Because one look at desktop OS market share proves my point.
Whirlybird
joined 2 years ago
Nah, they should be trying it. It would literally change the world.
Those are 2 different animals btw, not one like you’re making out. What is the criteria for “gruesome”? What is the difference between “gruesome” and “horrific”? Is “horrific” allowed?
Again though - this is testing. This is the entire point of it. Like I said - would you rather they just jumped straight to human trials and this happened to people?
“Gruesome” is just a clickbait word used here by whoever wrote the article.
You have an odd definition of permanent. I guess the screen is permanently glued down too?
Jerryrigeverything takes the battery out on these phones easily. People already replace the batteries in them. How is that possible if they’re permanently glued in?
Yep, and that makes literally no sense as any code I do has to go through a peer review and be checked off by 2 other devs, who would catch the back door. Our government has no idea how technology works.
Isopropyl alcohol and heat removes them just fine. Watch some of the jerryrigeverything teardowns.
The iPhone 15 is smaller than the 14 series with the same size screen.
No one is going to make them with a removable battery. They will however make them easily replaceable, which they already are.
If it makes the phone smaller like it did with the iPhone then I’m all for it.
Yes, animal testing in science leads to “gruesome” animal deaths. The alternative is human testing. What would you prefer?
This whole story is an absolute beat up.
That's the wrong question. I don't think any positive change will be made by voting no - but I also don't think any positive change will be made by voting yes. In fact I think that there will be more negative change by voting yes.