Yep. I refuse to buy a FairPhone for this simple reason: I hate bluetooth. It means I have to buy a new expensive device to get audio quality that's worse than before and requires batteries again. Fuck that.
I also find it ridiculous that they call themselves "fair" but making bluetooth buds probably increases pain and suffering, because more materials have to be used to make them than a simple jack headphone.
I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”
Aaaay! Was going to say that too 👍
My only point is that we can work to minimize suffering. Making it necessary to purchase a new accessory adds more suffering than using an old accessory.
Yep. I refuse to buy a FairPhone for this simple reason: I hate bluetooth. It means I have to buy a new expensive device to get audio quality that's worse than before and requires batteries again. Fuck that.
I also find it ridiculous that they call themselves "fair" but making bluetooth buds probably increases pain and suffering, because more materials have to be used to make them than a simple jack headphone.
::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 :::
I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"
Aaaay! Was going to say that too 👍
My only point is that we can work to minimize suffering. Making it necessary to purchase a new accessory adds more suffering than using an old accessory.
::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 :::
That's reasonable
if you hate bluetooth. USB C dongle earbuds are quite impressive nowadays like JBL or anker. no pairing
That'll have to be the middle ground should I ever be forced to buy a phone without an audio jack.
::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 :::