There is no point. We realised it only recently. If you remember the cell phones from the time before smartphones, there hadn’t been much technological progress. My first cellphone, a Nokia, could store up to 10 short messages. It’s pedecessor had the same storage capacity. Of course, there were technological milestones that have been passed, e.g. antennas which didn’t protrude out of the phone, vibration motors, (in comparison to today) really shitty photo-cameras (and the buggy software that was needed to transfer the photos to the computer), etc.
The point is, that they all were capable to do the same thing: calling and texting. Looking back, there was not really a need to replace the old cellphone. Advertising made us want new shiny things.
This changed when smartphones emerged. Hardware wise, there are not many differences. Some have faster processors than others, others have better cameras. The storage capabilities are sufficient. For the normal user these specifications don’t matter. All smartphones are capable of accessing the (real) internet. The main difference today is in the software (operating system). Older phones run on software that is too outdated to keep pace, and the software support is often limited, which as a result leads to possible security flaws - because the user is supposed to upgrade the hardware, not the operating system only. And that’s why new phones are bought, despite the old ones would still do.
My smartphone ist running on Android 8 (Nougat). It’s still working and is sufficient for my needs. But I wouldn’t run my online banking with that phone. Also, it gets pretty hot and slow when navigating with Google Maps.
Conclusion: It’s not the hardware specifications which lead to the replacement of smartphones. It’s the more complex (security wise) software requirements certain applications (online banking apps, medical apps, e.g. insuline tracking apps, overall more sophisticated apps that runs slow on an outdated smartphone) demand today.
I’m using Voyager and there’s a Home feed that shows only posts from my subscribed communities. It’s not as good as multi-reddits, but it’s better than checking each community individually for new posts.
The web pages for Lemmy and kbin have the ability to filter by subscribed communities, as well. I think what most of us are thinking of is a way to view the “All” feed that gives more weight to the smaller communities, which would help us discover new communities to subscribe to.
I’ve already seen number 1 happen. I’ve had a completely unacceptable amount of non-nsfw tagged porn hit my front page being posted to various Lemmy.world communities, all by shitjustworks users. I’m getting pretty close to abandoning the platform myself because I don’t need that shit coming up on my phone when I’m just trying to browse
Edit: that said, I’m not going back to Reddit. I’ll just abandon this type of site altogether and spend more meaningful time with my family and read more books
With you on this. I don’t like current Lemmy/kbin sorting methods. Most of my subscribed feed is filled with like 5 top communities, but I’m actually interested in those so I don’t want to block them.
It would be great if posts from smaller communities were injected into the feed even if they don’t really meet the “hot” requirements.
NPS is a way for lazy managers to avoid having to actually interact with customers. There's no way one number can encapsulate how a customer feels, but they're going to try because it's easier and cheaper.
Jeez, lots of comments to look through! I’ll definitely take a peek some more but a pattern that I’ve noticed from the few comments I’ve skimmed through is that it seems like a lot of toxic people do show up, it’s just that individual instances are good at removing them.
I also haven’t been on Lemmy as much as I was on Reddit before I left, and I’m on a fairly small instance, so I guess that explains the lack of bigotry in my feed haha.
Increased probability that anything I put down or toss on the bed, etc, will fall off and hit the floor instead. In reality, it's probably just a poor sense of propioception.
Insulin. The buzz on the street is that cultured meat works like shit. Insulin on the other hand is already made in bioreactors, and there’s no reason that you couldn’t do it yourself with the know-how as far as I know.
Said people on the street are people involved in the production, not the consumption. It tastes fine, but animal cells don’t want to grow like that so it’s massively expensive and resource hungry, and will take a lot of research and trouble to make less so if it’s even possible in this regulatory environment (the EU doesn’t like GMOs).
Maybe stick with plant-based alternatives? They’re really good now and they didn’t used to be.
Lol, point taken. It has to be an actual rebuttal, and I guess that does take time. Downvoting everything you don’t immediately agree with seems like a bad policy, though.
Are these huge piles of feedback actually analyzed and acted upon? Is customer feedback some sort of corporate cargo cult? Or maybe clever marketing by vendors of feedback tools and services?
Probably all three depending on the organisation. In theory you want customers and if you can make them happier in an easy way you should do it to retain them and recruit more. In practice, a lot of managers seem to do cargo cult stuff copying other better managers.
I imagine if they have a lot of data they’re processing it further, finding trends, and then just pulling samples for a detailed look.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.