oce 🐆

I try to contribute to things getting better, with sourced information, OC and polite rational skepticism.
Disagreeing with a point ≠ supporting the opposite side, I support rationality.
Let’s discuss to make things better sustainably.
Always happy to question our beliefs.

  • 89 Posts
  • 2.28K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle










  • All democratic countries, even the most progressive, have the state exercising power over the individual people to make decisions for them. To use examples deemed good for left people: paying for everyone’s healthcare, paying for everyone’s retirement, who you are allowed to have sex with, who is allowed to buy or make those products etc… Whether they are deemed more or less acceptable depends a lot on personal morality and political ideology.




  • I think when people feel like things are going downward (quality of life, economy, local security, international security, ecological crisis etc.), tend to regress towards a conservative reflex. They want to protect what they have, by extension, they don’t want things to change out of fear of losing what they have, or they attribute the loss of what they had to unrelated change (I lost my job because of immigration).
    I think it requires good quality education and information to go past this conservative reflex and understand that accepting some constrains (regulations, taxes) may make society better for everyone.
    It also means that manipulating education and information can prevent that and encourage people to take the natural conservative slope. I think “evil” people have found a powerful tool to do that with the mass adoption of social media that they can buy and manipulate.

    I see two big solutions, either falling so low that humanism bounces back out of terror of what happened like after WW2. Or managing to implement systems that will prevent nefarious manipulation of information and instead promote humanism.






  • I think it’s the opposite, they got rid of the jack to simplify their design and follow the general industry movement, and as a compensation they offered earbuds, and later wireless headphones. I also dislike it, but they are still the most ethical option we have.

    They wrote about it: https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/9836188988049-Audio-Jack-3-5mm

    Factors that have tipped the balance towards exclusion of the headphone jack are: modularity and its influence on the phone’s size and weight, market and legislative trends and longevity. We had to sacrifice the headphone jack to make the modules as accessible as possible. It was a tough decision to make but there was simply no space for everything and we had to make some choices. In the end, in order to build a modular, 5G device, this was the best way to go for the majority of users. If the phone were bigger than it already is (and we get a lot of feedback on it being too big), it wouldn’t be commercially viable and that would limit the impact we could have on the industry.

    Any decision we made would have supporters and detractors. Our main goal, however, was to ensure that we made a product that combines repairability with industry-competitive dimensions. On top of that, we wanted to create a product that lasts for at least five years. We also wanted to attract a growing audience, which would allow us to make a bigger impact on the industry.

    In the current user feedback (source: Trustpilot) we see more people being critical about the current Fairphone dimensions than about the fact that they have to use an adapter for using devices with headphone jack. Hence, at this stage we would not consider reinstating the headphone jack in our upcoming devices. [more details in the article]




  • Even quantum computing, which operates on superposition, ultimately collapses to definite states when observed—the underlying physics differs, but the principle remains: given identical initial conditions, identical outcomes follow.

    I think this is incorrect, it does collapse to definitive state when observed, but the value of the state is probabilistic. We make it deterministic by producing s large number of measurements and deciding on a test on the statistical distribution of all the measurement to get a final value. Maybe our brain also does a test on a statistic of probabilistic measurements, or maybe it doesn’t and depends directly on probabilistic measurements, or a combination of both.

    we just lack perfect information about initial conditions.

    We also lack fully proven equations or complete resolution of equations in fluid dynamics.

    I think parsimony is very much based on personal opinion at this point of knowledge.