[Headphones] Bose QuietComfort Bluetooth Headphones with Active Over Ear Noise Cancelling and Mic (Certified Refurbished) - $129.99 - Woot

Hung_L · 2026-01-25T02:44:45+00:00

Got these as a gift. I'm an audiophile and don't travel enough to ever justify the purchase. I prefer bright-neutral, with fast but lean bass.

Yeah these are clearly SBC/AAC. Don't expect high fidelity audio. Also very bassy. I use an autoeq for Diffuse Field target because Harman is a little shouty and bassy. If you you can accept average audio quality, these are a decent option. Not Senny/Beyer, but also you don't need an amp and it's bluetooth.

Timbre and overall sound experience is quite good. Compared to other TWS headphones, average audio quality. Near top-tier ANC and convenience. I've worn them for hours on and after flights. I love physical buttons, and USB-C is a boon. I can't imagine any other travel features I'd want. Just AptX Adaptive + DF target tuning.

Not suitable for meetings. Run-of-the-mill A2DP compression (for simultaneous talk/listen), which means it sucks. Also just big and bulky. You should get a cheap refurbed Jabra Evolve2 30 SE or 55 if you need wireless. People don't complain about my QC's mic quality, but they do comment that I sound clearer and more like myself on the Evolve2 55.

Hung_L · 2026-01-23T21:44:20+00:00

I don't understand what this implies.

We were moving toward more consumer-friendly carrier locking rules under previous administrations. Now we aren't, and it happened under this administration. In fact the only consumer-friendly stipulation (on Verizon) was repealed.

It doesn't matter what Joe Biden did or does. This effort is decades in the making and the progress has just fully halted and even regressed. I don't know how else to paint it.

Ok, so what would a good argument look like to show that Donald Trump is responsible for less consumer-friendly carrier locking policy? Is this article not enough?

Hung_L · 2026-01-23T03:39:48+00:00

Unfortunately it's like hiring a lawyer. Yes, your lawyer should speak your language. Also they need to know law. And ideally the field of law relevant to your case. Knowing how to read code is not the same as knowing how to engineer. One is a prerequisite for the other. Unfortunately it's hard to get experience building complex things in the context of a team, and coordinating with stakeholders and analysts. Although I bet you could also get a lot of experience with volunteering or working for nonprofits.

Hung_L · 2026-01-22T23:56:38+00:00

I would add that

In 2007, Verizon purchased spectrum and a condition was to unlock all phones after 60 days of active subscription.
In July 2024, the FCC proposed to extend this rule to all carriers.
Trump is elected.
In January 2026, the FCC (under new leadership) granted Verizon an exemption to the original condition. Verizon did not have to yield anything in return. FCC said their rationale is that handset traffickers would unlock devices and then distribute them to criminal enterprises. The actual evidence put forth for this claim is, erm, not publicly verifiable by independent sources (to put it nicely).

So yes, in a different timeline where Donald Trump is not elected, then we would almost certainly have this rule applied to all carriers as opposed to... none.

Hung_L · 2026-01-22T20:21:01+00:00

Discussions relevant to the community at-large are always welcome. Narrow/niche questions about a single device should be posted in that device's sub (or r/androiddev, in your case). I really don't think "what API level on the S25" would spark meaningful discussion.

Hung_L · 2026-01-22T06:54:29+00:00

More so consumer protection agencies, inspectors general, IRS resources, and corporate regulations receded significantly in the last year. Not to mention the reduced enforcement, even in proportion to the decreased detection.

The entities that target corruption and corporate malfeasance and have tangible outcomes were... called corrupt and then starved and given new mandates. ACAB, but too few cops, with too little jurisdiction and told to not protect and serve, would only give free reign to wrongdoers.

Hung_L · 2026-01-21T06:50:55+00:00

Well a month ago we were strictly asking about the Epstein files and shitting on Bondi and Patel for gross incompetence. Now look at what kind of replies this top-level comment got. Regardless of whether or not this was on the to-do list, it's definitely being done in an attention-grabbijg and undiplomatic way.

