SirEDCaLot

Interesting. Personally I was planning to buy a phablet for my next phone but they've gone out of style it seems and been replaced with folding phones.

I would be interesting to see something with a rolled up slide out display like the Global communicator from Earth: Final Conflict, basically a slim stick of a phone with a larger display rolled up inside that can be pulled out as much as necessary for the desired screen size.

phone design has pretty much been perfected now and the only room for innovation is going to be on the software side of the UI and a better camera.

Strong disagree.
Phone design in one form factor has been mostly perfected, but even there room for innovation exists. More ports, more features- remember how the early Galaxy phones had IR blasters and headphone jacks? That could make a comeback. Or maybe make the phone 2mm thicker and put a battery that will last for days. Or make the phone 5mm thicker and put rubber padding around it so it's indestructible even without a case. Or do like the old Compaq iPaq and make dockable modules that add significant functionality (week long battery, small projector, full HDMI/USB suite, etc).

There's a bit of innovation happening with other form factors- foldable screens are being used in the most boring and basic ways possible. I want to see something more like the Global Communicator from Earth: Final Conflict- little stick of a device that has a pull out video screen that can be pulled out to various sizes.

I think there IS room in the market for innovation, it just requires companies that are willing to a. take the risk and b. commit to better software support than Samsung.

Your straw man is that it's a testosterone fantasy, and that the idea is to fight off the US Army with someone's basement guns. I'm saying the straw many is largely your representation of attitude.

Look at Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They had little more than AKs, no electronics more than cell phones, and they managed to drive us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So let's agree that it is POSSIBLE for a weaker force to defend against a stronger force, albeit with higher loss rates, especially if the weaker force blends in with a civilian population.

However Al-Qaeda is a bad example. A much better one is the Bundy standoff from 5ish years ago. And that shows a big part of the usefulness of guns- increasing the cost of using force.
Now for the record Bundy was an asshole so don't take this as me idolizing him. But the situation is a useful example.
Put simply- there was a dispute about whether Bundy was allowed to graze cattle on some public lands. Bundy claimed a legal ancestral right, government claimed ancestral rights were removed because endangered turtles lived on the lands, but the government would still allow him to graze the cattle for a steep fee. Bundy refused to pay, so the government sent in workers to seize his cattle.
Bundy and his followers then took up armed positions to defend the cattle. The message was simple- it will take a firefight to get you the cattle. Everybody (including Bundy and his followers) knew the government would probably win, a bunch of ranchers with guns isn't going to fight off the National Guard. BUT, it would also mean a lot of blood spilled on both sides. As in, 'think twice guys, is seizing a few cows worth another Ruby Ridge type fiasco?'
Fortunately cool heads prevailed, the government backed down and agreed to bring the issue back to the courts.

The lesson remains though. A bunch of armed ranchers 'defended' against the mighty US government without ever firing a shot, simply because them being armed raised the cost of using force against them. If they'd not been armed, the government would have sent in riot cops with batons to beat them all up and arrest them and that'd have been that.

And THAT is why I say that defending against tyrants is still a valid goal of 2A. Because defending against tyranny doesn't even necessarily mean killing tyrants, sometimes it just means making oneself a harder target to tyrannize.

(And once again, I should clarify I'm not necessarily siding with Bundy. I'm just pointing out that from his POV the government was being tyrannical, and his resistance against what he saw as tyranny WAS effective.)

Crack open an iPhone sometime. The mainboard is a tiny little thing with only a couple of chips on it. In general- CPU, storage, RAM, baseband (cellular radio). Sure they could add a USB 3.2 controller, but that's another chip sucking power and taking board space, increasing BoM cost, and since most iPhone users never plug their phone into a computer it'd be wasted.

So they use the USB controller built into the SoC (system on chip), and with the old chip that's 2.0 only.
Guess they must have a surplus of A16 chips and/or the A17 is proving expensive to make.

Lightning WAS usb2. Like, USB 2.0 signalling was present on some of the pins on the Lightning port. Since USB 2.0 only needed two data wires that was easy to do.

So what the fuck do you all want? It's a phone. All the innovations that could be crammed into a candybar-style phone have pretty much been done.

If you want real innovation that means a return to the early 2000s when there were tons of different form factors in the market. Sliders, flips, phones with full keyboards, etc. But that means you either need The Only Phone Manufacturer to produce more than one product line of phones, or it means you need to consider other options.

There's a LITTLE innovation happening- Samsung and Google are both using the new flexible OLED panels to make flipbook-style phones that look pretty cool. Motorola has one too that's a flip phone style gadget, kinda square when closed but flips open to be a standard phone size. Sadly I don't see any real contenders with a physical keyboard.

Okay so serious question here.

Why does Plex get to make this decision?

I don't use Plex. But if they CAN do this, it seems to me there must be some unnecessary cloud dependence in Plex.

A good media server IMHO does not need a cloud connection, it should just work on your local network.

With respect this is a straw man argument. You don't address @BaroqueInMind's point- that 2A is designed to protect against government overreach by people who would ignore the Constitution, and for self-defense.
Nobody wants to fight the US army with a basement gun stash.

More free in that the moderation doesn't have a bias. I think any bias is harmful, be it Left or Right leaning. I much prefer the current approach of fact checking posts with community notes over hiding posts that are deemed undesirable.

I said that given two biased partisan researchers who produce a high and a low number, I feel the reality is probably somewhere between them. That seems pretty logical to me. If you disagree, can you explain what you think the correct number of DGUs is and how you come to that conclusion?

any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun, and certainly doesn’t make anyone involved safer.

This is easily disproven. Here's one obvious scenario.
Single mid-20s attractive female is legally armed with carry permit. She is walking home from work when she's confronted by a would-be rapist who blocks her way and insists he comes with her. She draws her weapon and orders him out of her way. He immediately surrenders and does the whole 'I'm sorry I didn't mean nothing you don't gotta overreact like that'. No shots are fired. She then leaves the area and continues home unharmed.
That woman is safer and unharmed and unraped BECAUSE she carried her gun.

Or maybe we should decide that it's not the government's job to be a nanny-state and protect people from themselves; because someone might misuse a tool and hurt themself with it isn't a good reason to deny everybody the use of that tool.