Seems like a remarkably small sample group for a study like this. Maybe I am just not familiar with what is considered a significant sample size for cancer research.
What are they supposed to be doing instead of social media? Social media was invented like 10 minutes ago. And they certainly don't need to watch the news on a regular basis.
Play sports, build things, read books, create art (write, draw, paint, design, play music, etc etc), learn new things worth learning, and - God forbid - be BORED sometimes and have to come up with their own adventures and activities.
Parents need to be actively providing children with avenues for their own development and creativity. There are infinite options.
The point still stands that what you are paying for in college is a network and credentials. Harvard offers the best of both, but success is still a thousand inputs and statistical probabilities, no guarantees.
I've worked with several Ivy League grads, including some from Harvard. Some succeed, some still fail miserably. A good education improves your chances of success, but it isn't necessary. So unless you are getting that free tuition or come from a wealthy background, it doesn't make a lot of sense to go through the effort required for a school like that.
I would pay for a personal shopper who is working for me, towards my interests, and not in the interests of any particular store.
We can't trust store employees to give us the best products because not all grocery items are created equal. An apple is not just an apple. There are good apples and bad apples. I don't trust someone whose incentive is to sell all the apples to give me a good apple when they can give me a bad apple that won't otherwise sell.
I also don't like that a store employee only works for one store. I would rather pay a personal shopper to go to grocery store #1 and then grocery store #2 if necessary to get the brands I prefer. Having someone in grocery store #1 tell me "Brand X is out of stock, so we substituted brand Z" is not preferable.
This was always my issue with using a service provided by the store. But after talking to friends and finally being convinced to try it turns out that:
Grocery store workers are almost never stock holders in the company that are trying to push up their profit margins at all cost in spite of the consumer. Grocery stores either have multiple competitors in an area or face an area where it will become a food desert, people will prefer a grocery store but their existence is no way guaranteed. They also can get their money back on products that didn't sell in certain cases. It's almost always in their interest to get you the best product.
Grocery store workers tend to fall in the category of teenagers getting their first job that aren't trusted with anything meaningful, slackers trusted with the same responsibilities as the teenagers, and butchers/produce specialist/etc that take their job extremely seriously that care about what they do. It was surprising at first talking to them over years but there alot of people that take their role in the food chain extremely serious and really love what they do.
The majority of food is mass produced, including the produce, so most stuff you have atleast a week left to consume if it's out on shelves.
Getting something you didn't want usually ends up being as likely as getting something yourself you didn't want. It's almost always an oversight from someone that is actually intimately familiar with the items because that's their job.
This is in stark comparison to a delivery app employee that really only cares about getting as many deliveries in a day as possible. If you get a single bad onion, they don't care so long as the person getting their shirt from Wal-Mart rates them well and they can just work for multiple services averaging out their numbers. Plus you aren't going to be a dick and not tip them right, what with the whole culture surrounding how you have to tip anyone doing a delivery for you?
I feel the same way when someone hands me an iPhone. In 2020, the operating systems are equally capable and refined, it's just a question of what you're used to. If you had a great Android phone for a few months, you'd probably be just as comfortable with it as you are an iPhone.
When someone asks me what phone to buy, my answer is always "what phone do you have now?" because frankly, there is no reason to switch from one to the other. It's just a waste of time and energy to go through that.
Setting aside the question of whether the OSes are equally capable and refined, the simple fact of the matter is that most android hardware (both by unique SKUs and by total deployed devices) is hot garbage. I have to remember to slow way down and wait for the UI elements to react to my input whenever I handle anybody's android phone.
I just recently stopped using my XZ2 Compact for an iPhone 8 because the Androids software is really crappy and messed up. Thats a 2017 Apple flagship compared to a compact 2018 android flagship and the apple device feels infinitely faster.
I don't remember the details of it, but android uses more ram for applications, because of the dalvik VM. The iPhones also have way more cache on dye in the A CPUs. And apple completely decimates the competition in browser benchmarks.
I had a z3 compact before and was happily using it for 4 years before that(when I bought it was already old). Someone patched the system so that the camera apps still work on an unlocked device and I used a custom ROM which was working well.
Here's the thing about android devices. When you can keep them up to date with custom roms you gain things like fine grained privacy settings and faster lean custom ROMS.
But ... Sony is notoriously bad at that. Not only did their software quality degrade. They added more DRM and security features to make sure your Camera and other DRM functionality will not work on your custom ROM.
Compare that to Xiaomis Poco spinoff where they recently send all the XDA custom rom developers a free device to get the community involved.
I like Sonys devices but the software is utter crap. They completely botched the Android 10 update for most of their devices. It took them 2 months to release a version that wouldn't randomly fail and even then gesture navigation is not working in the older flagships. With Sony devices you can estimate only getting 2 major update the second one likely being buggy. Compare that to the iPhone update strategy which is a million times better.
