5 ms·

I think OP meant the phone was going to be replaced in three years tops, so no one cared much about battery longevity. Nowadays, the battery can be the constrai

by brewdad 6mo ago

I think OP meant the phone was going to be replaced in three years tops, so no one cared much about battery longevity. Nowadays, the battery can be the constraint for practical phone life, since few consumers can replace one themselves and by the time they pay someone else to do it, may as well trade it in and let Verizon subsidize a new one. Having an easily swappable battery returns some power to the user.

eru 6mo ago
Phones with swappable batteries are already legal to buy.
- ben_w 6mo ago
  It was legal to buy a car that had a seatbelt before the seatbelt became mandatory. Or phones with USB-C. I suspect this will be a good thing to force, but I don't know for sure.
  - eru 6mo ago
    > It was legal to buy a car that had a seatbelt before the seatbelt became mandatory. Yes, making seatbelts mandatory was also a weird decision.
    - defrost 6mo ago
      Weird in what way? As an example of public policy it had significant impact on death, injury, medical costs, etc. Road Traffic Accidents before and after Seatbelt Legislation-Study in a District General Hospital (1990) Injuries among samples of car accident cases attending the Accident & Emergency (A & E) department of a District General Hospital (DGH) in the year before and after the introduction of seat belt legislation were classified applying the Abbreviated Injury Scale using information recorded in the patient case notes. Those who died or did not attend an A & E department were not included in the sampling frame. The number of those who escaped injury increased by 40% and those with mild and moderate injuries decreased by 35% after seatbelt legislation. There was a significant reduction in soft tissue injuries to the head. Only whiplash injuries to the neck showed a significant increase. ~ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014107689008300207 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014107689008300207 ( ^ One of many before/after studies that highlight difference made by seatbelt legislation )
      - eru 6mo ago
        Oh, seatbelts are great, and I wouldn't want to ride a car without one. However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves. So why force them against their will?
        defrost 6mo ago
        Also their families (the kids normalise no seatbelts and spend their childhood with no seatbelts), also first responders (???!!!) In reality, the worse an accident is (deaths, injuries) the longer and more difficult the clean up process is .. increasing the time that normal traffic flow is impacted and increasing the danger to all those attending who are exposed to potential (and common place) cascading disasters. The deaths and injuries impact the local health response services - raising costs, demand for resources, and impacting triage decisions (fewer injured non seatbelt wearing idiots to look after, more free resources to devote to other patients).
        eru 6mo ago
        Figure out the costs, and add an appropriate tax.
        leoedin 6mo ago
        Have you seen footage of how quickly an unbelted person moves around a car when it crashes? If there's someone in the passenger compartment without a seatbelt they can cause serious damage to everyone else - especially children.
        eru 6mo ago
        I already said that I will wear a seatbelt whether any government forces me to or not. I just don't see the point in telling other people what's good for them.
        varnaud 6mo ago
        >generally The downsides to have seat belts usage not mandatory outside of reducing deaths/injuries. A few that comes to mind: 1. Parents don't wear them -> kids don't wear them 2. Friends don't wear them -> peer pressure not to wear them 3. Accident happens -> body flies out the window (risk of hitting someone, makes a mess to clean up) 4. Accident happens, person survive but is injured and is now a cost to society Upsides (I worked with someone who refused to wear it and told me something like that): 1. Anecdote about someone that was wearing one and got into an accident and the seat belt somehow prevented them to escape the burning car and they died 2. It's less comfortable 3. Makes me feel alive (freedom) He would only falsely wearing it when there was suspected police presence.
    - ajuc 6mo ago
      Saving hundreds of thousands of lives was a weird decision?
      - eru 6mo ago
        Seatbelts are great, and I wouldn't want to ride a car without one. However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves. So why force them against their will?
        ajuc 6mo ago
        Same reason you try to save somebody who wants to jump from a bridge? Cost is marginal and potential benefit is huge. Additionally if it was optional people would forget to do it more often even if they don't consciously choose to risk their lives for no reason. BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids.
        eru 6mo ago
        > Same reason you try to save somebody who wants to jump from a bridge? Cost is marginal and potential benefit is huge. If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life. Though I grant that jumping off a bridge is inconsiderate. > BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids. So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?
        ajuc 6mo ago
        > If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life. I support euthanasia after proper waiting period and psych evaluation. But if I see someone trying to end their life on a street I'm trying to stop them. It's far more likely it's impulsive and not a rational, thought-out decision. Same with not using seatbelts. There's basically zero reasons not to, so the probability of it being someone exercising their freedoms after a careful consideration is basically zero. > So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids? It should apply always, because the benefit is literally life and death, and the cost is basically nothing. Why complicate law, then?