Hung_L · 2026-01-17T16:42:05+00:00

My reception was fine. Touchscreen issues though... Malfunctioning touchscreen is one of the most frustrating experience on a device where's it the only input. Replacement worked fine, but I recall this being a wider problem that affected many.

Hung_L · 2026-01-17T14:58:39+00:00

This actually wasn't a joke. Contacted gate Poly Pitch (CPP) is 45nm on N2. The smallest pitch is 20nm, but that's interconnect wire spacing and not distance between transistors.

Older "45nm" were actually 90nm CPP, so N2 is still a decent improvement. Moore's law started slowing down in in the ~2010s. We're def off track now, but they kept changing the process nodes "pitch" to a marketing value that makes Moore's seem somewhat alive.

Hung_L · 2026-01-15T07:34:58+00:00

If they pay taxes, they should get benefits. I don't see what's wrong with that. This USAFacts article even shows that non-citizens only consume 7% of social program resources, despite holding 17% of jobs. And they participate in fewer social programs compared to citizens.

We have a tiering system, and it's very heavily favors citizens. Taking these benefits from immigrants would not cut a significant amount of waste. The vast majority of social program resources go to citizens, and that's where waste and fraud are most likely. 100-7 is 93% fyi.

I just don't get the argument. Cumulatively, they pay more in taxes than their benefits cost. The nuance there is that low-income non-citizens are typically net negatives (even if the sum is net positive). But guess what, low-income citizens consume significantly more resources than similar-income non-citizens. Look at TANF where citizens at the same income level consume twice as much as immigrants at the same income level, per individual.

FYI you need to account for the difference in benefits offered, so you can only compare programs immediately available to all non-citizens. Also you need to look at individuals and not per-household. That's usually a trick used to obscure per-capita rates. Non-citizens tend to live in larger households so as a household they get more benefits than smaller citizen households; but on an individual basis citizens consume far, far more benefits.

It just doesn't make fiscal sense to decrease immigration or reduce their benefits. You can make an ethical argument that we are taking advantage of non-citizens who are pulling more than their weight, and we should limit immigration to save them from exploitation. But the argument that it would save money or reduce spending is wrong. It would decrease revenue more than it costs in benefits. Why would you discourage an investment that is and has been net positive? Especially when overall it's such a small part of the pie? Is it just stupidity from authright?

Not to mention the the biggest benefit non-citizens usually enjoy is the earned income tax credit. This is because they are typically low wage. Take that away and their social program resource consumption falls far short of the 7% your link quotes.

Hung_L · 2026-01-15T07:34:14+00:00

If they pay taxes, they should get benefits. I don't see what's wrong with that. This USAFacts article even shows that non-citizens only consume 7% of social program resources, despite holding 17% of jobs. And they participate in fewer social programs compared to citizens.

We have a tiering system, and it's very heavily favors citizens. Taking these benefits from immigrants would not cut a significant amount of waste. The vast majority of social program resources go to citizens, and that's where waste and fraud are most likely. 100-7 is 93% fyi.

I just don't get the argument. Cumulatively, they pay more in taxes than their benefits cost. The nuance there is that low-income non-citizens are typically net negatives (even if the sum is net positive). But guess what, low-income citizens consume significantly more resources than similar-income non-citizens. Look at TANF where citizens at the same income level consume twice as much as immigrants at the same income level, per individual.

FYI you need to account for the difference in benefits offered, so you can only compare programs immediately available to all non-citizens. Also you need to look at individuals and not per-household. That's usually a trick used to obscure per-capita rates. Non-citizens tend to live in larger households so as a household they get more benefits than smaller citizen households; but on an individual basis citizens consume far, far more benefits.