To some extent the Android 10 disaster is to be blamed on Google since apparently the fingerprint problems existed in almost every vendors Android 10 release. I guess that when google moved their pixel 4 to no fingerprint/only faceID(or google face unlock) they just didn't care enough about other Android OEMs.
> To some extent the Android 10 disaster is to be blamed on Google since apparently the fingerprint problems existed in almost every vendors Android 10 release. I guess that when google moved their pixel 4 to no fingerprint/only faceID(or google face unlock) they just didn't care enough about other Android OEMs.
I feel that it is sad that Google phones mostly follow iPhone trends. It's as if the Google phone team are iPhone fans. Heck, I saw an Android team video and most of the people in the background were using iPhones.
I think customers would be better serve if each company play to their strengths, not on carbon copying each other.
Apple software is pretty nice with their user experience. But I feel like 90% of this complaint stems from people comparing a $200 Android phone with $1000 iPhone.
Happens in laptops too. Its just silly. Go in the same price range and then make a judgement.
I have the exact opposite opinion. Don’t take my word for it, grab any Apple phone made in 2017 (worth about 99 bucka today) vs any entry to low mid ($100-400ish) android and the iphone will kick ass in most regards.
I long for the freedom of android and use iPhones reluctantly only because i really think they are a good value at almost any price point.
Can confirm. I did this, swapping my old SE for a Moto G7. After a few months, I still miss the iPhone. First, the convenience and care that shows in tiny aspects of the UI design. Second, Siri is usable while OK Google is not - it just fails too often to be worth even trying. I miss being able to use voice control.
> Go in the same price range and then make a judgement.
You can compare iphone and android performance benchmarks here [0] and here [1].
Apple devices still come out ahead of top of the range models from other manufacturers.
Yes I know benchmarks can be gamed and don't mean everything, but there is still a performance difference between top of the line Android models today, vs not only top of the line iPhones, but also iPhones from a couple of years back.
I have a reasonably top-speced phone - A K20 Pro, with a Snapdragon 855 - and it stutters. It stutters more than the last iPhone I used, a 2016 SE, and I used it until early 2018. The only top of the line phone I found that was responsive and fun to use was OnePlus, and they seem to have made speed and responsiveness their company motto. It's a shame they dropped the headphone jack, because that was my deciding factor for picking the K20, which I find painful to use at times.
Technically, most Windows desktop hardware is hot garbage. That's what happens when you have a system that can run on pretty much anything. And yet, Windows is the system of choice for large enterprises that have to get work done. Just because a system can run on lots of different systems doesn't make it inferior. If you were to use an equally priced Android device, like the Galaxy S20 Ultra, you would see the same smooth and fast performance you get on an iPhone. And that Galaxy S20 Ultra is still going to fast in 3 or 4 years. I'm running an Android flagship from 2017 and it's as smooth and fast as it was the day I bought it.
Also, typing on the iPhone is a pain because of the horrible auto corrector. Remember all the jokes from people on iPhones cursing on each other because of it?
I guess Apple is miles away from Google when it comes to AI for these kind of stuff. Android's keyboard is so good because of it that I often write words pressing all the wrong keys and it somehow figures out correctly what I want to say.
I’ve had to turn off the iOS auto correct because it became so poor. It’s literally easier to type them out and correct the many mistakes than fight the auto correct.
is this something you noticed in the past couple of years? i dont remember autocrrect feeling so terrible...its like im being trolled every time i use it now. it suggests the completely wrong words and the wrong tense until i type out more than half the word.
Even when I turn autocorrect off, it replaces double word combos unpredictably, especially in Spanish. The biggest problem with iPhone in general is that it’s hard to tune for your needs, because Apple decided that one way is The Way.
> In 2020, the operating systems are equally capable and refined, it's just a question of what you're used to.
I don’t think that’s true if you work with sensitive data or are just generally privacy conscious. iOS is then recommended over the OS from the advertising company (eg by tptacek and other experts here, if I’m not mistaken).
And I don't think it's true if you want a system that integrates Google Assistant and the G-Cam software. Being privacy-conscious is not universal, it's an individual priority. For you, get an iPhone. My statement was, weighing advantages and disadvantages against one another, the math comes out pretty close.
On a Pixel, I can use Google Assistant like a secretary. It screens the calls, forces the caller to answer questions, then relays the answers to me to see if I want to talk to them. That's pretty damn awesome. But again, it's not everyone's priority.
I used to think this as an Android user, however then I spent 1.5 years on iOS and now being back on Android feels like bliss.
Apple has the security advantage though if you disregard the information apps leak but then again on both OS's you can use Pi-Hole, or better yet NextDNS, to shut up some of the chatter.
