781–790 of 868 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, via building/construction codes.
And we are stuck on AC which is a terrible and wasteful way to move electricity. How much energy is wasted converting AC to DC?
If you're AC all the way, there's never a need to rectify your generator, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re saying the phone is always charged, because it charges when you put it down.
It kinda sounds like this is an argument between being disciplined and undisciplined. The solution is just to remember to put your phone back on your wireless charger and it will be fully charged at all times. Maybe there's some truth to it, but not everyone can remember to put their phone down the same place at all times.
Maybe it’s an Android /iPhone thing. MagSafe, specifically, has made a fundamental change to this. The phone lines up satisfyingly with its charger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we are stuck on AC which is a terrible and wasteful way to move electricity. How much energy is wasted converting AC to DC?
>> And we are stuck on AC which is a terrible and wasteful way to move electricity. That's a really strange thing to see here on HN. Where did you get this idea? BTW Europe having 3-phase AC to the home is brilliant. Wish we had that in the U.S.
Why is this strange? I see this kind of ignorant nonsense here all the time.
This site is absolutely full of software people who, because of Dunning-Kruger, think they're experts at everything technical. Electrical engineering isn't that far from the software world (computers are electrical, and their design is within the EE world), so software people frequently think they're experts at anything EE when in fact they don't even understand Kirchoff's Laws, much less the realities of modern-day AC and DC power transmission.
There's been multiple discussions here in recent months with these people advocating absolutely idiotic stuff like a whole-house 5V DC supply, showing they don't even understand Ohm's Law.
On a side note, it's very frequent that I see posts here from people who apparently have never heard of an ad-blocker, yet are complaining about ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it inferior? Last time i checked lightning can't do 240W charging or 40gbps data transfer? Just like afaik typec doesn't have corrosion problem lightning has, also type c is universally used across the majority of brands, heck even in ipads and macbooks, you say apple deliberately choose to replace 'superior port' with 'inferior type c'? Lmao)
Lightning connector is smaller, more robust being a straight male connector as opposed to some weird female-in-male contraption. The port is beveled so it slides easier unlike USB-C whose edge catches and I always have to fumble around. Not as bad as the old USB connector were, with their legendary 3 flips to find the right orientation, but still. No idea what corrosion you are talking about as I never encountered it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for standards bodies. But government should not force anybody to follow a particular one. It's not like apple is advertising USB C and not delivering it. If lightning is so inferior to USB C, consumers will vote with their money and iPhones will either die out or apple will start offering it with USB C. The fact is that it hardly matters. This is a non issue for most users. But due to some bureaucrats who hav…
It's not possible for consumers to signal that they would prefer an iPhone with a USB-C port instead of Lightning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not possible for consumers to signal that they would prefer an iPhone with a USB-C port instead of Lightning.
It is also not possible for consumers to signal that they would prefer a Google Pixel with a Lightning port instead of USB C. Doesn't mean government should force Google to offer their phone with Lightning port. It is never possible to signal exactly what you want, down to the minutest details. The signal is always for the overall product as it exists. And that works fine. If people really cared about USB C they woul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lightning is capable of faster speeds. They just (probably rightly) decided it wasn’t worth the cost to put that in their phones when basically nobody transfers data on their phone using a cable. I believe one iPad had it before they switched to usb-c. Obviously HN readers are the exception.
>basically nobody transfers data on their phone using a cable. Maybe because it takes an eternity to do so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lightning is capable of faster speeds. They just (probably rightly) decided it wasn’t worth the cost to put that in their phones when basically nobody transfers data on their phone using a cable. I believe one iPad had it before they switched to usb-c. Obviously HN readers are the exception.
So why they did replace lightning in ipads and didn't use it for macbooks to create a full lightning ecosystem? Suggestion: because it is not capable and they know that lightning is nothing more than a cash cow for overpriced accessories
Anyways, USB-C is obviously technically more advanced - but it doesn't really matter for phones much, does it? Most people only ever transfer data on their phones from/to the cloud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are talking of MS Office... I am afraid that yes, the various free/open alternatives (especially to Word) were a wasted effort (of course, it could be that MS made their products more affordable in part because they were worried by the possibility that Open Office etc. could become "good enough" to make people switch, but honestly, this March I got a perfectly legal copy of Office for Mac for less than 75 USD.…
LibreOffice and other free and open source alternatives to Microsoft Office are definitely not a "wasted effort". LibreOffice is able to handle just about all of the home and small business use cases of Microsoft Office, and many people are able to skip buying Microsoft Office licenses because this free alternative is available to them. Also, Microsoft Office still does not support Linux outside its feature-limited w…
Granted, the latest episode was more than 5 years ago, but at 75USD for a local (i.e. non-cloud) licence I prefer not to take any chances.
Maybe "wasted" is too harsh a word, but I cannot say that in more than 30 years of work I ever found any real use case for non-MS documents.
If I am writing personal letters or putting together a few slides for, I dunno, my TTRPG campaign, everything goes, even Google or Apple stuff (both are free, the latter is free because it comes with the HW itself, if you use a Mac).
But when I know that there is a chance to get money for my document, the expectation on the customer's side is to get something that works with their Microsoft stuff, and I will comply.
YMMV of course, and I have surely missed any advance in Libre/Free Office for years. But as I said, I prefer to play it safe, and the cost of a licence is not really low.