I’ve used it on both macOS (Intel and Apple Silicon) and iOS.

On macOS it’s been fine, but nothing about it was unique or beneficial enough to make me switch to it as my default browser. I imagine the experience on Linux will be similar.

On iOS, I’ve been daily driving it for almost exactly a year. At first it was very buggy, and I once lost all of my opened tabs. But for the past 6-8 months it has been very solid, and is the only browser on iOS that allows me to use both ad and sponsor block plug-ins to my knowledge. Tab groups are also fantastic and easy to manage.

Already done!

LoRa is a low power radio communication protocol that is very useful for warehouse and farming equipment, among many other things. I currently use ESP32s for GPIO, LoRa, and Wifi, and occasionally FPGAs for various tasks. But ad-hoc testing and diagnosis can be a pain for these devices, requiring multiple different dongles, power adapters, and converters.

If I can consolidate 75% of that gear into a single, handheld device, it will easily pay for itself in productivity gains.

I already have a work laptop running Linux, but it doesn’t support GPIO or LoRa without additional dongles/accessories. Working on industrial equipment while occasionally in remote locations, makes this device appealing to me specifically.

I’m also fortunate to have my employer willing to foot the bill, especially when they can also see the utility of this device in our line of work.

If you don’t work in this specific niche, your mileage will obviously vary.

I personally can’t say that I agree, especially in current economic conditions.

Many people do buy the shiny new things regularly, but I would argue that most people can’t afford that luxury and try to get the most life out of what they own.

On a separate note: I can’t speak to Linux phones, digital music gadgets, or AI hardware, but raspberry pis and flipper zeros on the second hand market are absolutely not cheap, and regularly sell for MSRP of new devices.

I’m sorry to hear that you’ve struggled to find regular use of those 20 random things, but that doesn’t mean your experience is representative of most people.

Having a dedicated handheld device with the features of a smartphone, running Linux natively (not just android), and also GPIO and LoRa are what make this especially appealing to me. Everything being open source brings this from “I’ll probably buy this” to “shut up and take my money” for me personally.

Sure, I could probably get accessories to achieve the same thing with my work phone. But if something catastrophic happens and the phone is damaged, I’m having a very bad day. Damaging a $300-400 device sucks, but I can still call my boss and ask him to order a replacement and receive calls from customers at the end of the day.

Of course these specific benefits are unique to me and my line of work. I also thankfully have a boss who trusts my judgment when purchasing new tools and tech, and a budget that can easily accommodate this kind of investment and risk.

I don’t need it… I don’t need it… I don’t need it… I don’t need it…

(M.2/NVMe, LTE and 5G, GPIO)

I don’t…

(Planned support for LoRa, Meshtastic, and FPGAs)

I…

(Everything open source, useful for me at work, employer will pay for)

Sold!

It doesn’t seem to be especially performant for games based on the videos they’ve put out, but a solid handheld with these specific features, and separate from my mission critical work android phone will hopefully be very useful.

You mean spam trap? Outside of 2FA or a few other small things, which even those are using it less. Who actively engages with it on a regular basis.

And those that do actively engage with it are often using HTML hypertext interfaces. (Proton Gmail etc)

My first paragraph was a direct response to these sentences.

It’s easy to imagine a world without email. So many other apps and services easily slot in to replace it. And already have in many places. Now, try to imagine a world without HTML or HTTP servers. What would that even look like?

My second and third paragraphs were a direct response to this.

My generalized interpretation of your comment was that laypeople don’t use email anymore, their only interaction with the internet is through HTTP, and HTTP is the only internet protocol that could not be easily replaced.

My counter argument was that laypeople in the business world absolutely still use email daily, almost always through a client like Outlook, and there are a number of other protocols with varying degrees of usage (among laypeople and enthusiasts) that would also be very difficult to replace.

I apologize if I misunderstood your comment, but hopefully this clarifies my point and intentions.

Email is absolutely still used massively, especially in the business world. Even if someone is accessing their emails in a browser, they are still being sent with SMTP behind the scenes.

There’s also SSH, NTP, VOIP, FTP, BitTorrent, and probably more that I’m forgetting, that all have varying degrees of usage today.

Don’t get me wrong, HTTP is certainly by far the most used protocol, but it is in no way the only important one that would be difficult to replace.

I also prefer science and reason to faith and religion. With that said, I take full responsibility for driving this particular thread of the discussion in this direction.

