abstract_put
That said, while I think you picked an example that undermines your point, the point does still stand. The SDK has a lot of rough edges (just not this specific one).
The hardware seems top quality (looking past the waterproofing concerns, don't love that). On first blush it seems like its in the same league as my Garmin Fenix 6 Pro for tracking though, with obviously way fewer features at this point. I intend to do a side-by-side with the Fenix 6 and a heart rate strap to compare HR and GPS to see how it shakes out under tree cover and bouncing around, but the hardware seems up for it.
Definitely it's massively less compelling in areas with extremely high electricity costs. That's pretty much as expensive as electricity gets in North America, isn't it? I think it's significantly more compelling basically anywhere else. E.g. in Ontario where I live, if you're set up appropriately and charge between 11pm and 7am it's $0.028/kWh (CAD), i.e. less than 3 cents per kWh, or roughly 1/35th the price you're paying.
If I've done my math right, that's works out to be less than 2$ USD per 1000km? A difference of 108$/1000km is 1728$/year for the statistically average-driving Ontarian. Adds up pretty fast!
My wife switched from Android to Apple, then Apple back to Android a couple times. Turns out they're really not that different, and the "simple" one is the one you're used to (noting in the Android ecosystem companies like Samsung really do a disservice by trying to stand out from stock in a different-but-no-better way).
I think the general category you're looking for is devices that support ANT+.
> Android phones still feel like cheap plastic to me
I personally think "cheap plastic" is often the dramatically superior choice for phones from a functional perspective. It typically implies easy and low cost to replace, as well as lightweight and durable. Permeability to radio signals is also a solid bonus. There are definitely tons of plastics that are not cheap feeling, unless one is of the mindset that plastic = bad in this context.
> it’s not so different from that of all the other casual marathon runners out there
Maybe this is the disconnect? People who have ever run a marathon at all are < 1%, and people who continually run marathons casually are a niche within that niche. If the audience is "people who run more than 50km per week" then I think "casual" probably gets the right idea across, that's just a teeny tiny audience.
> I typically run about 100km/week
This feels pretty naive or disingenuous. I'm pretty sure vanishingly few people understand 100km/week to be "casual". While you may not feel like you're a "pro" or have a competitive mindset, I'd argue averaging more than an hour a day at pretty much literally anything moves you out of "casual".
I guess because some is better than none? I think it's a good question though. If people stopped thinking of recycling as effective, would "reduce" and "reuse" get more limelight to the point of being an overall win?
Back of the napkin, if you buy a 30-pack of recyclable cups and are diligent about taking the foil off roughly 1 of those 30 will be meaningfully recycled. Obviously not "you" here, just trying to make a statistics point that recycling is usually (depending where you live) closer to a lie than not.
Without trying to talk you out of your preference, I think there's a distinction that might be useful here. A "good" buttery chardonnay isn't going to be enjoyable if you just don't like white wine. There are a ton of great coffees that do not have acidic and bitter as significant tasting notes, so it might be a case of finding a better match to your preferences?
Even with your Mr. Coffee if you use a metal filter compared to a paper filter I imagine you'd notice a flavor difference to the point where you'd have a preference.
That said, I don't think there's necessarily a coffee for everyone - it's just not tasty to some. Even then, you might find a medium roast with some dried fruit or toffee tasting notes, prepared as a pour over or similar by a local hipster might be notably less nasty than what you're drinking today.
While my personal preference is the opposite, I guess I feel the same way about vehicles, to the point where I've found a freedom in having a slightly beat up, feature lacking car because it doesn't matter if it gets scratched and there's less to break.
That gets me thinking one could make this statement about virtually anything though. "It's just not as good" is completely subjective and one's "it distracts from life" is another's "enhances life". To each their own
For example, why do people dump on pop music and think of jazz as "real music"?
If you're interested, I'm 100% positive you'd be surprised at how many different flavors are available in coffee. I'd second the recommendation of qbasic_forever above. It can make a fun date with the wife, or if you have a locally available coffee subscription that can be a fun way to see some variety at home. Funky fermented flavors, maybe juicy acidity - I promise there are coffees that would be unrecognizable as coffee.
All that said, you might not like any of them. If what you're drawn to is the roasty flavors and bitterness then you'll lose some of that in exchange. All that to say, I'm 100% certain you'd be surprised by the variety of flavors if you were to pursue it, but there's no reason to if you're happy with what you've got. It only gets more expensive and less accessible...
It turns out that over the course of the pandemic I've really refined what I actually like in coffee (for myself, not trying to say it's generally better) and basically nowhere serves it. Now I'm in a pickle - I absolutely love love love the coffee I get to have every morning when I wake up, and I don't generally enjoy the bulk of the coffee that's available in the world at large.
Before I enjoyed coffee so much I was able to enjoy coffee much more broadly.
That said, as with craft beer I think it's very often not about the objective quality (if there is such a thing) so much as it is the novelty. I'm guessing the people you portray negatively are more interested in the fads and trends and always chasing something new than enjoying what's in front of them. The perk of that is funding a broader assortment of offerings, the downside is as you mentioned that it can bring elitism and gate keeping.
I think your "tiny gains in subjective taste experience" is glossing over very real and dramatically different flavors (like a sour beer vs. a hoppy beer).
What appealed to me about the moka pot at the time was the reeeeeally "strong" coffee flavor. As I've moved away from it, I think my palate was just geared towards really dark roasts - very little the bean brings to the table at that point.
This is _very_ cool software and I've started making maps of my own property every ~month or so just to see how things change. I started by manually flying missions and eyeballing where to take photos, and everything worked great. I see other mentions here that say the "capture" part can be done for free by PIX4D, I ended up paying for Dronelink to do the same thing.
It's much nicer to have a consistent mission so things always come out the same, and way more efficient to have the software handle where to take the photos. Having the overlap in both directions taken care of is very nice. Now I just sit back and make sure nothing crazy happens (e.g. strong winds) and swap the battery out when it dies before resuming the mission. SO neat!
I personally save many-hundred-line reviews for 100% automated refactorings or string find/replace or similar, though I acknowledge I'm often doing extra work just to make the PR process smoother (even if it's a throwaway intermediate step).
It seems a lot of developer-type folks have moved to cloud focused work, at least in my bubble the raw computing power seems to be less and less valued.