.
Sure. But this argument is surely less powerful than it was back in the era of church bells and big clocks on factory walls and so on. We now have electronics that add a whole new layer of abstraction to our schedules, to the point that you can now miss a DST change if you're not paying attention. For many people (I'm one) this change is now just a useless irritation.
> This question IMO reveals how the abstraction of numbers can imprison our minds.
Is it the abstraction of number that imprison our mind or just the reality of having a job and other social constraint based on all of us agreeing on a time?
When most people can’t leave their job before 5pm, wether it’s dark at 5 or 6 makes a huge difference.
The social construct is moving later though. I guess this is because people's desire to sleep longer is making them move the social constraint of being at work later, while they stay up "partying" regardless of the social constraint.
It makes sense when schedules are fixed and time is the only thing we can change. I wouldn't mind switching to standard time if I can change my work schedule to have more light after work. I work from home, I don't care about not having light in the morning
This project has been going for years. Good to see it lives on.
IMO there's a paradox with these privacy-focused mobile solutions. Just as with the expensive flagship corporate devices, the massive price tags suggest an assumption that we are doing all our computing on mobile. That's now the case for most normies. But for anyone who really cares about their privacy (not to mention sanity), there's a better solution available: repatriate most of one's computing to a laptop. At which point all these mobile devices become unjustifiably expensive. Hence the paradox.
PS: downvoting a reasoned opinion, apart from being lazy and toxic in any community, does not constitute a rebuttal.
reply