I usually buy a $900 iPhone, sell it for $600 after a year, and buy the new iPhone for $900. So I spend around $300 to upgrade my iPhone every year.
I used to upgrade my phone after 3 years, at that point the phone becomes very outdated and it's worth is hardly $100. So it costs me around the same if I buy an inexpensive phone every year, buy an expensive phone and use it for few years, or trade up a new iPhone every year.
depends when you buy... I sold my last phone for the same amount that I bought it for, a year later (bought it on sale and it was not a Pixel or iPhone)
Samsung Galaxy J3... not a flagship phone, but I bought it and sold it for around $50 ... another example could be the LG X-charge that was sold by Comcast for $0.01 last year on sale (no contract) and it is $180 now
Anecdote: It takes less than 10 minutes. I call the local iPhone/Mac dealer, we agree on a time, they come, give me money, I give them the device and it's done.
Can you explain this? maybe it's because of the filter bubble i live in but i almost never see this on whatsapp (then again, maybe i wouldn't know if i had.)
The fact that Facebook walls are visible to everyone, any controversial topic usually gets reaction from both sides. Whatsapp groups are formed based on likemindedness (I am excluding core family and friends). I call these groups echo-pipes which silently form a larger echo chamber.
WhatsApp groups are not discoverable (or publicly listed) unless someone invites you or provides you with a specific invite link with which you can join the group.
> I live in NYC, and they have the opposite is here, most PR or fashion firms are more female dominated...
In NYC the tech companies are also diverse. They solve problems of other industries with tech and hire for many different roles besides engineers. Tech companies in NYC generally have significantly more women compared to Silicon Valley.
I was shocked to learn that most of the women I know have faced sexual assault (unwanted grabbing or groping), but none of them ever reported to the police. Similarly, most men I know have suffered some sort of physical assault but none reported it.
How many men do you know who have been punched by someone? Did they report it to police?
The reason why they don't report is because such crimes are very hard to prosecute and prove in court. Prosecuting them takes a toll on victim's life and rarely result in anything positive for the victim.
It strikes terror (in the sense of _fear_) into the victims there and then all the same, sure. I was talking about whether or not it constitutes _terrorism_, though. I mean, it's terrorism if the purpose is to spread fear in a way that will further some cause, but not every killing is terrorism, right?
I always see gun promoters trying to divert the discussion from the real issue (read: mass shootings and terrorism) towards the technicality of the term "assault weapon". Would calling these guns "weapons of mass murder" be more accurate? Does that distinction really makes a difference? Why does a law abiding citizen of America needs mass murdering guns with thousands of rounds?
The technical details here matter. What features do we want the firearms owned by law-abiding citizens to have? The use of the term "assault weapon" is a tragedy of discourse norms that conflates in the minds of many the incidental features of military assault rifles with the necessary features for weapons to be used for mass murder.
And for what it's worth, if you can make an intensional definition for "weapons of mass murder" that includes the most dangerous weapons for mass-murder purposes without unnecessarily curtailing the design space for the socially acceptable uses for weapons, please go for it.
If you are going to argue about terminology, argue first about how can there be a "design space for the socially acceptable uses of weapons". The phrase is laughable. Weapons are for killing--that's why they're called weapons. Arguing about what to actually call the physical thing that does the damage is missing the point and is trying to draw attention away from the real purpose of the thing.
Yes, these weapons are for killing. Using a firearm for home defense is socially accepted. This is exactly what makes it tricky to ban "mass murder" weapons while keeping "justified homicide" weapons legal.
”Using a firearm for home defense is socially accepted”
In the USA. There seems to be some correlation between that and the number of mass shootings in a country, so, maybe, that has to change if one wants to decrease the number of mass shootings.
"Mass murder weapon" versus "justified homicide weapon" is just a situational distinction that does nothing to address the fact that the physical thing is identical and inextricably tied to horrible, irrevocable actions. Your gun doesn't become a "justified homicide weapon" until after the fact. Up until then, it's always just a weapon because you can't prevent or enforce its use for a particular, sanctioned purpose.
They don't have to be identical physical things. That's what they mean by design space. What features (that affect things like range and rate of fire and accuracy and so on) should be legal on civilian weapons?
