More like in favour of non-shitty Bluetooth earbuds. I’ve never had this kind of issue with mine.

I know this as ‘eat your frogs’.

Re the first part: nobody enters my house if they don’t have a key and I’m not present. Re the second part, I don’t trust any software-based technology near enough to rely on that kind of stuff without double-checking. . Turn the key, done.

To this day I don’t know what problem smart locks are supposed to solve that hasn’t already been solved by the good old lock and key combo. Requires no electricity, no internet, just works.

The Korean War took place before the Vietnam War, and Nixon wasn’t President at the time.

Sometimes good enough is good enough.

I have one Lightning-to-Jack adapter that was included with my old iPhone 8, and two pairs of EarPods with Lightning plug that were included with subsequent models.

Besides that, the claim was that the headphone jack was removed to force people into buying AirPods. But that claim falls down when there clearly were other, non-Bluetooth options.

deleted by creator

The only reason headphone Jacks got taken away was so you’d be forced to buy Bluetooth solutions. Like AirPods.

Totally. That’s why they never made adapters and never included cabled earphones with lightning plug. It was AirPods or nothing.

How old are you? And doesn’t your second question contradict your first?

If you were being serious: iPhones have had headphone jacks until 2016, the iPhone 7 was the first to come without one.

I believe it was for waterproofing. One less port means less sealing, making it easier to improve the waterproofing of the phone.

I couldn’t possibly tell you how many sets of wired headphones I’ve had to throw out in my life because of frayed/broken cables. Those things are e-waste too.

Ever since I’ve gotten some decent noise cancelling Bluetooth headphones, I don’t really care where the headphone jack is or even if there is one. It happened way too many times that the cable got snagged on something and yanked the buds out of my ears, and I’m well past the age where I had the cable under my shirt and the earbuds dangling in front of me all the time. Especially when running or otherwise exercising, I don’t miss the cable one tiny bit.

Battlefield 2142 was ambitious. It included one of the most fun Battlefield game modes I’ve played (Titan), and in my opinion the main reason it bombed somewhat was that it came out way too quickly after Battlefield 2, which was still ragingly popular with PC gamers, and the player base didn’t have much appetite for changing over to a new game.

EA made games before pay to win loot boxes became a thing.

The worst is when they say they’ve found a solution, without adding any information or elaborating further. Makes me want to flip my desk.

But where are they offering it? Big cities and densely populated areas where people have options and therefore won’t swarm to the product? Or are they offering it in small, remote towns where there’s not a lot of competition?

Where I live, mobile home internet is not available outside of metro areas and larger cities, and in the regions mobile towers are chronically underprovisioned and overloaded.

Net neutrality isn’t going to do a thing about this kind of stuff. In a best case scenario, you’ll end up with overall data usage limitations - no more ‘unlimited mobile data’.

ISPs meter data usage because it’s pretty much the only way they can impose some form of limitation on a finite capacity to provide such data to you and other customers - other than data rate limits (read: slower speeds). They can’t guarantee data rates in almost any setup, because ultimately, while ‘data usage’ is a bit of an artificial construct and ‘data’ is not in any way finite, the pipes that deliver the data certainly are of finite capacity. Mobile data capacity - and in fact, any wireless medium - is a shared medium, the more people try to use it simultaneously, the less pleasant it’s going to be for each individual user. Ask Starlink users in many US areas how overselling limited capacity impacts the individual user.

Mobile data usage also has different usage patterns than if you’re hotspotting your PC. You’re not going to download massive games or other bandwidth hogs to your mobile. You probably won’t be running a torrent client either. So they can give you unlimited mobile data because you’re simply not going to put as much of a strain on the infrastructure with pure on-device usage than you will with hotspotting.

This isn’t a defense of what AT&T is doing. But net neutrality isn’t going to force them to suddenly be all ethical. It’s not going to make them provision infrastructure that doesn’t fall over at the first signs of higher-than-usual load. And it certainly can’t change the physical realities of wireless data communication. In an ideal world ISPs wouldn’t be so greedy and/or beholden to greedy shareholders to be cutting corners, and instead provide sufficient infrastructure that can handle high demand.

And to those who are talking about their workarounds: you may not like it but you’ve signed a contract. That contract stipulates acceptable use, and if you’re found to be breaching the contract terms, the other party is within their rights to terminate the contract. Again, in an ideal world these contract terms would be more balanced towards the needs of the customer, but in the meantime your best recourse against unfavourable contract terms is to take your business elsewhere. And if you can’t do that, everything else is at your own risk.

Except there is no ‘unlimited’ for water or electricity.

Not sure where I showed ‘clear anger’ but you do you.