I’d wager that owning an iPhone is cheaper than a Samsung Galaxy or likely any premium Android.

An iPhone is typically getting 6 years of iOS versions, plus an additional 1-2 years of security updates. For instance, the iPhone X, announced in Fall 2017 was on latest iOS until iOS 17 comes in this month. iPhone 6S, released in Sep 2015, is still getting security updates.

If you are someone who runs their phone into the ground until the end of security updates, iPhone wins hands down. If you are someone who wants the latest and greatest, iPhone hold resale value like no other and its not even close.

Obsidian is also in the “built with Electron, and doesn’t make me want to scream” bucket for me.

I would argue that VSCode is the big exception.

You should do this anyway - it funds great original educational content, and is quite good value.

Okay. Trying picking up a iPhone X (releases Sep 2017) vs iPhone 14 Pro and see the difference. There are a lot of quality of life improvements that make a noticeable difference in user experience.

• 120hz
• better battery life
• 2x as fast charge
• much brighter screen, always on if that interests you
• triple camera sensors, with wide lens vs double, no wide lens
• LiDAR to improve portrait photos
• faster Face ID (used 100s of times a day)
• satellite communication for emergencies
• MagSafe charging/docking ability
• 5G (really only find it useful for hotspots)

I can confidently say everyone of these features has improved my user experience. None of them by their self are earth shattering, but taken as a whole, the constant iterative improvements have amounted to quite a lot.

Agreed, but that is not what OP said.

Not sure I agree that phone tech has peaked a couple years ago for the average user. What technology peaked years ago?

Camera? Efficient processors? Display panels? Biometrics? Batteries? Cellular/Wi-Fi modems? Emergency satellite connectivity? I cannot think of a single technology (I am on iPhone 14 Pro) that is not at least marginally better than a year or two ago, and pretty meaningful improvement from ~5 years ago.

The rate of technological improvement has slowed or plateaued, but there is a pretty reasonable argument that current flagship technologies are the “peak”, even for average user, if only incrementally. I agree that this plateau, coupled with upgrade cost, is making it a harder choice to decide to upgrade for average user.

Thank you for this!

I dislike Musk as much as the next person, but most of the hate of Musk & Twitter/X fails to make the distinction that they are not the same thing. At this point, any additional capital injected into X is throwing good money after really bad money.

Interesting data, but I don’t think it is beautifully presented. Bar charts, or maybe a blown up pie charts may be easier to grasp the scale.

Blobs of the largely same color, dispersed in a random pattern make it hard to quickly see scale

It’s getting close for me…

Recently found Bitwarden from a Lemmy recommendation. I have been very satisfied thus far.

Integrates with Safari & Arc on MacOS, Edge & Chrome on work PC, & Safari on iPhone and iPad.

He did not borrow 44 billion to buy Twitter.

He put about ~13 billion dollars of debt on Twitter itself, so he had to come up with about 31 billion in equity. He was able to secure third party equity commitments of around 7 billion (Larry Ellison, the Saudis, etc.). He also held a minority interest of about 4 billion in Twitter. He funded the remaining 20 odd billion with a combination of cash (from cash holdings and selling Tesla shares in early 2022) and equity margin loans on his remaining Tesla shares. It is understood that he likely paid off most of his margin loans as he continued to sell further Tesla shares in late 2022.

The 1.5 billion interest expense you mention is just for the bank debt (that the banks still hold, and have been unable to sell), and is Twitter’s responsibility, not Elon’s.

This is a long way of saying that I think the banks will own Twitter within 6-12 months. They will not roll over like landlords, and its far more clear cut for a missed loan payment.

1. I didn’t say it was

2. I didn’t say it was

3. I didn’t say it was

I mean… the law itself is written in such a way that is intentionally ambiguous, and refers to delivery drivers as “workers” (rather than “employees” or “independent contractors”) and refers to the platforms as “third parties”.

I think delivery workers deserve a fair, livable wage, but I am not sure that this is the way to do this.

If this goes through, I could see this playing out in a couple ways:

1. I would guess that fees go up to cover increased mandated wages. However, since the apps will not want headline costs to rise much more (already have a reputation for large markups, large percentage of fees, and consumer is getting more and more stressed), they could remove the ability to tip, and advertise that slightly higher fee is now “all-in” pricing, to keep headline costs similar on average. This is potentially detrimental to delivery workers depending on earnings/tip mix and shares that the apps skim from each.

2. Adding an additional fee per order (on average $5 per order as quoted in a NYT article) on something that has relatively elastic demand, will likely be detrimental to all involved, as volumes could drop more than the increase in price. In this scenario, everyone loses: the consumer, the delivery worker, the third party, local restaurant.

3. Adding an additional fee per order, and the apps experience little to no change in demand (relatively inelastic). This would only hurt the consumer, and would benefit delivery work and tech co’s. However, I have a hard time believing that demand for delivery is super inelastic given food inflation, state of the consumer, and generally perception on food delivery price already.

Not trying to be a corporate shill, but the economist in me is always hesitant when the solution is market interference. In reality, its probably somewhere between the extremes of 2 and 3, and determining where on that spectrum it ends up is quite nuanced.

My understanding, it is reporting people who specifically elect to sign up for Threads using their Instagram account. On instagram profiles, they have been showing a badge with their Threads subscriber number that you only get when you elect to join Threads. This increases sequentially.

The highest number on the badge should give a good indication of how many Instagram users at least “claimed” their Threads account.

It’s definitely not a bank giveaway - the bank group is likely furious. They are hung with $13bn of debt, that is not sellable, and worse, has virtually no pathway to be sellable in the near future. It’s tough to figure out where this debt would be marked, but I would guess the Street has unrealized losses in the $3-5Bn range.

Then the banks will take possession of Twitter, and probably arrange a (fire) sale to a financial sponsor. There is no chance the banks will role over like others that Musk is not paying. It’s much more cut and dry on term loans or bridge loans.

The bank group is furious with Twitter/Musk.

Compact is available :)

Settings -> Content -> toggle Compact View.

I thought it was missing at first because it wasn’t in the Appearance section of the Settings.