"Incidentally on that same thread I claimed the future would be phones that had large touchscreens:"

No, you didn't, you just complained about squinting and scrolling, not a single prediction. Here's the whole text:

"Americans like bigger cars, bigger computers, amd more fries. That's just how it is. There's more space in America. And I don't know about others, but I don't like to squint to read stuff and keep clicking scroll. Maybe the Japanese words take up less pixels so this isnt an issue?

I have heard that it's actually faster to type japanese words on a cell than english words on a keyboard. Can someone confirm or refute this?

American innovation focuses on making things easier. It's a step backward to have to type on a tiny number keyboard. If there were a better way to input data into the cellphone (touchscreen/voice?), and to read it without squinting or scrolling, then it would sell. It's a whole lot easier to call someone than to text them."

Typical right winger lie, you don't expect anyone to check what you've said. At least to your credit the link wasn't broken as it often is.

If only kindles offered any material benefits.

"...to the point where many iPad owners..."

Gonna have to stop you there. iPad owners, by virtue of owning iPads, are not qualified to judge material benefits.

Kindles enjoyed a period of sales success based largely on the reason you offer. People have wised up since. Same with tablets, Android tablets are largely dead, the form factor itself is really not suited for general use. Tablets are great for vertical applications where they existed long before the iPad. iPads still hang around, because Apple. If you need a handheld computer you use a smartphone, iPads were popularized when iPhones still had 6". Tablet computers are basically dead, thank goodness for those e-ink displays though.

I like how a device with a terrible screen and UI, which does almost nothing and what little it does is not done well, has 3GB of memory. Hysterical.

What if we take a midrange device, keep the price, replace the screen with the worst screen imaginable, make the form factor worse and remove all the software functionality to simulate that we've stripped the device itself down (while doing nothing of the sort). We can then pay some dipshit to say it has the ability to rewire your brain and EditorDavid will parrot it. Sound about right?

I have never placed a pickup order at a shop. I once placed a pickup order for food during COVID since the dining room was closed. I've likely done that a number of times, it's just too uninteresting to recall.

I suspect a very large percentage of the population has never done it either. On the other hand, I have food delivered a lot, but I have family members who have NEVER used food delivery. It's almost as though different people live differently.

"100% of pickup orders I've done I've done through a website."

There is this overriding presumption that a smartphone is central to doing anything when, in fact, it is internet connectivity that is. Anything done on a smartphone is usually better done on a computer, and most websites now suck mostly because of the influence of tiny screens. The typical person today does not use a computer and most don't use a tablet either, a smartphone is their primary device. If you want to improve your life, improve the device you use for internet access. You know, the opposite of this piece of shit phone described in the article.

Oddly, I do absolutely none of these things even though I have smart phone. What a sad life you have, spending all your time hunting down bargains and looking up things on your phone.

It is definitely a stupid goal to rid yourself of the value of a smartphone, it is equally stupid to define who you are by one.

"It's the digital equivalent of living in an Amish community with a Tesla parked by the barn that anybody can use in an emergency."

From purgatory straight to hell, in other words. The Amish have horses and carriages and no electricity, that Tesla in the barn is of utterly no use. The silver lining is that the autopilot on this one won't be killing anyone, and what do you bet that next year that Tesla has a few thousand miles on the odometer even though it hasn't moved?

"What the author means is that switching to this phone will, over time, have significant effects on the way your brain works."

The author said nothing of the sort. What he meant is being read in by you.

But let's assume that's right since it's not unreasonable. In what way is the phone uniquely able to do this? The author didn't say.
You can choose to limit what you do with any phone and every phone has an anti-distraction button otherwise known as a power switch. Also, flight mode seems to do a lot of the same things.

No, this phone accomplishes something unique purely by how crappy and undesirable it is. The UI looks like shit and the function is terrible. That's not a sensational headline, though.

"Does daily smartphone use have profound effects on the way your brain works?"

Not if you don't use one, and this device discourages you from using one. That's all.
I will also say that I do not use a smartphone in the way described and it does not have this "profound effect" on me, despite the article's author asserting otherwise. I'm not claiming any special power either, I'm an old, long-time computer user; I use a desktop many hours a day and a smartphone almost never at all. I have one in case I need one and am away from my computer. Smartphones don't rewire me.

