Debatably Positive Shiit

[UWSaint]

So Per keeps putting stuff in the Positive Shit thread that isn’t totally positive. Something like “poverty down world wide” might be positive; something like UN passes new resolution aimed at eliminating poverty by 205O,” well that’s debatably positive. If it was about us politics, Canadian politics, or war, famine, etc, there are separate threads. And maybe the old world thread was best for Per’s recent post about phone design, but I thought, hey, it’s kind of a generic policy that’s not existential, but it is debatable, the positive shit thread isn’t for debate, so what about here, in a new thread devoted to debatably positive shit that isn’t existential or uniquely US or Canada politics.

(As an aside, Per, my friend, consider how much debatably positive stuff you’ve put in the positive shit thread and ask yourself whether you’ve conflated your particular worldview with what is objectively good.)

The European Union already forced Apple to abandon its proprietary charging port and adopt USB-C across its entire iPhone lineup. It just did something bigger. A new EU mandate requires every smartphone sold in Europe including Apple devices to feature a battery that can be replaced by the user without specialist tools, without voiding a warranty, and without sending the device to a manufacturer approved service center. Batteries must maintain a minimum capacity threshold after a set number of charge cycles and replacement parts must remain available for up to ten years after a model goes on sale.

The consumer electronics industry built its current business model around batteries that degrade, cannot be replaced at home, and create a natural upgrade cycle every two to three years. The EU just legislated that model out of existence in the world's largest regulatory market. Apple, Samsung, and every other manufacturer now faces a choice between redesigning their devices for the European market or accepting that their current hardware architecture is no longer legally sellable there. Given fthat no company walks away from European consumers voluntarily the phones are going to change and once they change for Europe the rest of the world will ask why theirs still do not.

Here’s why it’s not a positive good:

(1) the harm it is trying to address (forced obsolescence) is achievable through many means other than batteries. It won’t solve any problem, it will simply force it in a new direction (and frankly, Apple moved to OS upgrades and older phones not being able to take newest OS and newer apps not having compatibility with old a long time ago).

(2) Forced obsolescence can be a good thing, or at least involves good and bad tradeoffs. I hated that Apple got rid of the 3.5 mm jack for headphones, but the forced use of Bluetooth has helped improve Bluetooth and Bluetooth related technologies. The thing that bothered me the most about using the lightning/usb-c to connect with headphones was that you couldn’t simultaneously charge — then cam charging docks.

(3) Detachable battery phones exist in spades. If a consumer demands it, it’s there. But many choose the phone package where you can’t replace. Two bigger points here — what’s the evidence the market is broken and why is less consumer choice the solution to a broken market?

(4) Detachable batteries may or may not be as efficient as built ins. I don’t know about this, but I know that Apple has traditionally been a step ahead on battery charge, it’s one of the main areas of competition. And it’s why twice I’ve switch back to Apple products (after using detachable battery android based phones). Do I ever have to charge my phone when I am not sleeping with normal usage?

(5) The forced use of usb-c is presented as an unqualified good? Was it really? The lightning connector was a huge upgrade over the many pin system they had previously, though I didn’t like that change at the time. But do they charge equally fast? Are their connections better or worse? I am not sure of the answer, but the point is that there is no reason to believe performance of identically purposed goods are identical. You want to encourage companies to find an edge. Maybe the best way to think about this point is not usb-c v. Lightning, but usb-c v. the next technology that isn’t on the market and now there is less incentive to develop because now it would require an eu rule change to bring to market. Regulation stifles innovation. And best case for evolution requires more for lobbyists than engineers. (But we hate crony capitalism, right?)

(6) To that end, Do you want Ursula von der Leyen in charge of phone design, or companies who do phone design?

(7) not only are their competitor systems with detachable batteries in the market (this eu regulation picks winners….), but their are insurance products/warranties one can buy to hedge against obsolescence if they want.

At the end of the day, there is good and there is bad with component systems vs. completely integrated systems, and we see product markets all over the world that opt for one or the other while competing in the same space. Consumer preference is diverse on this score. Let the buyer decide is my view.

[Tciso]

Well written UW. My first thoughts when I heard about this was “great. New buggy whip standards”. You are correct that every regulation has side effects. And, from my perspective, the side effects outweigh the benefits almost every time. Sorry Per, but I see this as unnecessary government regulation into solving a 1st world problem.

[Cornuck]

As far as batteries go, they seem a lot more stable and longer-lasting these days. But I do miss the ability to change them myself.

With Android, and maybe Apple is the same, the obsolescence comes from the operating system. Apps stop working on older versions of the OS and lately I've had to replace phones for this before the battery became a problem.

USB-C is a nice standard to have, since so many other products have adopted it. One cord for almost everything? Hell yeah!

[Cousin Strawberry]

The phones with "non-replaceable" batteries are in fact replaceable...just not by the user. It's purposely made difficult to replace to nudge you into another phone and that is disingenuous

[Topper]

Batteries outlast OS upgrade cycles compatible to hardware.

[Meds]

The phones with "non-replaceable" batteries are in fact replaceable...just not by the user. It's purposely made difficult to replace to nudge you into another phone and that is disingenuous

I replaced the battery in a couple iPhones…..the place I ordered the battery from cost me $85. IIRC, it was $75 for the battery and $10 for the tool kit to do it.

That was over 5 years ago though. Not sure if it’s an option with anything newer than an iPhone 11.

