Counterpoint: My phone history includes:

• iPhone (original), 5 years
• iPhone 5, 3 years
• iPhone 6s, 8 years
• iPhone 15 Pro, 2 years so far

Assuming I keep the 15 Pro for 3 years (the prior minimum), that's 4.75 years average. I also buy the device with the largest capacity, and always wish it were bigger. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't increase capacity quickly enough for upgrading to help with that.

Upgrading is expensive and it is a pain in the a**. So there are multiple reasons to keep a device until it dies. Some people who buy flagship phones have the same concerns.

The main difference is that flagship phones typically get security updates for five to seven years. Low-end phones are often previous generation hardware that is still for sale, and may get security updates for as little as one year from the date of purchase. So unless you're willing to put your entire life at risk by using a phone that has gaping security holes, low-end phones are often false economy, purchased by people who see the price tag and are too broke to afford a better one, who then end up paying for replacement after replacement at a higher rate because they can't afford a phone that will actually last five or six years.

So I would expect low-end phones to get junked every couple of years, and for high-end phones to get junked when support is dropped, assuming that the owners know that the phone is no longer supported, and the rest of them just end up in a giant botnet, and they replace their phones because they're bogged down with malware a few months to a year after they go out of support.

iPhone users keep their phones longer than Android users, on average. 61% of iPhone users have owned their phone for more than 2 years, versus just 43% of Android users.

So patch availability does appear to have a significant impact on how long people keep their devices.

paul,

“one man speaking with adafruit’s social media accounts”

lazy. limor was quoted directly in the article and you still couldn’t credit her.

your claims aren’t accurate. we were asked to step in and build arduinos during the period when the guy falsely claiming an mit phd took over. we helped stabilize the platform and stayed a reseller until demand and circumstances shifted. every board, up until the last years, was shown to arduino before release to see if they wanted to make it, support it, etc. for example we presented feather, they were not interested.

“maybe some of the points have some merit?”

the concern isn’t imagined. the open source community is vocal because the issues are real there are a lot of people in the arduino world, discords, and dev channels raising the same flags. you not being in those spaces doesn’t mean it does not exist. you’re not tuned into these conversations. but at least don’t erase limor’s words and claim it's just me or downplay the people who are doing the work.

The most common side effect I've seen reported is nausea. Sometimes that can lead to vomiting, but it doesn't usually.

> Did the advisor not check the student's work?

The student made up the data, claiming if came from a legitimate source. Other than independently trying to get that same data from the same source and verifying it, how exactly do you 'check the work?'

The review is typically focused on how the data is processed and if the conclusions follow logically from the data presented. If you just make shit up at the very start it can be very difficult to catch or prove short of completely redoing the study - which is in fact how a most fraud is caught, when someone tries to replicate a study's results and fails.
=Smidge=

It's the only quote I ever use about AI.

As soon as I realise an article, or an image or whatever is AI generated, I just stop and go elsewhere, and often just block that channel/page/site/user.

At this point, it's openly discriminatory as a policy, as far as I'm concerned. This was AI - NOT YOU - making this and I'm not interested in the output of an AI. If I were, I'd just go onto an AI and have it make that, rather than pick it up from some other third-hand place that reposted it.

The irony of "social" media being almost nothing but AI nowadays is so laughable. Facebook was there for me to talk to my friends and family, see how my old school friends were doing, etc. etc. etc. and after becoming just a bunch of curated junk it turned to shit and I basically stopped bothering. And now it's just AI and reposts because everyone else stopped bothering to post too.

I come to Slashdot, for example, not for the articles. They're just there to promote discussion. I come to interact with people and read what people think.

This should be a career-ending move. Demonstrating this level of dishonesty should bar him from holding a graduate degree of any kind, really, let alone anything in scientific research.

Increasing and enforcing standards is needed, but also higher standards mean nothing if there are no consequences. Make it clear that this kind of nonsense will obliterate your academic career.
=Smidge=

>"We are clearly different then. I always log in, but i have a major incentive due to wanting to squash ads with youtube premium

There are other options. I also have no ads.

I hear whatever's left of AT&T's telegraph operation can be had for a steal and is sure to take off like a rocket any time now.

They're passenger (and freight) trains. The rails were built for travel, not for scenic display.
OTOH, the sure aren't high speed rail. Most of the lines were build over 50 years ago.

OTOH, the BART example was for a "high speed train", though I believe the speed is limited underground. But the rise is from perhaps two or three stories below ground to about 1 story above ground. That said, I believe that the rise is about 2-3 miles long, so it's not steep.

They don't have the authority to arbitrarily decide where to put fracking wells either. Or mines, or oil rigs, or chemical factories...

In fact they technically get permits to do basically everything everything they do. Or at least that used to be the case when the EPA actually meant something. Never stopped them from completely fucking everything up to save money though, did it? And I bet you know it.

I guarantee that if any of these get built and fails, the way the public finds out about it is someone noticing a spike in cancer rates.
=Smidge=

>"I'd say the same for YouTube. It's used to watch videos. The number of people who comment on them is minimal compared to the userbase."

That is exactly what I came to post. I use YouTube all the time. I have *never* logged into it. So for tons of people, it is not "social media".

Facebook, on the other hand, is mostly useless without a login. You can see a bit of it, then it stops.

>"I'd be very curious to the exact definition of "social media" they use is. I don't think it's what most people consider to be social media."

Bingo. Plays right into my comments last week about the stupid Virginia law trying to force "age checking" for "social media" and they don't even define what "social media" is or is not. As if everyone knows exactly what it is. Yet, somehow, stripping adults of their privacy and rights will save children (since parents refuse to restrict or withhold internet-connected devices from their children).

Is Slashdot "social media"? How about my local LUG's forum? What about the comments section on Amazon or Walmart product pages? Or reviews of apps on Google Play? A USENET group? Chat sessions in online games? If just watching videos is "social media" does that make broadcast TV or cable TV or a movie theater "social media"?

I, for one, have complete confidence in corporate industry's ability and willingness to respect the environment and the safety of the general public.

=Smidge= /s

N.B.: I good system of automated taxis could do the job...but note "good system". Most places I've ever lived the taxis were both too expensive and to difficult to use to do the job.

A HSR network is really problematic without a really good local transit network. (One you can reasonably carry your baggage on.)

Sometimes using the highway ROW works, other times it doesn't. This partially depends on the design of the highways, and partially depends one whether they have the same destination. A train station under a section of elevated roadway can work well...but if you don't have that convenient elevated roadway things can get more difficult.

I can't even estimate costs, but they can get pretty high. (And sometimes it's easy.)