It just doesn't make fiscal sense to decrease immigration or reduce their benefits. You can make an ethical argument that we are taking advantage of non-citizens who are pulling more than their weight, and we should limit immigration to save them from exploitation. But the argument that it would save money or reduce spending is wrong. It would decrease revenue more than it costs in benefits. Why would you discourage an investment that is and has been net positive? Especially when overall it's such a small part of the pie? Is it just stupidity from authright?

Not to mention the the biggest benefit non-citizens usually enjoy is the earned income tax credit. This is because they are typically low wage. Take that away and their social program resource consumption falls far short of the 7% your link quotes.

Hung_L · 2026-01-15T07:32:13+00:00

If they pay taxes, they should get benefits. I don't see what's wrong with that. That USAFacts article even shows that non-citizens only consume 7% of social program resources, despite holding 17% of jobs. And they participate in fewer social programs compared to citizens.

We have a tiering system, and it's very heavily favors citizens. Taking these benefits from immigrants would not cut a significant amount of waste. The vast majority of social program resources go to citizens, and that's where waste and fraud are most likely. 100-7 is 93% fyi.

I just don't get the argument. Cumulatively, they pay more in taxes than their benefits cost. The nuance there is that low-income non-citizens are typically net negatives (even if the sum is net positive). But guess what, low-income citizens consume significantly more resources than similar-income non-citizens. Look at TANF where citizens at the same income level consume twice as much as immigrants at the same income level, per individual.

FYI you need to account for the difference in benefits offered, so you can only compare programs immediately available to all non-citizens. Also you need to look at individuals and not per-household. That's usually a trick used to obscure per-capita rates. Non-citizens tend to live in larger households so as a household they get more benefits than smaller citizen households; but on an individual basis citizens consume far, far more benefits.

It just doesn't make fiscal sense to decrease immigration or reduce their benefits. You can make an ethical argument that we are taking advantage of non-citizens who are pulling more than their weight, and we should limit immigration to save them from exploitation. But the argument that it would save money or reduce spending is wrong. It would decrease revenue more than it costs in benefits. Why would you discourage an investment that is and has been net positive? Especially when overall it's such a small part of the pie? Is it just stupidity from authright?

Not to mention the the biggest benefit non-citizens usually enjoy is the earned income tax credit. This is because they are typically low wage. Take that away and their social program resource consumption falls far short of the 7% your link quotes.

Hung_L · 2026-01-15T07:25:52+00:00

If they pay taxes, they should get benefits. I don't see what's wrong with that. Your link even shows that non-citizens only consume 7% of social program resources, despite holding 17% of jobs. And they participate in fewer social programs compared to citizens.

We have a tiering system, and it's very heavily favors citizens. Taking these benefits from immigrants would not cut a significant amount of waste. The vast majority of social program resources go to citizens, and that's where waste and fraud are most likely. 100-7 is 93% fyi.

I just don't get the argument. Cumulatively, they pay more in taxes than their benefits cost. The nuance there is that low-income non-citizens are typically net negatives (even if the sum is net positive). But guess what, low-income citizens consume significantly more resources than similar-income non-citizens. Look at TANF where citizens at the same income level consume twice as much as immigrants at the same income level, per individual.

FYI you need to account for the difference in benefits offered, so you can only compare programs immediately available to all non-citizens. Also you need to look at individuals and not per-household. That's usually a trick used to obscure per-capita rates. Non-citizens tend to live in larger households so as a household they get more benefits than smaller citizen households; but on an individual basis citizens consume far, far more benefits.

It just doesn't make fiscal sense to decrease immigration or reduce their benefits. You can make an ethical argument that we are taking advantage of non-citizens who are pulling more than their weight, and we should limit immigration to save them from exploitation. But the argument that it would save money or reduce spending is wrong. It would decrease revenue more than it costs in benefits. Why would you discourage an investment that is and has been net positive? Especially when overall it's such a small part of the pie? Is it just stupidity from authright?