My mom (~75) got an S8+ last year. She had some prior smartphone experience with an old iPhone 4S but not as her primary phone.
First day she got the S8 I set it up for her and showed her how to make calls and send text messages. Next day I got an MMS with a picture from the garden, she'd figured that out on her own.
Mainly I think things are just different, some things are easier on Android, some on iOS and vice versa.
Unless you care about privacy, in which case the answer seems to be iPhone. I haven’t found a good Android experience that doesn’t involve funneling everything to Google.
You can atleast remove the googleware to a great degree, you can't do the same for iPhones easily.
Huge difference. You have fdroid, apk slicer and alternative stores without google gate-keeping. You can reflash your phone with ungoogled android or open source alternative gapps package. Use microG to sandbox google stuff.
The comparison you should be making isn't with Google, but Apple.
My experience with custom ROMs was unfortunately a lot worse than yours. I had the original Galaxy Note, and picking a custom ROM for that was a "Updated, has features, doesn't kill your battery - pick 2" kind of deal.
Not too different from MS not being first line support for your Thinkpad, but offering more for surface laptops.
I'm still under update coverage for my Pixel 2XL, haven't felt compelled to upgrade at all. i do wish more handsets supported using Lineage or another open variant/option for after coverage expires at least.
You can still use the google play store and switch email, maps, and browser and give almost no data to google and anyone can install apps in google play.
Your privacy has much more to do with the apps you use than the phone itself. Apple doesn't collect user data like Google, but the difference between them is 1 company.
If you have an iPhone and you use Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Microsoft Office, Google Photos/Docs, Spotify, the Dominos Pizza app, etc etc there are half a dozen companies holding your private information either way. If you want to go total lockdown, get an iPhone with a VPN and never use any social media or cloud apps, but don't pretend like having an iPhone alone is some huge change to your privacy problems.
You can have access to the google play store and browse with firefox, use fastmail for email, use maps.me for maps, and text messaging + a million and one different messaging apps.
Then google knows what? That you installed fastmail, firefox, and maps.me?
If you have Google Play Services embedded into your system and you use Google Play: Yes. You have a good chance of avoiding that by downloading through Aurora, though.
I must say I never understood why Apple is supposed to be any guarantee of privacy?
If you are technically minded, you can easily flash LineageOS + microg on your phone a use a virtually surveillance-free phone (as far as you can, ignoring stuff like cell tower tracking and opaque baseband, etc).
If you are guaranteed income, you aren't bound to specific regions or locations. You can move to places with cheaper land and healthcare systems with less overcrowding. You can work less lucrative jobs in those locations and find customers for your work because everyone including the local residents of those rural areas, will have new money to spend. Local regions would see an influx in cash, allowing for small businesses to be reborn in rural areas and spreading the economy out and away from coastal metro areas.
A lot of people rely on friends as non-monetary resources. If I get locked out of my car right now I'll call a family member to bring me a spare key. If my car is acting up I have a friend that will look at it for me. I do a lot of tech support in return, not necessarily in exchange for other services in a direct way. It's just being part of a community. At least in my world (midwest US) I cannot imagine moving to an unfamiliar area as a form of resource management. I think this probably gets more extreme the more your financial resources are strained.
Having close family nearby is worth a hell of a lot of money by non-FAANG-wage standards. Hundreds to thousands of dollars a year in saved vehicle and equipment rentals or purchases, Ubers (car breaks down, need a ride to work), and so on. If you've got kids and have some nearby family happy to provide child care, we're talking hundreds a year in babysitters on the low end to many thousands if they can replace daycare, before/afterschool care, that kind of thing. That's a lot of money to most people.
But with UBI, maybe larger networks of people could move together. For example, a single mom can't move to a new city to take a job because she relies on her parents for childcare, and her father can't leave his job. But with UBI they could all move together if it made sense for them. Her extended family could move with her and pay for expenses with UBI until they all found new jobs.
I agree, I'm sure there are cases where UBI would enable people to move, I just don't think it's going to be a big paradigm shift/massive migration/stir the melting pot kind of thing.
That's definitely true for those that have networks with some amount of wealth. For instance, if your family member doesn't have a vehicle, or works a job with inflexible hours, they might not be available to bring you a spare key.
My wife and I are friends with a young single mother who, until recently, didn't have such a network (my wife met her through a mentoring program). She grew up in the foster system, suffered abuse, and went to an alternative high school. Her network consisted of family members who were themselves barely scraping by, as well as school friends who were in similar straits. If your network doesn't have the resources to support you, it's not nearly as valuable.
All that being said, I have a similar feeling on moving away from our community; but our network has a lot of people (family, friends, and acquaintances) with money and connections.