'You might disagree with that hypothesis and you're free to argue against it, but it's not something that can be just dismissed as "ridiculous pseudo-scientific nonsense".'

And here you are either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting what was claimed. The objection doesn't regard all smartphones, only this particular one. It's not just a difference, it's a profound difference. And "rewiring" is colorful language as well, the person you're responding to seem to have particular objection to that terminology. It is definitely hyperbolic and probably false. There is something in the brain analogous to "wiring" and "rewiring", that almost certainly ISN'T happening with this device.

And I'd like to mention another egregious thing in this article. This guy first asserts his credentials by claiming 20 years relevant experience with smartphones. I call that. a youngster. I personally have far more experience than that. Second, this guy claims that simplifying is his holy grail, yet he talks about "his" e-readers. Come on! Anyone who thinks an e-reader is an important, differentiated class of device is not qualified to tell anyone about the importance of rewiring your brain. It's a bullshit sales narrative, nothing more.

It was a lie. Such an experiment would take far too much time to demonstrate in an undergrad class. It would be a worst-case teaching tool: incredibly inefficient, costly, dangerous and easily achieved by other means. No teacher would do this and the fact that it's well known, very old, research tells us what happened, even as we already know. The claim was a lie.

And the claimant didn't witness anything, he only alleged that he witnessed something, so your note taking is shitty too. The reality was that this stooge was exposed to the research in a class and now he lies about having conducted the research himself.

As an aside, I recently knew a person who did the same things, he could not differentiate between being shown things and having done them himself. He once visited a doctor's private practice as part of some sort of "career day" activity and later that night he claimed that HE performed plastic surgery. That sounds like hyperbole but it is not. The guy was a delusional sociopath. The facts stare you in the face, you can choose to misrepresent them if you like, but it doesn't change who people like this are. When you interact with people on social media that do things like this, you should understand who they are. SuperKendalls are not just stupid, they are malignant.

First off. you didn't conduct this experiment; the entire story is a lie. This would be a major research project that would take a great deal of time and have potential consequences and liabilities. And, of course, discussions of research on this very topic are easily found. https://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/e...

Second, if there's anything more intuitive that understanding that the brain is adaptive I don't know what it is. We would not even have the word "adaptive" if the brain wasn't adaptive, much less have the idiotic headline being discussed. It's one of dumbest things anyone could possibly think needed to be said. And here you're claiming you conducted research that originated before anyone on/. was even born to make this mundane point.

Third, you've offered up this lie to provide an example of how the brain can be rewired. The OP didn't say the brain can't be rewired, he said that this stupid phone cannot rewire your brain. You're not only a liar, you have reading comprehension problems.

As to why it's bullshit, the rewiring claim is literally in the headline yet it both false and entirely unsupported. The very definition of bullshit.

The quality of your education is showing, perhaps consider something other than psychology next time.

The Japanese "can design trucks anyway they want", too, including designing large trucks for the American market. Your comment says nothing, at least nothing good.

And does this truck look good? And are the wheels pushed as far as "it can" to the corners? And how about not putting the driver seat square in the middle? It doesn't seem like good packaging to me, and packaging is important, even to "Americans".

The argument here is not how great the design is from a function standpoint, it's the incredible value and flexibility it provides. It's remarkably ugly, but then so were the early Japanese trucks that were so useful for their cost.

Correct, the 2 seater is a pickup, the SUV has 5 seats.

Well, informed as usual, eh MAGA?

The standard MAGA attention to detail!

"If you're driving as a part of your job, it's not unreasonable to do several times more than that."

If you're driving LONG DISTANCE, it's not unreasonable. It would be unreasonable to expect this car to be suitable for that application, though.

" Or even if you're driving for fun. My 5-year old Tesla Model 3 has 150000 miles on the odometer."

That's 30K a year, not that unusual. It would take "several times" more than 17 years to drive the mileage that's not "unreasonable" as part of your job. That would be an unreasonable amount of time to expect a car to last.

"Plenty of industrial electronics can last that long."

Industrial electronics that would not be used in a car at this price point.

What is the point of stupid arguments that can't possibly pass the sniff test?

LOL as if driving school were required. This car has traction control and ABS, plus the battery makes for desirable weight distribution. There is no need for AWD for this class of product, nor is there anything special needed to drive it.

Citation please.