Same, Facebook Marketplace is really good at my location because there is nothing else and never have been. It's not like Facebook destroyed something, no one else offered a classified sites like this
What does this mean here? The first several cities outside the US that I tried on craigslist were direct hits, with postings. People could use craigslist, they just don’t.
I just like the build quality and they are reaching the 200€ threshold on the used market. I bought one with 16GB RAM and a small black strip one the side of the screen (don’t bother me) for 230€ last week
>they are reaching the 200€ threshold on the used market.
Where?! I just cheeked the used market in Austria and 2020 M1s go for at least 350 for the 8GB RAM models and 450 for the 16GB model. Your 230 for the 16gb one fells more like a rare exception but not them norm everywhere.
Damn that's lucky. I checked facebook marketplace in Austria and prices are double that of what you're showing, even on Intel macbooks, there's no M1 macs for 200 Euros, only 400 Euros and up. Same on Vinted. No 200 Euro M1s, only at 2x the price.
The ones that I saw similarly low to yours are obvious scams from scam profiles all repeating the same message in the ad.
So maybe the ones you saw are scams as well. Otherwise hungary seems to be a lucky exception for some odd reason. Maybe because people have less disposable income, IDK?
Anyway, I wouldn't spend 400 Euros on a used mac with no warranty. The point of buying an old ThinkPad for cheap was that if something broke on it you could easily swap that part yourself for cheap because it was easily repairable and the used market was flooded with spare parts. But if your used macbook dies out of warranty, then you're shit out of luck, you can't fix anything, it's 400 Euros wasted.
I bought one already so I know it's not a scam. Scams usually communicate badly and they don't want to meet you in a public space (like a McDonald's with free wifi)
Obviously ymmv
>Anyway, I wouldn't spend 400 Euros on a used mac with no warranty.
This I agree with. I still prefer Thinkpads too but these M1s are also pretty good in almost every sense except for repairability
Break free from Android... by installing Android? I'm not sure it's really breaking free when the first task to do is intall Google Play Services so your banking app works.
I would put the focus on having capable web-banking. I never install the banking app on my phone.
I must also be getting old, because I don't get the big fuss about NFC payments. Firstly, I'd never use them if they go through Google/Apple. But even when/if they don't, it's not a big deal to use a card, isn't it (if you hate cash)?
> But even when/if they don't, it's not a big deal to use a card, isn't it (if you hate cash)?
Card is usually linked to the US. Some people would like to not depend on that. But the rational solution IMO is for the banking system to use QR codes instead of NFC. Some countries do that and it just works.
> Card is usually linked to the US. Some people would like to not depend on that.
You have a point, and even though it looks like it will be a very corporate-driven system, and possibly dependent on Google or Apple, there seems to be an EU payment system on the making (if it ends up depending on Google or Apple, that will be the irony of leaving VISA/Mastercard to fall in the fangs of Google / Apple, but... oh well, one step at a time).
I think the name is Wero, it was on HN a few days ago.
The new payment networks are not an independent app. They are a protocol your banking app has to implement, so unless your bank supports non-Google phones you are out of luck (not my case, thankfully).
AOSP is Android without the Google proprietary stuff (and without the manufacturer proprietary stuff, e.g. Samsung's). If you install bare AOSP, it will look like the Android on a Pixel phone, but the biggest difference you will see is that it won't have the Play Services or some Google apps.
If you want to be a certified Android system (like all Android manufacturers do), you have to port AOSP to your hardware, install the Play Services as a system app (giving Google root access), install the system apps you want (e.g. Samsung have their own UI, maybe their own camera, their own store that they want to be installed as system apps), pass some conformity tests by Google (Google wants to ensure that it's good enough to be called "Android") and pay a ton of money to Google for the licence.
But as an individual, you can just download the AOSP sources, build them and install them on your phone. It's AOSP, but not Android.
GrapheneOS is based on AOSP. /e/OS is based on LineageOS which is based on AOSP. Those are not Android systems, they are AOSP-based systems. In a way like Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian. Those are different layers. If you hate Canonical, it doesn't mean that you have to hate Debian, even though Canonical does contribute to software that runs in Debian (like the Linux kernel). The comparison is worth what it's worth, but I hope you get my point :-).
> To build an Android-compatible mobile device, follow this three-step process:
> 1. Using AOSP, implement Android on your device.
> 2. Ensure your device complies with the Android Compatibility Definition Document. The CDD enumerates the software and hardware requirements for an Android-compatible device.
> 3. Pass the Compatibility Test Suite (CTS). Use the CTS as an ongoing aid to evaluate compatibility during the development process.
AOSP is how Android is being distributed. Being "Android-compatible" (implementing Android and passing CTS) does not automatically give you access to Google Play, it just unlocks the possibility of licensing it:
> After achieving compatibility, your device is considered Android compatible and you can consider Licensing Google Mobile Services (GMS) and prepare to use the Android trademark.
Google restricts the use of "Android" trademark on hardware, packaging or marketing materials of devices and requires prior approval of any use, but that doesn't make AOSP "not Android". If you insist otherwise, you're going against common use of these terms.
In fact, not just "common use", but even Google's use - AOSP's homepage has this as its headline:
> Android is an open source software stack created for a wide array of devices with different form factors.