by brewdad 6mo ago

eru 6mo ago

Phones with swappable batteries are already legal to buy.

ben_w 6mo ago
It was legal to buy a car that had a seatbelt before the seatbelt became mandatory. Or phones with USB-C. I suspect this will be a good thing to force, but I don't know for sure.
- eru 6mo ago
  > It was legal to buy a car that had a seatbelt before the seatbelt became mandatory. Yes, making seatbelts mandatory was also a weird decision.
  - defrost 6mo ago
    Weird in what way? As an example of public policy it had significant impact on death, injury, medical costs, etc. Road Traffic Accidents before and after Seatbelt Legislation-Study in a District General Hospital (1990) Injuries among samples of car accident cases attending the Accident & Emergency (A & E) department of a District General Hospital (DGH) in the year before and after the introduction of seat belt legislation were classified applying the Abbreviated Injury Scale using information recorded in the patient case notes. Those who died or did not attend an A & E department were not included in the sampling frame. The number of those who escaped injury increased by 40% and those with mild and moderate injuries decreased by 35% after seatbelt legislation. There was a significant reduction in soft tissue injuries to the head. Only whiplash injuries to the neck showed a significant increase. ~ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014107689008300207 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014107689008300207 ( ^ One of many before/after studies that highlight difference made by seatbelt legislation )
    - eru 6mo ago
      Oh, seatbelts are great, and I wouldn't want to ride a car without one. However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves. So why force them against their will?
      - defrost 6mo ago
        Also their families (the kids normalise no seatbelts and spend their childhood with no seatbelts), also first responders (???!!!) In reality, the worse an accident is (deaths, injuries) the longer and more difficult the clean up process is .. increasing the time that normal traffic flow is impacted and increasing the danger to all those attending who are exposed to potential (and common place) cascading disasters. The deaths and injuries impact the local health response services - raising costs, demand for resources, and impacting triage decisions (fewer injured non seatbelt wearing idiots to look after, more free resources to devote to other patients).
        eru 6mo ago
        Figure out the costs, and add an appropriate tax.
      - leoedin 6mo ago
        Have you seen footage of how quickly an unbelted person moves around a car when it crashes? If there's someone in the passenger compartment without a seatbelt they can cause serious damage to everyone else - especially children.
        eru 6mo ago
        I already said that I will wear a seatbelt whether any government forces me to or not. I just don't see the point in telling other people what's good for them.
      - varnaud 6mo ago
        >generally The downsides to have seat belts usage not mandatory outside of reducing deaths/injuries. A few that comes to mind: 1. Parents don't wear them -> kids don't wear them 2. Friends don't wear them -> peer pressure not to wear them 3. Accident happens -> body flies out the window (risk of hitting someone, makes a mess to clean up) 4. Accident happens, person survive but is injured and is now a cost to society Upsides (I worked with someone who refused to wear it and told me something like that): 1. Anecdote about someone that was wearing one and got into an accident and the seat belt somehow prevented them to escape the burning car and they died 2. It's less comfortable 3. Makes me feel alive (freedom) He would only falsely wearing it when there was suspected police presence.
  - ajuc 6mo ago
    Saving hundreds of thousands of lives was a weird decision?
    - eru 6mo ago
      Seatbelts are great, and I wouldn't want to ride a car without one. However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves. So why force them against their will?
      - ajuc 6mo ago
        Same reason you try to save somebody who wants to jump from a bridge? Cost is marginal and potential benefit is huge. Additionally if it was optional people would forget to do it more often even if they don't consciously choose to risk their lives for no reason. BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids.
        eru 6mo ago
        > Same reason you try to save somebody who wants to jump from a bridge? Cost is marginal and potential benefit is huge. If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life. Though I grant that jumping off a bridge is inconsiderate. > BTW they are not only endangering themselves - they also endanger their kids. So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?
        ajuc 6mo ago
        > If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life. I support euthanasia after proper waiting period and psych evaluation. But if I see someone trying to end their life on a street I'm trying to stop them. It's far more likely it's impulsive and not a rational, thought-out decision. Same with not using seatbelts. There's basically zero reasons not to, so the probability of it being someone exercising their freedoms after a careful consideration is basically zero. > So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids? It should apply always, because the benefit is literally life and death, and the cost is basically nothing. Why complicate law, then?