Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to 'smartphones'.
> >> But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we can make something,
> >> doesn't mean we have to use it. See: Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ
> >> zones.
> >
> > As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
> > agreed. Don't get me started! :-(
>
> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?

False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest - if
not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and justifiably so
(i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based wind turbines, as I
said, don't get me started. Proponents have no clue (read: don't want to
hear) about all the negatives, and no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon
pollution and audible sound.

EOD.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-12-31 07:58, Chris wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-12-29 09:25, bad sector wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/24 10:18, Jan K. wrote:
>>>>>> W Sun, 29 Dec 2024 09:00:21 -0500, bad sector napisal:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given Apple hates the consumer (but loves their money), this is a good
>>>>>>>> thing since Apple has abused its (admittedly loyal) consumers for
>>>>>>>> too long.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *EU law mandating universal chargers for devices comes into force*
>>>>>>>> <https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20241228-eu-law-mandating-
>>>>>>>> universal- chargers-for-devices-comes-into-force>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This Saturday is the day Apple's executives saying they were
>>>>>>>> "terrified" of
>>>>>>>> interoperating with non-Apple devices begins to (finally) come into
>>>>>>>> force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good move but it has a snag; it will only perpetuate the USB inteface
>>>>>>> wich (after microcancer $trangleware) is the worst piece of shit the
>>>>>>> industry has ever produced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It took a decade, but the EU has finally achieved what no other major
>>>>>> union
>>>>>> of countries has done: mandating a single universal connector. As the
>>>>>> world's largest single consumer market (500 million people), this
>>>>>> decision
>>>>>> sets a global standard, with the rest of the world following suit.
>>>>>> The delay was largely due to intense lobbying from manufacturers,
>>>>>> especially Apple, which profited significantly from licensing their
>>>>>> proprietary Lightning port.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Next up on the EU's list for 2026: Easily Changeable Batteries (you know,
>>>>>> what every cell phone 20 years ago had before Apple).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42534851
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeh, I could draw up a very long list of required legislation, all
>>>>> notion of reason, discipline and oversight has left the entire industry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell us all:
>>>>
>>>> Which industries governed by "long list[s] of required legislation" have
>>>> worked out well?
>>>
>>> Domestic airlines is the clearest example. There are plenty others.

>> In what world have domestic airlines worked out well for the consumer;
>> what country?

> I mean, not dying is quite an important benefit for the consumer.
> Regulation has created the safest form of transport in the world.

The safest form of transport is the passenger lift, but of course is
regulated.

--
Spike

Frank Slootweg wrote on 31 Dec 2024 22:22:57 GMT :

> False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
> Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest - if
> not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and justifiably so
> (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based wind turbines, as I
> said, don't get me started. Proponents have no clue (read: don't want to
> hear) about all the negatives, and no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon
> pollution and audible sound.

Interesting distinction.

I googled who has more power generation (all types) from windmills:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=chart+windmill+power+generation+by+country+2024>

Here's a table of all countries, by
<https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/wind-power-by-country>

The USA is number 2 (China is number 1) and the Netherlands number 17.
(1/4 of the USA wind-based power generation is in the state of Texas.)
<https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/>

We should probably normalize that per capita though as size matters.
<https://duckduckgo.com/&q=2024+wind+power+generation+per+capita>

Here's a table of 2023 wind power generation per capita (i.e., per person).
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wind-electricity-per-capita>

Netherlands = 1644KWh
USA = 1251KWh
China = 621KWh

In 2023, the Netherlands produced about 1-1/3rd more power from wind (per
capita) than the USA did, per capita.

Andrew wrote on Wed, 1 Jan 2025 01:36:02 -0000 (UTC) :

> Here's a table of 2023 wind power generation per capita (i.e., per person).
> <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wind-electricity-per-capita>
>
> Netherlands = 1644KWh
> USA = 1251KWh
> China = 621KWh
>
> In 2023, the Netherlands produced about 1-1/3rd more power from wind (per
> capita) than the USA did, per capita.

Since the UK is involved in this discussion, at 1217KWh of wind generation
per person for Great Britain is pretty good by way of comparison.

Netherlands = 1644KWh per capita
USA = 1251KWh per capita
GB = 1217KWh per capita
China = 621KWh per capita

Chris wrote on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:37:20 -0000 (UTC) :

>> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.
>
> I agree with other devices there are benefits. Particularly, the smaller
> things like earpods or smartwatches. I don't understand why people accept
> spending hundreds on essentially disposable products.

There's a reason EU regulations forbid Apple selling any new iPhones prior
to the iPhone 15 in Europe (because of Apple's cheap iPhone batteries).

While almost every major Android brand easily proved to be *double* the
minimum battery life specified by the EU regulations, these latest iPhones
*barely* squeak by (which shows, as usual, how much *Apple hates you*).