I hope our discussion has been cordial, and hasn’t muddied the overall post. I didn’t mean to drag you or anyone else into this, and I’m sorry if this discussion caused any harm or triggered any negativity. I’ve experienced religious trauma in the past and I know how debilitating it can be.

This is an area where I disagree. I personally think that the “golden rule,” treat others how you want to be treated, is the only foundation of morality that is needed. That can mean different things to different people, so perhaps a more accurate statement would be: “treat others how they want to be treated, because you want the same.”

If someone’s foundation of morality depends on an all powerful authority that can exclusively define what should and should not be punished, I worry about what they might do if they interpret the message of that authority to be harmful to otherwise innocent people.

Regarding the teachings of Paul, that’s another area where we both agree. I’ve never understood why Christians put so much weight behind the words of a man, even when they contradicted the words of Jesus.

How do you feel about polytheists and atheists that follow the same moral compass, but do not share the same religious beliefs?

Very true! But the same could also be said of many, if not most religious people. I was born to parents who followed this religion, grew up following this religion, and therefore this is my religion.

What does it mean to believe in different Abrahamic religions if they all believe in the same God? What about polytheists or atheists who follow an identical moral compass without the belief in the same God?

Wow that definition is garbage, you weren’t kidding. I would define the concept of “nuance” as the idea that not everything is black and white, and that there are often shades of gray in between.

For example, the question “is paper valuable?” depends a lot on the paper. Paper money, absolutely. Blank printer paper, yes but very much less so. Scrap paper that is rotting, almost certainly not.

As a result, the answer to the question “is paper valuable?” is much more nuanced than a simple “yes” or “no” answer can provide.

My understanding is that these experiences with sports are very similar to the equivalent of religious experiences. Both have songs, chants, and rituals. Both provide a sense of belonging and community. Both have an in group and an out group. Both highly revere influential figures, both past and present. Both have clearly defined enemies. Both follow a regular yearly schedule, with important dates throughout the year.

Most of those attributes can also be applied to a wide variety of human interests. I would be very surprised if those who didn’t share any particular interest weren’t also confounded by the intensity of some of those engaged in that interest.

On an unrelated note, it’s good to see you again friend. It’s been a “long” time eh?

I feel like I have been expressing the other perspective in great detail, but I also don’t feel like you have meaningfully engaged with that perspective and have instead focused on my personal beliefs. Perhaps that’s an effort to protect your own beliefs, for fear that such engagement might cause you to question things that you consider fundamental to your understanding of the world and your self identity. I can’t say for sure, but I can say that I have personally been in that position and felt that way.

Even if we assume that there is an objectively moral decision in this scenario, we can never know with absolute certainty without asking God directly. Even the wisest scholars of what we do have of God’s word disagree on its interpretation, which leaves humanity with a lot of ambiguity.

I always enjoy discussing philosophy, and agree that this has been an enjoyable discussion. I wish you well, I hope you have a wonderful day, and I hope to engage in similarly enjoyable conversations with you again in the future.

Based on that response, it seems to me that you are claiming that your knowledge and understanding of the Qur’an is in fact infallible and prophetic.

I am in no way saying “the thing cannot be said,” I am saying that I agree with both perspectives equally. I believe that murder is wrong and that saving people’s lives is just, but when those two options are in conflict there is no objectively correct answer. The fact that who is on either side of the track results in potentially different answers proves that no choice is always morally correct, in my opinion.

Stress testing the framework is where philosophy is the most interesting in my opinion. There are many parables in God’s word, and these stories also make us consider morality and truth, and in many ways stress test the framework.

So sorry for the incredibly late response but this absolutely helped make it click for me. Thank you for the detailed explanation!

Please try to remove any personal connections from the scenario. Remember, all participants are strangers.

I’m giving a counter argument to your own without taking any stance of my own, because I personally don’t believe that either answer is more or less moral or correct.

Would you say that murder of an individual is always more moral if multiple lives are saved as a result? Would you murder an innocent person in cold blood so that their organs could be used to save multiple lives?

I don’t currently personally believe in God, but if a God does exist, I think it would be foolishness and hubris to assume that any human could ever predict how that God would judge any situation.

“Nearly everything” seems a bit hyperbolic, but I absolutely agree that it’s a major problem that has caused, and will likely continue to cause massive unnecessary suffering worldwide.