![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
Almost nobody thinks this win is the result of fringe extreme elements within Islam. It has more to do with lack of housing, inflation, etc.
Almost nobody thinks this win is the result of fringe extreme elements within Islam. It has more to do with lack of housing, inflation, etc.
Haha exactly, by that calculation $1 a year would cover you and two others. Get that family onboard :)
Signal had 40 million active users in 2021. With 14 million in infra cost, that comes to .35 per user/year. Total expenses are about 33 million, so about .825 per user/year. All in all that seems very reasonable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38291950
So it should be pretty easy to cover your own costs and maybe that of a couple of friends to make the transaction fees worth it :)
They were kinda forced to, having to choose between two evils: https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-blog-removing-sms-support-from-signal-android-very-soon/47954/57
Specifically, everyone who’s not using Chrome and its derivates did it. Use Firefox, people.
I mean, yes, it could’ve been differently, and as I understand it they’re going to. But as a user, how is your life worse with this than without this? What’s the impact of something being installed but not running?
Well, there’s a way to frame this as malicious. I’m not a fan of Brave, but it also installs, say, a spell checker without consent, or a Tor client. Sure, the code is there even if you don’t use it, but… What’s the actual harm?
It’s linked to your account. If you view YouTube without logging in, you should have no issues. You can use the Multi-Account Containers extension to log in selectively per tab, if you need to.
Ah, so blog authors will still need to enable it manually. That’s a shame.
What I’m assuming happens is that no way is fool-proof, so they managed to limit the amount going into the USB port, and they’d be able to limit the amount going into the jack, but not by enough to tip it over the edge of the rating.
My guess would be that it’s one less hole that water/dust can get in?
Could you also replace the screen, camera’s, USB port, loudspeaker and earpiece with nothing but a screwdriver?
Copying my reply to this same point from elsewhere:
Those phones were presumably glued together and not as repairable as the Fairphone is. Which is very useful, but does lower your waterproof rating, hence the need to compensate elsewhere.
I really feel like people are too quick to assume malice, generally. Often, there are just trade-offs with no clearly-right answer, and it’s not obvious to folks like us on the outside what those trade-offs are.
Hehe thanks, I’m not a fan of watching videos, but I understand you don’t feel like rehashing the points here either :)
Those phones were presumably glued together and not as repairable as the Fairphone is. Which is very useful, but does lower your waterproof rating, hence the need to compensate elsewhere.
I really feel like people are too quick to assume malice, generally. Often, there are just trade-offs with no clearly-right answer, and it’s not obvious to folks like us on the outside what those trade-offs are.
Would be helpful if you could share why he was against that idea.
You can also buy a cheap USB C-to-headphone-jack adapter.
The main reason they did it is to get a higher water-proof rating, making it easier to last longer.
It doesn’t matter if they do, as long as voters believe they do.