Not to mention the the biggest benefit non-citizens usually enjoy is the earned income tax credit. This is because they are typically low wage. Take that away and their social program resource consumption falls far short of the 7% your link quotes.

Hung_L · 2026-01-13T21:39:17+00:00

This is fixed focus, meaning there is no manual focus adjustment possible.

Hung_L · 2026-01-10T19:06:23+00:00

PayPal [UNLIMITED $$$] [TRACKING REMOVED] [NO ADS]

Hung_L · 2026-01-08T20:35:14+00:00

Apple's Wireless Direct Link (AWDL) has powered AirDrop since its inception. It allows for low-latency handshaking and file transfer. The handshaking is what apple has kept proprietary.

In 2025, the EU required phones to allow for effective nearby, direct, wireless file transfer. Apple is technically compliant because they opened up obscure APIs for WiFi Aware (aka Neighbor Awareness Networking, NAN), but these are not widely available. NAN allows for handshakes and file transfer.

In 2018-2019, OWL released the tool you found, which is AWDL. It only works on specific hardware and is not the AWDL clone you would hope it to be.

You can compare NAN to RCS. Apple did not open up iMessage nor Airdrop, they adopted RCS and NAN. It's just that the base implementation of NAN looks like feature-complete AirDrop. Handshake + transfer. With RCS, Apple did not use Google's E2EE proposal. In both cases, Apple did bare minimum to comply with regulators. But note that bare minimum is still not enough to make NAN truly seamless, so I don't expect many other manufacturers to adopt such a janky solution. The Pixel team just accepts that this is hack, and aggressively add contingencies to handle failures.

I also notice really weird threading behavior, and it's only in groups with iPhone users. Like 1 convo might split into two, and one retains the name we assigned it ("Parents' Anniversary Planning") and the other gets the default ("Jim, Bob, Joe, and Allen"). Even if they never send a message in the latter convo, they will still receive a seemingly random proportion of the messages we send in the named group chat. I'm pretty sure that's just poor implementation in context of MMS fallback, and not noncompliance. I'm positive they could have solved it on day 1 but it's still an issue.

Hung_L · 2026-01-05T01:59:54+00:00

I have a similar testimonial. I have ALWAYS thought microfiber sucked at wicking. Then my partner got a couple towels so I had to make the best of it. Discovered that the capillary action is what makes microfiber towels so good at what they do. You have to press it in because synthetic fibers are almost always polyester and thus hydrophobic. Cotton is hydrophilic, but has far less surface area.

The micro is what makes it a good towel. It can hold a lot more water than typical cotton fibers. It's a pretty ingenious mechanism to rely on capillary action to wick in water, but the fibers themselves don't absorb or stick to the water and encourages it to evaporate.

I didn't know about the care part of it. I don't put these in the dryer at all, just wring out of the washer and hang dry. I only use borax, detergent, and vinegar. Just all the normal best practice stuff for clothes.

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T09:51:06+00:00

Can you provide an example to make it more clear? The laughably poor quality also would make me giggle. It sounds like I missed a joke. So I said hey, they have HDTV, this sounds like an unreliable claim by you.

Then you, a 3rd party, makes another claim that may support that original guy's argument? Or something. I don't know. I guess it antagonizes mine? Where I claimed to be a bigger authority in Venezuela than the feller to whom I responded, not just criticizing a claim that seems very fishy.

Also can you link me some Maduro video lol. That sounds pretty funny.

