1645
Earbuds
(reddthat.com)
We used to have earbuds that don't need to be charged because they had a headphone jack, didn't get lost so easily because they had a cord attached to a headphone jack, never lost the bluetooth connection because they had a headphone jack, and they cost less because they had a headphone jack. https://bsky.app/profile/daisyfm.bsky.social/post/3l3mfjc6sn62k
And the cord would sometimes break inside/connector went bad.
Yeah, you'd snag the wire or slightly bend the connector and then you were just playing a game of making sure it stayed plugged into the exact right angle.
Had to make sure there has just the right tension on the left wire or you'd only get half the track. Bonus points for weirdly mixed stereo where that just sounded shit
Or replace it, those things were like 50 cents and all sorts of devices had earbuds delivered with them, included in the price.
and then you'd just replace them with one of the other three dozen you bought from Wal-Mart for five bucks back in 2016
And people wonder how the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and others like it came to be 🤦
hey I'll have you know I keep all my broken earbuds in the same box in the garage with all the other cables and assorted dongles I can no longer identify and will likely never use, like any responsible citizen should
If you think Bluetooth earphones won't also be in that pile once the batteries stop holding charge after 2 years, you're in for a world of dissapointing sex
My AirBudz are over five years old and still play for like five hours before I need to charge them… and I used them 40+ hours daily for all of those years.
How are your days 40+ hours long
We must know the secret of your 40+ hour days. Are you on Earth? What's the battery tech like on your planet? We could use some help.
My point wasn't wired vs wireless. It was disposable crap that breaks vs corporations not deliberately making crap the only thing most people can comfortably afford.
But they need to skimp on those few milligram ounces of solder per bud, so that they can make one extra low quality bud!
Or rather so they can make the same number of buds and double or more the profits for the amoral shareholder dividends.
Hah! *affably slaps shoulder* Yeah!
I don't think earbuds make up a significant percentage of the patch to be here virtue signaling and shaming people for what they were encouraged to do by corporate greed. Your source says the great majority of the patch comes from agriculture and fishing.
Cheap and disposable plastics and electronics IS a significant part of the world garbage problem and yes, plastic particles is MOST of the garbage patch specifically.
Whoa, dude, hold your horses! I'm in no way blaming consumers. Making consumer electronics cheap crap that breaks easily and everything of decent quality prohibitively expensive is 100% on the greedy corporations, not their victims the consumers.
Ok, admittedly a poor choice of example. Doesn't invalidate my intended point though, however ill-stated heh
This is tough -
(US here) Gets me thinking about dollar store headphones. Consumers could buy decent headphones for about $10 direct from overseas. When that’s equivalent to more than an hour of wages, there’s still demand for the $1 version. Should this need not be met out of a sense of social responsibility?
(I don’t have a perfect answer myself)
Econ 101 on my mind here btw:
The problem is that our economic system has encouraged an environment where reputation is a thing to be immediately cashed out. You can't even know if those $10 earbuds are any better than the $1 version.
You can make some reasonable assumptions although they will be imperfect:
Wouldn’t be as frequently imperfect if freaking review fraud weren’t entirely ubiquitous (grrrr)
I'm here for the wired headphone -> pacific garbage patch vs lithium battery child labor -> wireless headphone fight 🍿
Or we could just have quality standards and price controls so that regular people can afford decent headphones that don't break all the time whether they prefer wired or wireless 🤷
And a worldwide ban on child labor, of course.
Don’t fool yourself. Slave labor of children is not exclusive to batteries. They make most of the world’s textiles, for example.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods-print
Did I give you the impression I was fooling myself, or were you just speaking to the wider audience?
The wording implies that the wired headphones weren’t manufactured using child slave labor.
I disagree, but I also failed English 101 so 🤷🏻♂️
Somewhere the discussion chain has the following transition:
-> Hitler
You think wireless earbuds are better?? lol
Earbuds? Yes.
