We can do this now, but I don't think the user experience makes it worth it compared to casting. Bandwidth limitations require lower frame rates and responsiveness, which is fine for video but bad for interactive apps (most phones are native 120+hz + VRR_. But re-encoding video is (processor & battery life) expensive and probably lower quality than the original stream.
People who do this a lot probably just use a DV adapter (maybe it just works with USB-C, but I haven't tried it) for native apps, or casting for streaming video.
>A lot of people who are "mobile-only" prefer larger phones.
And a lot of people who are not prefer smaller ones.
>I've never been able to use a smart phone with one hand, even an original iphone. So this is probably a really niche complaint that you and Shaq have.
Not in the slightest. I've got a Galaxy A52, a large-ish phone for its time, and I can use it quite easily with one hand. I can't readily think of the small-hands equivalent of Shaq to compose a snarky "it's you" retort, and I'm sure it's not just you, but plenty people around you, with relatively normal hands, can use their phone with one hand.
To do what? I usually hold it with my left and, and one-finger (right-hand index finger) to type / scroll / select / etc. I guess I never "got" the phone model properly or something. My daughters type way faster on their phones, I can't do thumb typing (how do you hit those letters?!?), plus my thumbs get too sore too fast (decades on the edge of carpal tunnel) and/or cramp up.
I was timed at 140+ wpm in high school and online tests / etc have hit close to 200 wpm on a Qwerty. So I CAN touch-type and do it well - and keyboard + mouse is my goto jam. My favorite phone (alas, discontinued way too soon) was the Photon Q (work gave us phones way back) with slide-out physical keyboard.
I "use" an S21, but even just entering my 4-digit pin is awkward with my left thumb - is there some other way to hold it? I can't even imagine trying it with my right.. My thumbs just cramp up..
Mobile-only is a larger segment and growing. "ipad kids" are at the age where they are "iphone teens". And it's also the segment of people who care most about phones.
Apple made smaller phones, but they don't sell. They don't sell when they are nice phones, but smaller, and they don't sell when they are cheap phones and smaller.
Tech people are like car people in that they don't really appreciate that their preferences are niche. Wanting a smaller phone is akin to wanting a smaller car
> with relatively normal hands, can use their phone with one hand.
According to the US Army, the average length of the male thumb: 2.75 in; for women it's 2.49. So we can assume the actual population averages are probably a bit lower.
That means the average iphone is larger than the average male thumb, by a reasonable amount, and it has been for quite a number of generations.
Personally, my thumb is as wide as my iphone, but practically, the way I have to hold it one-handed means that I can only reach half of the screen (technically, the bottom quadrant, so 25% of the overall screen area). I'd need another 1" or so to reach the entire width of the screen with a single hand, and idk 2"+ to navigate the entire screen one handed.
The disconnect probably comes from what it means to "use" a phone one-handed. I mean to be able to hold it in one hand and touch anywhere on the screen and perform any action. Which limits phone size to around 2.25"x4.50", or so to account for a average hand to hit 95% of surface area while holding it. You might mean, just be able to type, or just be able to scroll, which does change things.
> Apple made smaller phones, but they don't sell. They don't sell when they are nice phones, but smaller, and they don't sell when they are cheap phones and smaller.
They funny thing is that the sales numbers were only terrible compared to other iPhones. IIRC it was something like 3% of the iPhone market at the time of discontinuation. Not a big seller for Apple, certainly, but there were times when the Mini made the top ten list for smartphones in general.
> So this is probably a really niche complaint that you and Shaq have
I developed a hypothesis when the phablets first started showing up and still feel it holds. There are two main clusters of users:
1) People who use their phone "on the go", specifically walking around and that sort of thing. Like I'm walking down the sidewalk and pull it out to check a message or see directions.
2) People who use their phone while stationary. Sitting on the couch, on the subway, on an airplane, that sort of thing.
People in group 1 generally lean towards smaller phones as the single handed usage comes in handy. You're not trying to surf the web doing this, so you don't need full usage, but you need to be able to hold it in your hand.
The people who are more stationary users don't have this restriction and they're more likely to want the full functionality when they're using it.
I use my iPhone SE with one hand all the time, and have small-ish hands. Being able to use a phone with one hand is a fairly basic accessibility feature, not a niche ask
I'm not Shaq and I also have this complaint. Moved recently from an iPhone 13 mini which I could easily use with one hand to a iPhone 17 Pro which I can not use with one hand.
