I'm usually the positive guy when it comes to change but boy do I miss the headphone jack on my phone. Bluetooth is such a pain.
Alternatives to physically jacked connections are sold as something they're not. Disappointment happens.
I strongly recommend Robert Merton, "unintended consequences".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences
http://users.ipfw.edu/dilts/E%20306%20Readings/The%20Unantic...
You won't spend 30 minutes scrolling through your navigation app, or your music app, or through the pictures you made, or looking at the weather forecast, or...
These are all very useful features. I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It's meant to be a temporary setting, like to turn on while in a meeting or while sleeping, but I have it set to run 24 hours a day, only allowing people in my "favorites" to call me, everyone in my contacts list to message me, and only allowing notifications from a couple apps.
I just set it up a week ago, and I absolutely love how little I'm bothered by my phone now, including no more calls from bots, which I was receiving around 4-6 times a day.
* I assume most recent Samsung equivalents have this feature as well. My S6 had it.
When I'm testing new smartphones in stores, I'm shocked at how crappy the experience is compared to the LineageOS, both in terms of UI, and in terms of interruptions and notifications and ads shoved down the user's throat
Could you share your experience about bot phone calls? What in it for them?
Just like email spam, I assume there's enough benefit to be worth the cost, which is far less than it used to be now that, much like the transition from physical mail to email, a computer can do the calling for very little cost or effort.
I used to get a a few random spam calls from people a week, and still do from time to time. They're generally trying to sell me something; trying to ask for my vote; trying to convince me that I'm in trouble for one thing or another and I should give them some personal information or money to get out of it.
As for being called by bots, if I answer and I don't hear a human voice within a second or two, then I assume a computer just dialed me. It might play me a recording; It might connect me with a human. Regardless, it was a bot that called me to begin with, and I've no interest in speaking with or waiting for the unsolicited demands of computer programs.
I used to be able to keep a list of numbers to block with whatever dialer app I was using, but it's gotten incredibly easy for these spammers to spoof numbers. The big trend in the past couple months seems to be to use numbers that have the first six or seven numbers of my full ten-digit phone number. So if my number was 444-555-6666, I'll get random calls throughout the day from 444-555-6777. It's obvious when I see the number - especially since my number is from a city I haven't lived in since 2012 - but harder to block via standard phone apps.
This is why the white-listing of a "Do Not Disturb" mode better suits me.
As for why I get so many spam calls, it's hard to say. I've had this number for almost 20 years. I'm sure it's been sold and resold for pennies hundreds of times. I'm sure it's also on plenty of database dumps from various hacks as well. No matter, switching numbers seems to be more hassle than it's worth. I assume whatever new number I get would be just as bad.
What I _really_ want is for phone numbers to become obsolete. Just a random UUID that means "Call / Text / Message enobrev" in someone else's device, where I can maintain a whitelist of who can connect to my devices to talk / chat / etc.
The thing that has surprised me most is that it's all utility. I can run Google Authenticator, I can read what I need to read, I can find out when the bus leaves, but the phone is no fun. The tiny screen doesn't attract or tempt me.
I thought I'd get something small that fits in every pocket, but stumbled upon something else. Maybe more.
(Same thing with more detail: http://rant.gulbrandsen.priv.no/unihertz)
Separately I have an iPod touch which gives me some control over smartphone addictive behaviour as it only has wifi. And it has the headphone jack :) I absolutely refuse to buy a device without one.
I used to joke with friends about "smartphone zombies" in the streets but now it is no longer a joke. It's genuinely scary to be on a train or subway and see everyone glued to their phone without looking up. Mothers and kids each staring at screens instead of interacting.
I was a big Steve Jobs fan when he was alive, but now wonder if the iPhone (and its competition) are destroying society the way automobiles destroyed much of the physical world.
Its kinda funny how removing features is defended by "well it makes them simpler and lighter and smaller", meanwhile 99 % of all smartphones are basically tablet-sized nowadays with insanely large and unwieldy screens.
However, at the aggregate level, I.e. the device level, the message is the opposite. Apple, Google, and 3rd party devs and businesses keep promoting the idea of more apps which essentially eliminates and overwhelm the benefits a user may see from simplicity at the app level.
