• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 26th, 2023

help-circle

  • as with all technology though, as they become more accessible with newer models being made and other companies making foldables, the price for the same kind of quality product we have today will inevitably be less in the future.

    this is already happening with cpu performance, display quality, etc… it’s finally very affordable to get a 120 hz phone with a fantastic display and snappy processor, specifically thinking of something like the Galaxy A54 or Pixel 8 (on a sale)

    a general rule i use regarding technology purchasing is that newest featured top of the line products are best left to rich people who can afford it, as badly as i might want it.

    this goes for cars, phones, etc… one benefit to this is that it gives the product time to become not just more affordable, but better quality as well.

    the earliest foldables cracked at their fold points, but Samsungs newest fold phone survived JerryRigEverythings bend test which is impressive.

    in a few more years, this quality will surely be available at sub 1000 dollar prices, containing the most modern hardware which will be even better than is available now.






  • i know truth itself is not relative, so what is moral truth? to me it sounds like saying that following X persons subjective view of morality we can objectively say that Y is bad. this just then makes objectively proving a persons subjective morality a relative truth though, and not an objective truth, because we could express any side of morality, good or bad, objectively, and as you said, truth is not relative and only one truth must exist.

    if you’re talking about things like Sam Harris’ definition of morality being a sort of “majority wellbeing”, i’m sure that while we can theoretically allow for the redefinition of morality and make some objective truths regaridng that subjecte moral viewpoint, but as it is not being absolute in the universe and moreso being related to subjective wellbeing of the most amount of living things, i feel that this is still just fulfilling the subjective definitions.

    interestingly though, Sam Harris will go on all day about how we can’t redefine free will as being the ability to make choices which all life evidently has in common. just because these choices aren’t ultimately free, he rejects the “compatibilist” redefinition of free will.