Stupid question: in the benchmark diagrams I'm assuming the values are percentiles, so what does 100% represent?

I think in nyc I'd prefer to lock my $100 dumper of a bike on the street and be able to take the expensive component with me, if this thing is as detachable as it seems

It may just be that I’m comparing to the Bay Area, but I’ve never been that concerned about bike theft in NYC. If you lock your bike with a good lock and leave it somewhere with plenty of foot traffic, it’s quite unlikely to be stolen. Most people don’t even bother locking the wheels! Just a U-lock through the frame.

Hadn’t even considered this regional requirement. That makes sense.

In the linked page it shows the battery as easily removable. If the potential thief , realizes the battery has been removed, "I think" it would sharply reduce?? the attractiveness of ebike theft to the thief ?

We need marketing for working class laypeople, esp on the right, to understand what's happening on our web, our devices and on our streets and why they should care. I don't think I've seen this type of marketing for this demographic land in any meaningful way yet

All the conditions you describe are a graphic designer's wet dream, I love it

Hm but the drugs are only evidence because they're illegal? So the phone owner only destroyed evidence if the phone contained something illegal, but innocent until proben guilty?

No, destroying evidence is a crime even if possession of that evidence is legal.

Who decided that it's evidence?

Evidence is simply a word to describe the artifacts that one wishes to use to support their case. There’s not some gate-kept process to “become evidence”.

Law enforcement. That's like, their job.

After they get it when they are authorized to get it. You cannot point at random things and call them evidence. For instance, I can take a dump and flush it, despite law enforcement's assertion that my stool is evidence in some imaginary crime.

It doesn’t have to be something the police have already collected. It could be something that they have yet to collect.

The textbook tampering with evidence example is: drug dealer tries to flush the drugs when the police knock on the door.

Yes, when they are authorized to make a drug bust. And that's assuming they catch him before he flushes, i.e., get the drugs. Otherwise, what are they going to say? He is a drug dealer because we heard the flush? Or let's say they are doing a missing person's search and hear the flush. What now? We came looking for a missing person, but heard the flush, so there were drugs whose evidence he destroyed?

Of course, tampering with evidence is — itself - a crime. And you need evidence to prove that crime.

But yeah, people tamper with evidence because they think they can get away with it. That doesn’t mean they always succeed in cleanly doing it without creating evidence of the tampering itself.

Without even looking if it's worthy of evidence or not?

Yes, absolutely. Something can be evidence if the police haven’t even seen it at all.

For example: the police think you are running a fraud scheme. They knock on your door. You shred a bunch of paper. The police wanted to see what was on the paper. You have violated the US law on tampering with evidence.

The prosecutor can argue that you violated some laws, but they will have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of that. And they will need a lot more than "I heard the shredder" to convict you. In an overall case, the shredding can be a piece of the puzzle. Shredding, standing alone, is not a crime, nor is shredding as a general matter tampering with evidence.

Yes, if someone wants to bring charges for evidence tampering, they will be required to collect additional evidence to successfully prosecute that crime. That's how it always works. They might collect fragments of the documents themselves, communications regarding the shredding, etc.

"Can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there

> It's still worth it to avoid becoming massively reliant on centralized services.

This isn't really good enough. Many of us need to get things done in a pinch and if our employers are already getting used to the idea of paying for enterprise subscriptions to cloud llm's then the local option needs to be good

For me I use only cloud for work. But I'd never trust any of my personal data to it.

That really pissed me off. Why do people continute to pretend they can predict the future

Get used to it: I think we're going to be pretending to predict the future for many years to come.

I think we’ll stop predicting the future soon. By the end of this year or next, the year after at the very latest.

i think ur rite

I see what you did there.

It's a valuable skill.

Musk supported the pretense of free speech online when he bought the bird website. Again, it's just letting them see the marketing benefit, not convincing them to actually care (assuming that's impossible)

>and by the time batteries wear out, most people are going to want a new a phone

That remains to be seen. This could accelerate cultural change around desiring shiny new toy being seen as cool

I used to be in this camp, and before we had the charge limit and power saving mode it was true, but now? I'm no longer sure.

Like, I've had my phone for 6 years now and the battery is still going strong with the 80% charge limit always on throughout its lifetime. Meanwhile the USB-c port is shot to fuck and disconnects constantly, it can't connect to 5G, leaving me without a connection in lots of locations cause there are no fallback towers, and the OS support has basically been over for a year now. Cameras are no longer up to snuff either and I could use a storage upgrade.

My previous phone had a replacable battery, which I replaced once before the GPS and wifi chip died and turned it into an air gapped brick. Everything else seems to fail at a similar rate.

Still it's not really about if it lasts as long or not. It's about having the right to repair devices and to reduce waste at large. First batteries, then displays, main boards, etc. Each law builds on the previous one as precedent.