Real headphones? Nah
I'd imagine the limited lifespan of their batteries and the fact that they have ones to begin with would be of bigger concern
That’s fair. My first pair still works awesome after five years, and I’ve used them for 40+ hours a week for that whole time. I only have a new pair because I needed ANC, but I still use my old pair to sleep.
I think the headphones I'm using are 20 year old. But to be fair, a lot of them either don't last that long or are simply thrown away for some new thing.
Again, wasn't making a wired wireless argument. See my other reply itt for elaboration.
You might want to edit the comment since in the context it definitely sounds like saying wireless would be better
Not really, no. I'm responding to a comment about cheap buds that break too easily, which isn't exclusive to wired ones.
There's literally no mention of the wired vs wireless aspect in my comment or the one I'm replying to.
My friend, the whole thread is about wireless vs. wired. That's the context your post is in. And you've already had several people misunderstanding your intention because it is written in that context without clarification that it's not supposed to be the same as other comments here.
Not my comment. I'm clearly commenting on a separate aspect. That others try to ascribe a nonexistent secondary meaning that I haven't so much as hinted at isn't my fault.
I'm personally not a big fan of spelling out the obvious, but ok:
You're wrong to assume that my comment follows the previous theme from pure proximity and it's annoying to have to bend over backwards to facilitate the poor reading comprehension (if not bad faith) of people making up their minds about what I'm saying before reading it.
You seem to have been overestimated how clear that was.
That's just how context works.
Idk if you know how conversation work but people typically use and understand context. If you don't mind people misunderstanding you, then no need to do anything. If you do mind it, it might be helpful to spell things out. But it's up to you really, I don't mind either way.
Stop.
You know, a better way to stop the discussion would be to just stop replying and walk away from it. Some might think it a bit rude if you try to order them to stop lol.
Others might think it's rude to keep going on and on and on about me having the responsibility for your misunderstanding of my completely clear and concise commented and how clearly ANYTHING said within a comment thread is about the same thing, regardless of the words and immediately preceding context.
I keep answering because part of my mental handicap is impulse control problems. I'm not good at letting it go when people are being wrong and/or obnoxious and refuses to listen to reason.
What's YOUR excuse? Why is it so important to you that your misunderstanding be declared the only logical reaction to my comment?
I'm just saying that it clearly (heh) wasn't that clear since so many misunderstood it. The context threw people off. So I just suggested how it could be avoided and explained why it happened. But it's your comment, entirely up to you to do with it as you'd like.
I think you're taking this a bit too seriously and a lot more personally than it was intended tbh.
Literally you and one other person. That's not "many" by any definition of the word.
Again, you and one other person isn't "people"
There. Now everyone understands.
Could have fooled me with gestures towards this entire conversation
Yeah sure, use the "just kidding!" tactic of the stubbornly wrong. My younger brother does that too when he finally realizes that he's been confidently wrong for half an hour and doesn't want to admit it.
I counted three the first time we started talking (out of maybe five) but I might've read something twice. Not counted are of course the people who agreed with those sentiments but didn't make their own comments. Not that it is very important. It certainly confused some people (because of the context).
I wasn't kidding, I just think there's need to take it this seriously and especially personally. It was understood wrong because of the context, it could be clarified, only benefit from that would be that it could possibly prevent others from commenting about the wireless vs wireless thing. So no difference to me really.
There's literally two, including you. There was never a mass misunderstanding and the only other one confused enough to assume reacted MUCH better than you when I clarified. This is a YOU problem.
The only thing I'm taking personally is your insistence on disregarding everything I say in favor of your own obviously incorrect assumption. That's extremely disrespectful and thus personal.
I don't think this is a much of a problem at all tbh. It's just a comment and a misunderstanding.
I don't think there's need to take it so personally though. Nothing about this is big enough deal imo to be upset over.
Or if you buy the better ones you can usually replace the cord with a new one, making it work again.
The TWS equivalent to that is one of the buds no longer turning on. I just had to RMA a pair because of that.