A good example are messaging apps. While each messaging app may have simplified (even as they add features) for a regular user, they have to worry about 3-4 different messaging apps as well as which contact has to be contacted through which app. Do I use iMessage, FB messenger, Hangouts, WhatsApp to contact a person?
This is something Apple and Google should be tackling at the platform level. Windows Phone, and WebOS before it, made some token efforts towards this through their hub concepts, but they were destroyed by lack of support, and lack of open standards.
We really need to be promoting more open standards to enable users to control their phones, instead of becoming slaves to them.
Given replacement cycles, humanity now invests more energy in creating smartphones (life expectancy: ~2 years) than automobiles (~10 years). By year-of-use embedded energy, autos use only 30% of the resources of smartphones.
(p. 344, box)
Do you know if this relates, in any way, to the energy economics and diminishing marginal returns from increasing complexity that Joseph Tainter[0] covers in The Collapse of Complex Societies[1]?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Diminishing_ret...
Tainter is cited in the book, though unfortunately the citations / notes format is one that makes it exceedingly difficult to sort out where (this is one of my few complaints with this book, and Smil's writing generally -- he follows a social sciences citations format of (Author <year>) inline, which makes finding, and identifying, references tedious -- I'm the sort of cat who really likes either section-based endnotes or page-based footnotes for tracking things).
That said: Smil's citations are excellent, and his books are worth buying for the references alone. They're also far more worth buying (or reading) for the actual text, but good refs are a very strong bonus.
If you're interested in Tainter's view, I would suggest taking a look, if you can find a copy, at Manfred Weissenbacher's Sources of Power, published in 2009, and covering much the same concept. Weissenbacher's approach is similar to Smil's, and the latter cites Smil's earlier book, Energy in World History (1992) extensively. Weissenbacher looks far more into the political aspects of energy regimes, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, and arguably to a fault.
The book is also extensively researched, though far-less-evenly written than Smil's. Neither author is a native English speaker, but Smil has a far better command of the language, and the discipline and/or editorial assistance to tighten up and clean up his writing. That said, despite the similarities, the works do complement one another.
Another author I'd recommend is William Ophuls, particularly Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (1977, revised ~1994), which predates but also anticipates much of Tainter's work. Ophul's background and focus is politics and polity, but through the lenses of ecology and Limits to Growth particularly. His forecast of political developments strikes me as particularly good, capturing much of what actually did transpire, with few failures, save the quite notable one that we have so far managed to avoid an absolutely devastating general famine. But his national / regional assessment strikes me as pretty true -- it's based on the US, EU, USSR (still a thing, though he saw trouble for it), China, India, Africa, and Latin America, generally.
Solar energy, cheap desalination and bioscience are likely to make food ever cheaper and more abundant, wouldn't you think?
A useful concept comes from the domain of navigation:
"The Art of ship handling involves the effective use of forces under control to overcome the effect of forces not under control."
- Charles H. Cotter
First, cars weigh 10,000 times, not 1,000 times, more than a cellphone.
Embodied (not embedded) energy is 100x greater for the automobile.
The units produced annually is a major factor: 2 billion for mobile phones, 72 million for automobiles. That plus product life skews the number toward phones a lot.
I did manage to get the bottom-line value right: autos use 0.72 exajoules of energy per year of use, 30% less than mobile phones.
A longer version of the example was published in IEEE Spectrum in 2016:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/your-phone-cost...
Your article actually says that cars use 7x as much embodied energy as devices, (7 to 1), but then corrects both for lifetime (10 and 2 years), thus you get 0.5 vs 0.7 for devices vs cars respectively, not 1 vs 0.7.
The article then concludes cars use 40% more embedded energy than all devices on the planet, not 30% less.
Then, we're talking about phones here, the article about devices, including 60 million laptops which the article assumes use 18x the embodied energy of a phone. i.e., next to the 1.9 billion phones, the article essentially adds in 1.08 billion phone-equivalent laptops, which carry a worse energy/mass ratio, but aren't adjusted for a much better lifetime than 2 years average. Same for smartphones, btw. The article leaves out embodied energy of cars and just assumes a car to perform without any repairs or maintenance for 10 years, like a phone does for 2 years.
