If space utilization is the issue then use a 2.5mm jack. Like Palm (before HP) did over 10 years ago. Waterproofing a jack is not any harder than doing it for USB.
Eliminating the jack entirely just means I'll be looking elsewhere for my next phone and I've bought a lot of Google phones.
Bluetooth dropouts and interference are a regular occurrence. And dongles are not necessary unless the phone makers is just trying to make more money by removing existing functionality from the base device.
In Portland Oregon many ADUs are converted unattached garages, finished attics, finished basements and more rarely converted garden sheds. Particularly, in the areas where much of the closer to city center housing stock is pre-World War 2 and near good public transit.
ADUs have to meet current building and fire codes. Though there is a loophole where an on-site resident owner may do their own construction without permits.
ADU construction along with rental housing starts is also slowing due to recent city legislation and the threat of rent control which has been illegal in the entire state of Oregon since the 1980s. And the city of Portland via new regulation has already added friction and increased costs in their rental market exacerbating their "rental housing crisis" except for those renters already in existing rentals.
ADUs were popular additions on family occupied and/or owned Portland properties until the recent regulatory changes and rent control threat. Now there is added known risk and uncertainty.
Existing stakeholders see more traffic, less parking, more noise and disturbance. Higher density housing generally creates more conflicts among residents.
So existing residents already in place resist more residents arriving in the same area. Which is understandable, since ADUs do not address adding services provided by government to existing properties. They just increase the number of inhabitants in the same area.
Also much of Portland has a much better and less expensive public transportation system than the SF Bay Area does.
All true, yet here in Mountain View where I live, a rent-control ordinance was just passed. This might have been averted by promotion of an ADU housing supply and concomitant reduction of rent increase pressure, by mediation of a more-or-less open market.
Instead, Mountain View will have occult "markets", dealing in favors and claims of personal need.
One should always choose the lesser of two weevils.
Few cities have recovered their 1950 population, and the number of people per square foot of residence only keeps going down. I'm not sure this represents an increase in density.
Is this really correct though? If increasing the supply of housing allows people to live closer to heir jobs or other amenities, wouldn't that decrease traffic?
Fix the courts. Arbitration is not a a fair fix. At least if a case has merit and the aggrieved can find an attorney who will take the case on contingency. Attorneys don't take contingency cases that they don't think they can win. That is the best check against frivolous cases.
This is common. With Elder Care, if you did not agree to a Binding Arbitration agreement that usually also included a non-disclosure agreement that you would never disclose why you were seeking restitution via the only vehicle you contractually agreed too... arbitration you would not be accepted for any care options.
Correct. If you waive "due process" via binding arbitration you also lose the ability to sue for malpractice. Do not be stupid do not sign contracts that require binding arbitration particularly if they also require non-disclosure of why you invoked arbitration as your only option BECAUSE you agreed to it in the contract you signed.
An area that Mandatory Binding Arbitration must be eliminated is elder care. It recently took our family a considerable amount of effort to find a good care either in home or a facility that did not REQUIRE binding arbitration clause plus an NDA for family member who now needs 7/24 care.
This industry hires inexpensive and untrained labor that regularly makes mistakes that injure customers.
The "customers" in many cases have dementia or cognition issues.
Mandatory Binding Arbitration is almost always bad for customers. The game board is tilted against them. Arbitrators must be agreed to by both parties, but companies are the primary repeat customers of arbitrators and will NOT select arbitrators that don't usually and regularly find for them.
Binding Arbitration as currently used should be eliminated as an option in all contracts. It should always exist as an option of the parties, but not be binding at the initiation of any service.
Binding Arbitration is a tool of companies to allow them to NOT be accountable to their customers AND prevent that lack of accountability to made public.
A mandatory binding arbitration clause in any contract presented to you should always be a warning flag that the other side does not intend to be accountable.
Never enter into such contracts if you can avoid them.
>Arbitrators must be agreed to by both parties, but companies are the primary repeat customers of arbitrators and will NOT select arbitrators that don't usually and regularly find for them.
Is there any empirical evidence of this? I've done arbitration twice and the arbitrators seemed pretty impartial.
Most people just go with AAA arbitrators, which are well respected.
I've seen my colleges ask for information about potential arbitrators (I'm an lawyer but I don't specialize in arbitration), and never has anyone even suggested that an arbitrator was a company man or anything like that.
We need a low cost alternative to court. Courts apply strict procedural and eventuality rules and engage in broad discovery that really increases the cost of a case. A case costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
My biggest problem is that arbitration isn't really all that much cheaper than court in many cases now.
I think it would be interesting to have an online arbitration process for disputes under 10 thousand dollars. Both sides upload a memo arguing their side and attach accompanying documentation and evidence including sworn statements by witnesses. The arbitrator decides if a hearing is needed and if it is they do a video chat hearing.
It wouldn't matter if arbitration is just as fair as courts. The real problem is that the arbitration clauses do not permit class actions. This gives corporations license to rip consumers off as long as each individual ripoff is so small that it's not worth it for the consumer to litigate or arbitrate.
Do you feel the online aspect of such a procedure would make things materially cheaper? In other words, are the costs really in the time spend in court, or is it maybe that preparations for oral arguments are much more expensive?
I'm asking because my experiences with Dutch law are very different from what you describe (I have a law degree but I do not practice). Pretty much all civil procedures are done in writing here, and it's quite possible to go through a whole case for (much) less than USD10k (even when hourly rates are > USD200).
Of course, a case about an unpaid utility bill is very different from the example the GP gave, if an elderly patient gets hurt in a retirement home. In such cases you might need days or weeks of expert witness time @ 1 or 2 k per day. But that wouldn't be cheaper if the proceeding were done electronically.
We've seen this story before. It's as old as cross-platform software development tools.
A platform vendor buys and kills closed source code that makes it faster and easier to make applications across platforms including those the new owner does not control, so the closed source product is killed and all the developers who used it now have to re-write all the their apps costing them significant resources and money.
Can anyone really wonder why developers do not like to buy closed code that acts as glue between platforms and their applications?
The only time it's smart to do is if it lets you reach the market faster than others, and then only if that buys you time to get off the cross-platform tool before it lags and degrades in the face of platform updates the tool vendor does not control or dies.
Eliminating the jack entirely just means I'll be looking elsewhere for my next phone and I've bought a lot of Google phones.
Bluetooth dropouts and interference are a regular occurrence. And dongles are not necessary unless the phone makers is just trying to make more money by removing existing functionality from the base device.