For the US even something like limited internal magazines isn't politically tenable (a 5 shot internal magazine and manual action would still be useful for hunting but could not be used to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute into a crowd of people).
Hell, I won't be real shocked if nothing gets done about bump stocks (which don't really have any purpose beyond shooting for fun).
> What features do we want the firearms owned by law-abiding citizens to have?
Good question. I can’t imagine any legal use for a high capacity semiautomatic weapon with armor piercing bullets. A weapon like that is comically impractical for hunting or self defense.
Law abiding citizens should be able to get by with handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles. Clips with more than a dozen rounds should be banned, as should particularly deadly types af ammunition.
Either that or we could go back to doing it the way the framers of the constitution intended; make everything illegal except for muskets.
That's not what the framers intended. They intended that the citizens have weapons sufficient for them to form a valid, militarily useful fighting force. And they knew what they were talking about; they had just found such fighting forces to be very useful in order to overthrow the government that existed at the time.
What kind of firepower do you think would be necessary to win a fight the US government? I don't own any tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, and I don't have a military consisting of millions of highly trained, battle tested soldiers.
Me with an AR-15 versus the Marines is not going to end well for me.
> I don't own any tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers, nuclear submarines, and I don't have a military consisting of millions of highly trained, battle tested soldiers.
Note that the other side of the popular militia resting in the states protected by the 2nd Amendment is that that was supposed to be the foundation of national defense as well, not a large standing army. (Some standing army as a cadre and rapid reaction force was viewed as necessary, and the absence of one a failing of the pre-Constitutional system.)
I said what the intent was. I was replying to your post that said
> I can’t imagine any legal use for a high capacity semiautomatic weapon with armor piercing bullets. A weapon like that is comically impractical for hunting or self defense.
I was pointing out that the point wasn't hunting, or even self defense. It was to form an effective fighting force, and semiautomatic (and even fully automatic) weapons and armor piercing bullets are very useful for that.
You replied, questioning whether such things could be effective today. That's a different question. It's a valid question, but it's a different question from the intent of the Second Amendment (and of what should therefore be legal).
And by the way, the militias, by themselves, were not enough to win the Revolutionary War...
Well, as actasabuffoon pointed out in a parallel post, there is an argument to be made that this wouldn't work very well in the modern setting. But yes, if we're going to change it, we need to amend the Constitution.
For example, the amendment could say that "militia" means the National Guard, and that is in fact supposed to be a significant fighting force, with military-grade weapons and people trained and ready to use them. And for personal use, people can have weapons sufficient for self-defense but not for mass murder.
But for that to happen, we've got to persuade 3/4 of the state that that's the correct answer. That's a pretty tall hill to climb...
>a socially accepted use of these weapons in the US
No it isn't. Homes in the U.S. are primarily built of wood, rifles can and will produce a tremendous amount of over penetration in such "self defense" scenarios.
The idea of some idiot who cannot comprehend ballistics in an emotional panic lacing up my neighborhood with a 30rd mag fed rifle is terrifying. Take some self defense courses please.
Because any of these law-abiding people owning a gun could snap some day and go rogue? I'd say that's a really good reason to reduce the guns availability.
Taking your garbage edit of the parent comment and setting it totally aside:
Legal firearms routinely become illegal, most often when they are stolen by people who are already criminals. Unlocked cars are a great source of 'legal' pistols as it turns out.
The problem of small arms proliferation is real and it is one of the reasons U.S. and other modern nations regulate them so much.
Google requires you to turn on all web, search, app and location history just to set your home address in maps. Then it continues to siphon all your private data 24x7 out of every device that Google touches.
Good point - permissioning issues like these are becoming really troublesome as well. "Facebook needs access to your photos so you can send a picture to your friend over our chat client" --> Grant access to all of your photos. For all you know, the instant you do it they're mining all of your pictures and running facial recognition on them.
Tipping is an incentive for employers to squeeze the workers even more. Employers need to pay the workers a decent wage rather than them relying on tips.
I used to upgrade my phone after 3 years, at that point the phone becomes very outdated and it's worth is hardly $100. So it costs me around the same if I buy an inexpensive phone every year, buy an expensive phone and use it for few years, or trade up a new iPhone every year.