It also doesn't really explicitly mention the context which is that it's a comparison is between more than 2 billion devices servicing an approximately similar amount of humans, vs 72 million vehicles.
The article does mention that a phone's energy use in 2 years would add, at most, 8% to its embodied energy, for an indexed figure of 1.08. A car uses 5x as much of its embodied energy, for a total figure of 6x. Again, this is without figuring in maintenance. In short, for a real impact figure you'd multiply the 0.72 by 6, and you end up with energy to 72m cars using more than 8x as much energy than 2 billion smartphones and more than a billion phone-equivalent laptop/tablet devices, at minimum.
The general upshot is that silicon is very energy-intensive stuff -- to manufacture, and to operate. Several authors (including Smil) have noted that the highest energy use densities, in terms of watts per unit-mass of equipment, are seen in information systems. There's a reason for all those massive cooling systems at datacentres.
(And yes, I've just shifted the discussion from embodied energy to operating energy, in the interest of the general point of energy consumption of information systems, not trying to confuse the two points, though that has been done several times already in various parts of this thread, including your own response above.)
That density still doesn't necessarily imply greater total energy use, though it starts getting you that way.
As for transport vs. information: a further point to consider is that there are constraints on moving people around in a physical environment, imposed by mass, air, rolling resistance, and braking (or regen) losses. We're relatively close -- definitely within an order of magnitude, and possibly a power or so of two, to those limits. For information, the theoretical efficiencies are high (Feynman did work on this IIRC), but our technology is nowhere near that bound, and we seem quite good at throwing additional tasks and requirements on our computing systems as efficiency improves. (This is also true of transport -- both are subject to the Jevons paradox.)
This also gets us to a sort of Amdahl's Law problem: as the operational energy of computers falls, the embodied energy costs seem to increase and become a larger portion of the overall expense. Since the operating cost == marginal cost, this also means that market dynamics alone, which function based on marginal costs, are exceedingly unlikely to discourage this trend. It's another zero-marginal-cost dynamic (see Jeremy Rifkin's recent book).
Smil has a great deal of expertise and experience here, his writing is usually pretty clear, and I'm inclined to credit his claims. Though I may need to evaluate this particular one more closely. Though at some time when my neurons are not in isolation cells....
"Large" is ~ n > 30.
Or to manufacture or to dispose of them.
> Embodied
Do you mean "embedded"? I'm not nitpicking; I want to make sure I understand.
Where does one find the embedded/embodied energy for a product? I'd be surprised if it can be calculated - the energy required to mine, transport, manufacture, dispose every bit of every raw material that eventually goes into all the parts of an automobile (or other complex modern device)? It would be a very valuable but daunting task. How is it done and who does it?
Assuming embedded energy means "battery / fuel capacity" this seems very wrong:
- typical compact car (~3000 lbs, ~1360kg) / Samsung S8 (155g) = 8800
- 50L fuel tank = 475000 Wh / Samsung S8 battery 11.55Wh = 41000
So that's ~4.6x more stored energy per kg, not 10x less.
My last one was Sony Xperia X Compact. XZ1 Compact is basically a clone with slightly better specs, no point to upgrade. XZ2 compact while getting beefier lost the headphone jack.
I'm basically waiting and hoping for Xiaomi to release some nice compact in 2018.
Psst: iphone SE. Cheapest Apple around.
(Windows phone orphan here, making do.)
EDIT:
Also, it's only 4in display with even worse screen-to-body ratio than Xperia.
At least LG's Android skin isn't bad.
I spent a while on XDA, and that whole scene seems horribly broken. I ran an older phone rooted for a while, but keeping up with root and security updates got to be a real pain.
It's not surprising that the market would reach a saturation point; manufacturers are running short of ideas to improve their products, and even starting to resort to removing features.
Especially in the low-end/unbranded smartphone segment, I've noticed newer models aren't actually getting better. Several years ago they practically all had removable batteries, microSD, dual SIM, and a full complement of sensors; now it's nearly impossible to find such a complete combination anymore --- they're all missing one or two things.