Because everyone in the supply chain is being paid a fair wage and not being exploited.
Because everyone in the supply chain is being paid a fair wage and not being exploited.
Based on what? Cost? The whole premise is sustainability and ensuring the people who build it aren’t working sweatshop workers like with every other major phone. I say this knowing full well I’m using one of those phones but Fairphone has only recently become available in my country.
So it depends on if you want a bad deal by parting with some extra dollars or it’s a bad deal for the workers that are getting exploited so you save a few dollars.
It allowed them to increase the IP rating, allows for simplified manufacturing, and easier maintainability and repairability.
How is not including it considered greenwashing (I notice you didn’t ask about that, so I assume you know the answer)?
I despise people repeating comments. How is making the device cheaper, more sustainable, and more reliable greenwashing? I would love anybody who just loves complaining about the headphones jack to explain that. No one else has. I doubt anybody complaining really cares about the environment either. What phone do you currently have?
Can we stop the overuse and over-generalization of “enshitification” which Doctorow had given very explicit meaning to in regards to social networks? It does not simply mean commoditization which is not quite the same but almost synonymous with 'race to the bottom’s in regards of trying to increase revenue while simultaneously decreasing costs.
Edit: I’ll admit narrowing to “social networks” is a bit too narrow, but the point still stands that it’s for two way platforms where there are “two markets.” Phillips Hue does not have a two sided market.
It’s a shame that it’s even considered “radical” since it’s basically a copyright holder upholding their end of the bargain in the promise behind the origin of copyright. To incentivize creative content, a creator is given sole ability to monetize it for a fixed period of time. In return for that protection, the public gets it at the end of the term. Today’s copyright is so far off course that it defeats the intent. There’s no incentive to create anything new if you can keep milking existing content. And the public never gets a return for offering that protection.
Workers wanted an increase in pay, so shareholders needed to offset that by even more. Workers can’t get a raise without shareholders getting a raise.
Inflation is majority driven by profit, not wages. Dems barely attack that angle. Republicans actively work against it.
Am I the only one where all the links show up as searches instead of links to the communities themselves?
Isn’t the official repo for Lemmy on GitHub?
I don’t understand why people keep comparing one instance of Lemmy to reddit? I think it’s missing the point. You can still make a plea to the instance admins, but it’s still their choice. Just as you have plenty of other instances to join.
Gotta support open source wherever you can.
That’s not speech. You can age limit things, but not on speech. Beyond that, the limitations on speech have to meet certain conditions where it’s in the publics best interest and doesn’t put too much burden on the public.
I don’t see how it doesn’t violate free speech. Imagine needing the government’s permission to talk to someone?
Edit: forgot a word
This post has devolved into shit and filled with a bunch of whiners complaining about the same dumb shit that isn’t a goal of this phone. Might as well whine the new iPhone doesn’t cost under $400 for as reasonable of a complaint anything on this post is.