This might be a bug rather than a feature for a lot of people. Many people want humanity to concentrate in urban areas because it is better for the environment. Others complain about urbanites' tax dollars paying for rural roads (which is effectively the scenario you're describing, even if those tax dollars are labeled "UBI" and routed through rural citizens' bank accounts first). Still others see rural Americans as their political adversaries.
(Note that this is just an observation; not a value judgment)
> Many people want humanity to concentrate in urban areas because it is better for the environment.
I'm interested in learning more about this. I've never heard of it, are there any sources proving that this is the case? If people spread out more, is that actually more harmful? I can imagine this is an extremely complicated topic
I can't provide numbers for this, but many things are more efficient for dense settlements: transportation, any last-mile distribution (food, water, electricity) and collection (sewage, garbage).
This is the line of reasoning I was referring to. Also urban areas emit (cause?) less carbon per capita than rural areas and both do better than suburban areas.
So provide a basic income, but also shift some (or all) of the costs of those externalities onto the individual. Your basic income stretches farther if you choose a lifestyle that makes more efficient use of it.
This is already true. You make less money but it stretches farther in many areas outside of major cities. Most people live in these cities because they want to, even with all of the drawbacks. Not because they have to.
In the current case, politicians are deciding to route dollars to rural roads because people live there. In the UBI case, tax dollars are given to people who live in rural areas who then pay tax to fix their own roads (or maybe we don't change how rural roads are funded and we just add on UBI?). Seems like you're making a distinction without a (meaningful) difference.
>If you are guaranteed income, you aren't bound to specific regions or locations.
Not disputing this, but there are some caveats that would need to be true for this hypothesis to hold. The main one being that people's reluctance to move comes down largely to career opportunities and moving expenses rather than access to amenities or proximity to family/community.
The primary reason people leave rural areas and move to large metropolitan areas is work. Most people in rural areas are already near their families, that's why they are there to begin with.
The X, P, and T series Thinkpads have 2k and 4k options depending on the model. The 4k options in particular are extremely nice with excellent color gamut.
I have a X series with nVidia graphics. Quite nice machine! But gid, does the graphic card eat battery life! It is charging extremely fast, so. Didn't opt for the 4k display due to battery life, but the option is there.
Not only is it Verizon exclusive (or was, up until recently), it is not considered a primary phone, so you have to have a separate, regular phone on a normal line just to use it.
That’s actually a weird quirk of this phone, even the Verizon one is not locked. The SIM card slot is still there but they make it weird to eject, too.
You can use it with any old SIM but you’ll want to adb uninstall Verizon apps.
I think they wanted the Verizon exclusivity money but know that the tinkerer type is more of their market.
I did try this phone for a while and it was far too much of a toy. Even for the intended purpose the battery life isn’t enough to take away dead phone anxiety.
The screen was sharp and surprisingly readable. Text was very, very hard to input.
It’d truly be a good device if it was literally the size of the iPhone 4 instead of something smaller.
At the time I couldn’t find any sort of convenient way to root the phone.
This might have changed recently as well; from the marketing copy:
Unlocked Palm is a standalone device that works as a normal phone with supported carriers.
However, Palm is also enjoyed by many users as a secondary device.
Please don't use code blocks for quoting. (Unless you also hard-wrap the quote at ~50 columns. The blocks themselves don't wrap long lines but rather are horizontal-scrolling, cut off, and annoying.)
I'm an American who received several months of paid paternity leave when each my children were born (my company is an exception to the rule here in the US). It's not just about the child that is born, it's about your partner as well as your other children. The introduction of a new child is a huge shift for everyone in a family and being there to support your partner during that time makes a huge difference if you spend that time well.
But the biggest benefit of all was in the lives of my older children. When a new baby comes along, their mother is almost entirely occupied caring for the newborn (my wife wanted to exclusively breastfeed our children, so that is a lot of why it played out this way), so having me there to spend time with them each day during those first few months and take them places and reinforce the fact that they are loved just as much as ever was immensely important. I've seen so many older siblings change, develop resentment, begin misbehaving during that transition period. My kids all handled it extremely well and I think I played a role in that.
I sincerely believe every father should have paid time off when a child is born. It's not about one person in the family, it's about how the entire process of bringing a new person into the home affects everyone.
In Norway we get the paternity leave after the mother goes back to work. It is just the man for 4 months. When baby gets sick/teeths then it must be the man that is there with baby 24/7. You are describing a support role. The Norwegian model forces the father into the primary role.
But the biggest benefit of all was in the lives of my older children.
That's how it seemed to me, too. When my second child was born, I was working for Facebook so I got a nice chunk of paternity leave. My wife was breastfeeding, so she was basically with the baby all the time. The most helpful use of my time often wasn't to be the second parent in the same room as the baby, it was to go do something else with our 2-year-old so that he could still do fun stuff that the baby wasn't ready for, and so that at least my wife only had to deal with one kid at a time.