It also tells you how to "get the Android source" or "build the Android OS".
Sure, many apps that are being called "Android apps" are in fact apps for the Google Play platform (perhaps that's where you got your confusion from), but that doesn't make Android-based systems non-Android.
Just like Linux can mean "the Linux kernel" or "a Linux distribution" in "common use of the terms", Android can mean "a device that can legally be advertised using the Android trademark" or "whatever looks like Android to people".
Now when someone says "Break free from Android... by installing Android?", either they are having fun by using the two different meanings in the same sentence, or they are confused and genuinely believe that using GrapheneOS does not allow you to break free from the system running on a device that can legally be advertised using the Android trademark.
To that, I answer that GrapheneOS is not a system that can legally be advertised using the Android trademark, but rather a system that is based on what is commonly (and can legally be) called AOSP, which is made of the open source codebase that builds the system that can legally be advertised as Android.
Similarly, in a discussion about kernels, Android is a Linux system, but in a discussion about OSes, Android is not a Linux system. If I write an article about "breaking free from Linux by using Android", where the context makes it exceedingly clear that I'm talking about Linux as an OS and not Linux as a kernel, and you say "it makes no sense, you're talking about breaking free from Linux by installing... Linux", then I think you're confused. As in: you did not understand what the article was talking about.
You're vigorously defending a poorly thought out title by inventing irrelevant contexts and falsely accusing multiple people of being wrong because they claimed such uncontroversial things like "AOSP is Android". Sure, if we want to be strictly correct then AOSP is not Android, but rather the name of a Google project that distributes the source code of Android - but that's not how the term is commonly used in these discussions nor how you used it either.
What people objected to is the concept of "breaking free from Android" by using a distribution of Google-developed Android. Interpreting the title as "break free from flavors of Android that can use the Google's trademark in their marketing; here's one that can't" is just ridiculous and not what anyone will think about when reading it. The current one ("break free from Google") is still objectionable, but slightly less since one could perhaps make a somewhat correct point that relying on Google-developed codebase that's soft-forked by someone else actually is significant enough step away from using something that comes straight from Google and tightly integrates with their proprietary services. It's still quite obviously hyperbolic, especially when actual non-Android alternatives also exist.
> Sure, if we want to be strictly correct then AOSP is not Android, but rather the name of a Google project that distributes the source code of Android
Thank you.
I do find it ironic that you could not understand what I mean given that you're the kind of people who say "GNU/Linux".
This means GOS is not AOSP either, because it's not that particular project. It takes the Android source produced by AOSP and builds on it. But what you agreed to is just pointless pedantry that leads directly to this outcome, as everyone uses "AOSP" to refer to what AOSP produces (which is a particular flavor of Android that serves as a base to build other flavors on).
It stops being ironic when you take some time to understand that the two cases only appear related superficially, but are actually quite different. You could even say opposite.
>Chess960, also known as Fischer Random Chess, is a chess variant that randomizes the starting position of the pieces on the back rank to eliminate memorized opening theory and emphasize creativity from move one.
> People saying IRC are trolling or never used Discord.
I think it's probably that Discord has such a range of use cases.
I only ever use Discord for open source projects that have communities there. Discord supports a whole load of stuff around voice chat etc, but I've genuinely never used it.
Open source projects I've seen mainly just use it as a text chat, so they could in theory switch to something else with only a tiny fraction of the features.
But I remember when Discord began, I was actually the person who got around 10~ people onboarded onto the platform back in 2015-2018, because I simply thought it was the best way to communicate with a group of people or single person, in multiple ways like text, voice and video, with extremely low friction to do all of these things. Eventually the hold-outs joined too on their own volition, and that was because of network effects.
A platform does not start growing because of network effects, that's what keeps a platform alive and growing later on, but it starts its growth because people really prefer it to the alternatives (which back then for me was Skype and TeamSpeak).
Nowadays I'm not too happy with Discord anymore, some of it because of enshittification, but most of it is me being spoiled by what we already have, and being used to having this huge centralized (as in, can handle lots of different activities without switching to another platform) social tool that does everything I want it to, without me having to think about it at all.
Thing is, the alternatives, are not as good as Discord, and it really isn't close enough for me. Matrix would be the one I would love most to succeed, but everytime I used Matrix and Element, it's been a massive struggle, encryption constantly breaks (still), joining rooms still fails, rooms are spread about randomly, either standalone or in the new Spaces, searching for rooms is usually broken except on the large matrix.org instance, recently a bunch of rooms migrated because the event syncing completely failed and the decentralized state was broken. Not to mention the contant CSAM attacks (Does anyone know why this happens so much on Matrix? Is it really only because of the bad moderation and the fact that it auto-downloads the illegal images? Just feels so disappointing...).
I really hope we get a really good Discord alternative, maybe even an open-source and decentralized one, if possible. I would really rather not jump onto another proprietary platform.
I've been using it with my group of friends for a about a month now. Its quite solid in my opinion, uses a peer to peer system with an option to host a central server for video.
Only one participant can stream in a call. An arbitrary restriction that I just dont understand.
You also can't properly full screen when you're viewing a screen share, for whatever reason....
It's also a UI that makes covert (bot) advertising basically useless. Any form of communication that is not one-on-one-real-time has a bad UI and is heavily deprioritized.
reply