[5thhorseman]

I replaced the screen on my Pixel a few months ago. If you don't have the shakes like the Dude after the 8-ball runs out it's actually pretty easy. I expect a battery is similar.

[Meds]

I replaced the screen on my Pixel a few months ago. If you don't have the shakes like the Dude after the 8-ball runs out it's actually pretty easy. I expect a battery is similar.

On the iPhone you have to remove the screen, I imagine the same for most.

It's a bitch getting the battery off though (it has an adhesive backing).....there's a pull tab to lift it up but I've done a few now and the tab always rips. You don't wanna take a screw driver or anything sharp to the battery though because of the risk of puncture.

[Ronning's Ghost]

So Per keeps putting stuff in the Positive Shit thread that isn’t totally positive... consider how much debatably positive stuff you’ve put in the positive shit thread and ask yourself whether you’ve conflated your particular worldview with what is objectively good.

So, it turns out that there is not universal agreement on what is positive, nor is there universal agreement on what could be called (or whether anything can be called) "objectively good".

Hell, I'm sure some of you reprobates hate puppies and kittens.

From the 'Positive Shit' thread:

Happy belated Easter. The resurrection is positive shit, even 2000 years on. Even to those skeptics as to truth of the resurrection or to Christ’s divinity, it ought to be a given that it is positive shit if one is grateful for western civilization. I believe that no widely adopted code of ethics or belief has ever been more counterintuitive to its time or positively transformative to society, and without the resurrection (or as the skeptics would say, the story of the resurrection), the words of the man behind this wisdom would almost certainly be forgotten long long ago.

He is risen. Hallelujah.

I'm not going to get into whether Christianity has been good for western civilization, or whether western civilization has been good for the world, but suffice it to say, opinions differ, and it would be no great challenge to find respectable thinkers who disagree on one or both points. (Just as they might disagree about what counts as "good".) At least you had the self-awareness to stipulate "I believe".

But nobody wanted to piss on your parade, because for you, it's positive, and celebrating what you love is positive.

Maybe give the same grace. It's all debatable.

"Let he who is without sin..."

[UWSaint]

I'm not going to get into whether Christianity has been good for western civilization, or whether western civilization has been good for the world, but suffice it to say, opinions differ, and it would be no great challenge to find respectable thinkers who disagree on one or both points.

Which is why I conditioned my Easter is positively good on the belief that western civilization is good. No doubt, there are those who would choose to tear down this civilization because they believe it to be a normative evil. I think they are mistaken, & am happy to have that debate, and I made that caveat so that debate wouldn’t happen in that thread.

But your point also proves to much. There are people who believe, honestly, there is no such thing as good. So how can there be a positively good shit thread?

Indeed, even the soft version to this belief is that what is good is a product of culture, and this being a board reaching mainly western civilization residents, well, we might make assumptions about our cultural and intellectual inheritances being something that has formed sensibilities of the good, like don’t hate puppies and kittens (which, by the way, is *not* a universally accepted principle. Dogs in particular are loathed in many parts of the world, and our sensibilities about “pets” and standards for animal care (including as low a bar as don’t be cruel) are significantly informed by the fact we are in a western society. Not the only society with such views, but one of them).

I will grant you that the line between positively good and debatably positively good is neither perfectly clear nor static in where we perceive it to be collectively, nor stable in where we perceive it to be as individuals. But that doesn’t mean all things are equally debatable (outside of being a true postmodernist or intellectual gymnast who argues for the game and not from good faith). This thread is created so that those “but what about” responses to the other thread will get out of that thread so that if someone posts a story about the oldest survivor of Omaha beach celebrating his 103
Birthday, we don’t get “but what was that battle really for”given insert-oikaphobic-view-of-liberal-democracy-or-western-civ in that thread. Take it here.

And I think we can all more or less agree that the 103d birthday story is more of a positively good story than, say, the EU regulating the phone industry — which seems to me to be the quintessential debatable type thing. Take it here.

[Ronning's Ghost]

There are people who believe, honestly, there is no such thing as good. So how can there be a positively good shit thread?

As I suggested with respect your own post, it is -- for the purposes of such a thread -- "good" because you, the poster, feel good about it.
Yeah, that's emotivist, but this is a hockey board, not a philosophy board.

Further to that point...

like don’t hate puppies and kittens (which, by the way, is *not* a universally accepted principle.

So, being a GDHMB, there are going to be instances of slipping between conversational banter, attempts at humour, and attempts at philosophical rigour. My general argument was intended as an appeal to social lubrication -- justified, in part, by the assertion that philosophical rigor would be both challenging and somewhat out of place -- not a challenge to the concept of positive.

I will grant you that the line between positively good and debatably positively good is neither perfectly clear nor static in where we perceive it to be collectively, nor stable in where we perceive it to be as individuals.

S'all I'm sayin'.

story about the oldest survivor of Omaha beach celebrating his 103
Birthday, we don’t get “but what was that battle really for”

We may note in this context that the originator of the topic has already stipulated that progress in war by the “good” guys (from the point of view of western civilization) does not fit his vision for the sorts of things to celebrate in this thread.

This thread is created so that those “but what about” responses to the other thread will get out of that thread... Take it here.

I misread your intent. Thank you for clarifying.

I default to being very literal, especially in writing. If these topics had subtitles, this one’s might have been “a topic in which to dispute the alleged positivity of supposedly positive shit”. Is that right?