Apple has no intention of allowing the consumer the luxury of long device
life without having to replace the battery just to keep the iPhone alive.

On 2024-12-31 17:47, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:37:20 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.
>>
>> I agree with other devices there are benefits. Particularly, the smaller
>> things like earpods or smartwatches. I don't understand why people accept
>> spending hundreds on essentially disposable products.
>
> There's a reason EU regulations forbid Apple selling any new iPhones prior
> to the iPhone 15 in Europe (because of Apple's cheap iPhone batteries).
>
> While almost every major Android brand easily proved to be *double* the
> minimum battery life specified by the EU regulations, these latest iPhones
> *barely* squeak by (which shows, as usual, how much *Apple hates you*).

Utterly false, everyone.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to 'smartphones'.
>>>> But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we can make something,
>>>> doesn't mean we have to use it. See: Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ
>>>> zones.
>>>
>>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
>>> agreed. Don't get me started! :-(
>>
>> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?
>
> False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
> Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest - if
> not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and justifiably so
> (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based wind turbines, as I
> said, don't get me started. Proponents have no clue (read: don't want to
> hear) about all the negatives, and no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon
> pollution and audible sound.
>
> EOD.

Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no issues with
them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share and on-shore
windfarms.

You don't mention your reservations on ULEZ, but again in Scotland all the
main cities have them.

On 2024-12-31 17:47, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:37:20 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.
>>
>> I agree with other devices there are benefits. Particularly, the smaller
>> things like earpods or smartwatches. I don't understand why people accept
>> spending hundreds on essentially disposable products.
>
> There's a reason EU regulations forbid Apple selling any new iPhones prior
> to the iPhone 15 in Europe (because of Apple's cheap iPhone batteries).

False.

The EU has mandated the USB-C port for charging and the first iPhone to
use it was the iPhone 15.

>
> While almost every major Android brand easily proved to be *double* the
> minimum battery life specified by the EU regulations, these latest iPhones
> *barely* squeak by (which shows, as usual, how much *Apple hates you*).

This is also false.

>
> Apple has no intention of allowing the consumer the luxury of long device
> life without having to replace the battery just to keep the iPhone alive.

Battery life is measured in charging cycles.

How many years of use you get from a battery depends on how often you
need to charge it.

If a phone has a battery that is only good for (say) 1,000 charging
cycles, and it only runs for one day on a full charge, then you're going
to need a new battery in about 2 years 9 months.

If a phone with the very same battery could last for two days on a
charge, then you'd need a new battery in 5 years 6 months.

So, you see, battery life in terms of replacement very much depends on
battery life in terms of run time.

iPhones have among the best run times in the entire smartphone industry:

Best phone battery life at a glance (hours:minutes)

Asus ROG Phone 9 Pro: 20:34
Asus ROG Phone 8 Pro: 18:48
OnePlus 12R: 18:08

iPhone 16 Pro Max: 17:17

OnePlus 12: 17:05
Asus Zenfone 11 Ultra: 17:01
Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra: 16:45

iPhone 16 Plus: 16:29

Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus: 15:58
Moto G Stylus 5G (2024): 15:01
CMF Phone 1: 14:47
Moto G 5G (2024): 14:36
Nothing Phone 2a: 14:28

iPhone 15 Plus: 14:14

Motorola Razr Plus (2024): 14:10

<https://www.tomsguide.com/us/smartphones-best-battery-life,review-2857.html>

From GSMArena:

1 Apple iPhone 16 Plus
6 Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max
13 Apple iPhone 15 Plus
18 Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max
20 Apple iPhone 16
39 Apple iPhone 16 Pro
65 Apple iPhone 15
74 Apple iPhone 15 Pro

Out a total of 165 smartphones they list.

<https://www.gsmarena.com/battery-test-v2.php3>

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:32:47 -0000 (UTC)
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to
> >>>> 'smartphones'. But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we
> >>>> can make something, doesn't mean we have to use it. See:
> >>>> Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ zones.
> >>>
> >>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
> >>> agreed. Don't get me started! :-(
> >>
> >> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?
> >
> > False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
> > Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest
> > - if not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and
> > justifiably so (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based
> > wind turbines, as I said, don't get me started. Proponents have no
> > clue (read: don't want to hear) about all the negatives, and no, I
> > do *not* mean 'just' horizon pollution and audible sound.
> >
> > EOD.
>
> Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no issues
> with them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share and
> on-shore windfarms.
>
> You don't mention your reservations on ULEZ, but again in Scotland
> all the main cities have them.
>

For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq Kahn
imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
against all advice and the public's desire.
As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.

