Skip to content

Fairphone announces the €599 Fairphone 6, with a 6.31" 120Hz LTPO OLED display, a Snapdragon 7s Gen 3 chip, and enhanced modularity with 12 swappable parts

Technology
555 240 1.2k
  • 4 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    50 Aufrufe
    jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.worldJ
    I wonder! They may be labeled as contractors or similar to a merc. Third-party contractors that don't have to follow the same 'rules' as government or military personnel. Edit: Word, merchs to merc, meaning mercenary
  • Biotech uses fermentation to produce milk proteins without cows

    Technology technology
    26
    199 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    160 Aufrufe
    M
    Alpro Not Milk comes pretty close for me, oat drink.
  • Telegram, the FSB, and the Man in the Middle

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    52 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    R
    You can be seen from a kilometer away, pots ))
  • Using Signal groups for activism

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    204 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    182 Aufrufe
    ulrich@feddit.orgU
    You're using a messaging app that was built with the express intent of being private and encrypted. Yes. You're asking why you can't have a right to privacy when you use your real name as your display handle in order to hide your phone number. I didn't ask anything. I stated it definitively. If you then use personal details as your screen name, you can't get mad at the app for not hiding your personal details. I've already explained this. I am not mad. I am telling you why it's a bad product for activism. Chatting with your friends and clients isn't what this app is for. That's...exactly what it's for. And I don't know where you got the idea that it's not. It's absurd. Certainly Snowden never said anything of the sort. Signal themselves never said anything of the sort. There are other apps for that. Of course there are. They're varying degrees of not private, secure, or easy to use.
  • Whatever happened to cheap eReaders? – Terence Eden’s Blog

    Technology technology
    72
    1
    126 Stimmen
    72 Beiträge
    299 Aufrufe
    T
    This is a weirdly aggressive take without considering variables. Almost petulant seeming. 6” readers are relatively cheap no matter the brand, but cost goes up with size. $250 to $300 is what a 7.8” or 8” reader costs, but there’s not a single one I know of at 6” at that price. There’s 10” and 13” models. Are you saying they should cost the same as a Kindle? Not to mention, regarding Kindle, Amazon spent years building the brand but selling either at cost or possibly even taking a loss on the devices as they make money on the book sales. Companies who can’t do that tend to charge more. Lastly, it’s not “feature creep” to improve the devices over time, many changes are quality of life. Larger displays for those that want them. Frontlit displays, and later the addition of warm lighting. Displays essentially doubled their resolution allowing for crisper fonts and custom fonts to render well. Higher contrast displays with darker blacks for text. More recently color displays as an option. This is all progress, but it’s not free. Also, inflation is a thing and generally happens at a rate of 2% to 3% annually or thereabouts during “normal” times, and we’ve hardly been living in normal times over the last decade and a half.
  • 133 Stimmen
    80 Beiträge
    337 Aufrufe
    glizzyguzzler@lemmy.blahaj.zoneG
    Indeed I did not, we’re at a stalemate because you and I do not believe what the other is saying! So we can’t move anywhere since it’s two walls. Buuuut Tim Apple got my back for once, just saw this now!: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/27197259 I’ll leave it at that, as thanks to that white paper I win! Yay internet points!
  • 13 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    124 Aufrufe
    T
    You might enjoy this blog post someone linked in another thread earlier today https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    394 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.