Can confirm that I am not Shaq, but the 4S was the last phone I could use entirely one-handed (i.e. my thumb had full reach of the screen whilst my pinkie finger sat under the bottom of the phone, cradling it), and the 13 mini was the last functional size where I could reach at least part of the top of the screen with my thumb.
The USA had the power to prevent corruption through a variety of mechanisms (banking, trade, military, legal). With that capacity diminished, corruption is going to flourish everywhere.
Which is the point: once the first domino falls, the rest will naturally follow suit. The playbook has been tested on the USA, and any guards against it have been eliminated. They are slowly going to work their way across the global, running the same playbook. And where they don't run it, someone else will.
Granted, a weak USA means that they also have no protections should another country attempt to bring them to justice or "nationalize" their property. But I'm sure most of them have a contingency plan for that scenario.
It's not their place to adjudicate the actions of the current administration. That's the job of the courts and Congress. That both are complacent is the actual issue at hand.
This should be handled exactly the same way it would be if the countries involved were China and India. Which is probably, people in China see the Chinese view, people in India see the Indian view, and everyone sees it as contested.
They have not changed. They still maintain this "enlightened centrist" persona, while claiming "both sides are the same". And their social commentary, if you could call it that, is very tame. They did briefly lean into making politicians out to be evil, but they kind of walked that back and now their story lines read more goofy than anything.
The whole premise of the new season is telling. It's not about the suffering people have gone through due to wars (trade or military) or the food situation (the diarrhea parasite / cancer beef ep writes itself). Nope, it's about how the silly goose in office is renaming stuff.
It's possible to be serious and funny, but the new stuff I've seen has been unserious and unfunny.
If they are centrist and treating both sides the same, what are your favorite Joe Biden jokes from South Park?
Given the number of Trump jokes and the both sidesism you mentioned there should be a lot of material to work with
They didn't go after Gore because he was wrong. They went after him because he committed the cardinal sin of really, earnestly taking a stand on a big issue. That is NEVER okay in South Park. There is never a correct side. Both sides must always be bad, on every issue. The "correct" view in South Park is always to not really take a stance on anything, and any character who is strongly on one side or the other on any issue will always be portrayed as wrong to do so.
That's not to say that South Park doesn't have some great episodes poking fun at some very deserving targets. They absolutely do. Some real gems in recent seasons.
As an example, you do realize that in the South Park episode where Gerald starts farting into a wine glass after buying an electric car, they're not making fun of people who buy electric cars, but rather people who think they're special for having bought an electric car, right?
And with Gore, it's not that he took a huge stance, it's that his messaging was goofy and ineffective.
That's just it, though. The people who buy electric cars because they want to help the environment are wrong. They're only doing a good thing because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're just as bad as the polluters.
The people who want to stop smoking are wrong because they're self righteous pricks who are full of themselves. They're worse than the cigarette companies.
The guy who want to help the environment is wrong because he's a self righteous prick who is full of himself.
The folks raising awareness about North Korea are wrong because raising awareness isn't actually helping people directly. It's just a bunch of self righteous pricks who are full of themselves.
Any one of those episodes has a perfectly valid point to make. But taken as a whole, the overarching message is that both sides are always bad, and the one that sounds like it wants to make the world a little better is probably worse than the evil they're opposing.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Pedantry is a double-edged sword, I replied to a comment beginning with the unequivocal: "They have not changed."
In fact they've changed a lot, their sense of humor, how they make the show, their willingness to embrace a broader viewpoint, and yes their ability to admit that they screwed up something important. It may not be as much change as you'd like, but that's a different question.
Your observation of the contradiction is correct, but reductionist to a fault. If Gore would have been better than Dubya, and if campaigning requires travel, etc.
I take it you don't decry hydro for the use of concrete?
What if the mansion had balloons and the jet was grounded? /s The point of shows like SP taking on targets like Gore were their eco-shaming angles; these people we know of and hear of are polished products of Corp. Inc. and if they have a green angle it's accompanied by green-washing, which will have anti and pro groupies alongside stirring up discourse that is both helpful and non
Well, I think both sides are the same to an uncomfortable degree. To quote Bill Maher:
“Trump has renamed Lake Ontario to the Lake of America. Of course, the left knows you can’t just rename things for political gain, just ask any Latinx birthing person.”
There are much better examples where the 2 parties are frustratingly aligned to a large extent. For example, datacenters, ICE, and foreign policy. You can find a good number of democrats who are mad about Iran not because it's a dumb war, but because it wasn't done correctly by going through congress.
Both sides are aligned pretty closely in making their donors happy above their voters. That keeps democrats from regulating like they should and it keeps republicans focused on "the enemies within".