--
Davey

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 00:18:43 +0000, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:32:47 -0000 (UTC)
>Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to
>> >>>> 'smartphones'. But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we
>> >>>> can make something, doesn't mean we have to use it. See:
>> >>>> Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ zones.
>> >>>
>> >>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two), fully
>> >>> agreed. Don't get me started! :-(
>> >>
>> >> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?
>> >
>> > False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We (The
>> > Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the largest
>> > - if not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and
>> > justifiably so (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based
>> > wind turbines, as I said, don't get me started. Proponents have no
>> > clue (read: don't want to hear) about all the negatives, and no, I
>> > do *not* mean 'just' horizon pollution and audible sound.
>> >
>> > EOD.
>>
>> Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no issues
>> with them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share and
>> on-shore windfarms.
>>
>> You don't mention your reservations on ULEZ, but again in Scotland
>> all the main cities have them.
>>
>
>For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq Kahn
>imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
>against all advice and the public's desire.
>As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
>Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.

I think you'll find it was Johnson who imposed it in the central area.
It was always going to be extended but Khan extended it ahead of
schedule on the orders of Grant Shapps.

Still, if you think it was Khan then I suppose Shapp's plan worked.

On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 09:53:59 +0000
Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 00:18:43 +0000, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 16:32:47 -0000 (UTC)
> >Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >> > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> And my scepticism of the 'smart' nomenclature extends to
> >> >>>> 'smartphones'. But then, I am a happy Luddite. Just because we
> >> >>>> can make something, doesn't mean we have to use it. See:
> >> >>>> Land-based wind turbines. ULEZ zones.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As to the last two (well, mainly the first one of the two),
> >> >>> fully agreed. Don't get me started! :-(
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you prefer to see the world burn...?
> >> >
> >> > False dilemma. And note that Davey/it says "Land-based". We
> >> > (The Netherlands) are a (very) small country and have one of the
> >> > largest
> >> > - if not the largest - conglomerate of at-sea windfarms and
> >> > justifiably so (i.e. the lesser of the evils). As to land-based
> >> > wind turbines, as I said, don't get me started. Proponents have
> >> > no clue (read: don't want to hear) about all the negatives, and
> >> > no, I do *not* mean 'just' horizon pollution and audible sound.
> >> >
> >> > EOD.
> >>
> >> Shame. Would have liked to hear all your negatives. I have no
> >> issues with them and being in Scotland we have a lot of off-share
> >> and on-shore windfarms.
> >>
> >> You don't mention your reservations on ULEZ, but again in Scotland
> >> all the main cities have them.
> >>
> >
> >For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq
> >Kahn imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
> >against all advice and the public's desire.
> >As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
> >Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.
>
> I think you'll find it was Johnson who imposed it in the central area.
> It was always going to be extended but Khan extended it ahead of
> schedule on the orders of Grant Shapps.
>
> Still, if you think it was Khan then I suppose Shapp's plan worked.

Whatever its origins, Khan was very happy to take the 'credit' for it.
I entered "Did Grant Shapps order the expansion of the London ULEZ?"
into a search engine, and it came up with lots of contradictory
evidence, both confirming and denying that Grant Shapps was
ultimately responsible.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.

--
Davey.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> So yes, I welcome that law a lot.
>
> Same here with my wife's Kobo Auro E2 eReader. Battery charge lasted
> only for a few days, when *not* used.
>
> Also other devices with internal rechargeable batteries which are not
> replaceable by the user and often also not - or at least not
> economically feasible - by the supplier.
>
> For me/us for example, Bluetooth headphone, small Bluetooth
> transmitter [1], Fitbit activity trackers ('smartwatches') [2], etc..
>
> Apparently we're supposed to throw these devices away after only a few
> years. Not only wasting money, but also wasting precious and limited
> materials/metals and addiding to electronic waste.
>
> Of course user/easy replaceable batteries would make these devices
> somewhat larger and somewhat more expensive. But I would like to have
> that choice.
>
> [1] This one is already basically dead. Only lasts for a few hours after
> charging.
>
> [2] Already had to throw away three of those.

That's why I trust my 30+ year-old swiss watch more. It'll keep working for
several decades more and will likely appreciate in value as well.

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 10:34:50 +0000, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

>> >>
>> >
>> >For us Southerners, the main issue with ULEZ is the way that Sadiq
>> >Kahn imposed it on a huge area of London which did not need them, and
>> >against all advice and the public's desire.
>> >As with land-based windfarms, the differences in geography between
>> >Scotland and the Home Counties mean that one size does not fit all.
>>
>> I think you'll find it was Johnson who imposed it in the central area.
>> It was always going to be extended but Khan extended it ahead of
>> schedule on the orders of Grant Shapps.
>>
>> Still, if you think it was Khan then I suppose Shapp's plan worked.
>
>Whatever its origins, Khan was very happy to take the 'credit' for it.
>I entered "Did Grant Shapps order the expansion of the London ULEZ?"
>into a search engine, and it came up with lots of contradictory
>evidence, both confirming and denying that Grant Shapps was
>ultimately responsible.
>You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Yes, but if Khan is the villain you think he is why not use examples
of actions that were his, rather than somebody with a different
political outlook?