Maher himself is a perfect example of this. He's a hardcore Zionist warhawk who has an ideology nearly identical to Ted Cruz, yet he's a "liberal" (neoliberal). He also had Democrat Van Jones on his show making fun of dead Gaza babies. While I don't think the media and politician class represent the public (at all!), they are as aligned as lasers on promoting Israel.
You know, aside from, well, everything else that makes this a stupid comparison, the most important part is the motive that people like you seem so happy to ignore.
Latinx is a not particularly useful attempt by a tiny group of people to make another tiny group of oppressed people feel slightly more comfortable
Trump renamed lake ontario because he is a gigantic asshole.
Latinx is attempting to provide an umbrella term for latino and latina, it's not renaming one of the two.
"Birthing person" is attempting to provide an umbrella term for people who can give birth that may or may not necessarily be female. (You can express your own feelings about the reality that this exists, but it does exist regardless of how you feel about it).
On the other hand Lake Ontario is a real lake that already had a name and now someone is trying to give it a new one.
Largely agree with you, but Democrats should drop "birthing persons" ASAP (if they haven't already) IMO.
I'm all for inclusivity, but there's a certain point/form of language policing where you're asking folks to perform a lot of mental labor to adjust their language to reflect an extremely rare edge case. Like why?
It's like if we insisted that people avoid the phrase "look at this" in general communication lest you offend/exclude a blind person who might be listening.
Also, there's no such thing as being able to give birth and not being female. Many argue that "woman" refers to an internal sense of gender and not the physical reality of one's body, but even in that framework the term "female" refers to the nature of the body. And if you can give birth, you are female, because that is the configuration your body is in.
I'm not sure if you're kidding or what but the mothers in that paper had 46 (the normal number) of XX chromosomes, a female with a mosaic-type defect containing some Y - successfully giving birth further proves these were female humans.
tl;dr: All boy moms will have some proportion of XY cells lodged in their bodies until they die. And this can result in them showing up as genetically male on a DNA test, simply because they once gave birth to a boy. When you get down to a cellular or molecular level, notions of "sex" or even "individuality" are far more blurry than our mental models admit. Sorta like recent findings that by cell count, humans are only about 43% human, and the rest is the bacteria making up our microbiome, and that our microbiome can have significant impact on our behavior.
If you want to provide appropriate care to people with wombs you don't want to filter based on what their drivers' license or birth certificate say, because those can not only defy your expectations, but they can also be wrong due to clerical errors or other factors.
I can't even humor your assumption that there are only two sexes and one birthing sex, because intersexed people exist, as do people with unusual chromosomes. Some of them have wombs and can give birth. Language like "birthing persons", while awkward, admits the existence of those people into a larger group without requiring even more awkward phrasing akin to "women, and men with wombs, and intersexed people with wombs".
Latinx is terrible, though, because it is something no native Spanish speaker would ever say. It's an example of the exact same sort of cultural imperialism that most of the people who like to say latinx rail against.
The term that Hispanic queer and non-binary communities use is latine, which is pronounceable, follows normal Spanish grammatical rules, actually arose from the communities being discussed, and pluralizes easily to "les latines".
It's almost like it's not a Spanish word. It was coined by native English speakers to describe themselves. It also happens to be a terrible English word, but the fact that it doesn't work in a different language's grammar isn't why it's a bad English word.
Eh, it's a decent joke, but it seems like the power dynamics here are a bit out of balance?
Maybe I just live in a red area, but I see a lot of people judge liberals based on wild Twitter takes and random think pieces — which aren't actually policies/rule of law.
If Joe Biden signed an EO denouncing the use of the phrase "pregnant woman" in government documents as a queerphobic slur or mandating Gov employees add their pronouns to their email signatures, I'd find this take more compelling.
You reminded me that I had a person at work get mad that I used the phrase “9 women can’t have a baby in 1 month”. They couldn’t explain why other than I’m a man and can’t talk about women. So it’s not wild Twitter takes.
Government agencies (foreign and domestic) will just be just a few of the many buyers of this information.
Private companies buy up this information like mad. It's so cheap - five figures gets you a database of every person over 18 in the USA and their addresses. Another five figures gets work history for them. Another five figures gets you property information. Another gets you social media feeds. Etc. Some vendors even sell it ad hoc with little up-front cost.
For less than a million a year, any company can build an extensive profile on every person in the USA. These companies are just adding to that list.
People who do this a lot probably just use a DV adapter (maybe it just works with USB-C, but I haven't tried it) for native apps, or casting for streaming video.
reply