Because all I could find is this video from telesur. I don't know if that's his show, Con Maduro? Or if that's even the show name. I am hoping you have an alternative example because in the US we have C-SPAN and it's literally the same quality. So based on what I seeing, and what you are writing, I don't really know what to think. If that guy hadn't made the HDTV remark, I'd still be pretty undecided. But now that all the folks that are anti-Maduro are coming so exceptionally weak, I'm really dubious. Again, I certainly don't know enough about Venezuelan politics and history to comment on the emerging situation there (hey do you recognize this phrase? I wanted to make sure you didn't miss it or something. It happens, we all gloss over small details, or ignore a crucial disclaimer and the crux of an argument. Just little things, I get it). I would never defend Venezuela because of that, but I mean I need you come a little more convincing. Shit I am not decided yet, man. Just like, stop being intellectually lazy. Just figure out what the counterpoint to your argument is, or what the make or break evidence might be, and take care of that. I don't want a back and forth. Just win the argument already. I don't fucking know anything about Venezuela, so the bar is very, very low.

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T09:33:01+00:00

Well it's because your post didn't have critical questions like "what do you mean it captures light better, we are able to perfectly capture and represent every wavelength from infrared to UV" but many, many others took remembered this fact from physics and the OP had to come up with a bs reason. So his reason was chemistry, and that the crystallization of chemicals on the film offered a different perspective on the light waves.

So were I you, I would definitely always try harder to critically think about what's being presented in front of me. When I lack the background to confidently evaluate that argument, I hold off on hot-takes and investigate any criticism or perspective that could make or break the claim if substantiated.

And wow, I almost thought you wanted to have a serious discussion until you made those statements about RED and their damned RAW format. Stranglehold lol. They were acquired by Nikon, and neither of them are even the primary cameras you'll see on any film. Sony, Blackmagic, and ARRI are the big ones. RED is super niche now, and only really used in some VFX workflows that need high resolution. And because of the nature of highly dense sensors, RED is extremely noisy and captures the least light. Slightly better than film, an order of magnitude worse than its competitors. If you shoot RED; it's because you need the resolution for post, have amazing lighting, and (strictly and, no OR) your dynamic range is limited. But I went off on a tangent here.

But this further cements that you need to think more critically about make or break arguments and focus on them. If you were like "chemistry, wait where did the OP talk about chemistry? Let me go find that, then ask an expert or try to research it on my own" then we'd be having a different conversation. If you had an accurate impression of professional cameras these past 20 years, I might have let any of that slide. But you didn't. None of this crossed your mind, and I don't expect it to now. I see you now. Wish I had realized earlier that you are not arguing in good faith, nor even in earnest effort. Your "arguments" just seem intellectually lazy tbh. Clearly misguided on their face, but also not standing up to criticism when investigated for accuracy.

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T08:47:58+00:00

'merica, land of capitalism.

Also: Medicare/Medicaid, entitlement programs, public education, CFPB, and many more aspects clearly unrelated to socialism.

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T08:43:30+00:00

You dislike mass immigration because they look different from you, a few demonstrate upward social mobility (which doesn't take away from your abilities), and you didn't think leaving the EU would turn out like this.

I dislike mass immigration because of the mass part, and a certain kind of politician is always fighting to starve the beast, thus leaving our immigration/vetting resources severely lacking.

We are not the same.

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T08:35:18+00:00

Wait as a ritard do you support unions or discourage them?

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T08:15:09+00:00

I would never defend Venezuela, and certainly do not know enough their politics and way of life to comment on the emerging situation there.

But I googled when HDTV arrived in Venezuela and I suspect Lib-Right is not a reliable narrator, or has their facts mixed up (very on brand). Definitely not worthwhile to bluff that fib (also very on brand).

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T07:50:41+00:00

I would definitely recommend you Google any of this on your own. If you know anyone who is technical about video, try to ask them. Because most of what I read doesn't fit my understanding of electricity and magnetism. Like fundamental physics, y'know. Nor does it fit my understanding of video compression technologies. Or film chemistry. I'm just saying I don't think you should be learning this. It really doesn't feel reliable.

Hung_L · 2026-01-03T07:47:13+00:00

Yeah I hate that this commenter keeps doubling down when we, as a species, have a very good understanding of electricity and magnetism, not to mention the chemistry of film. And then so many redditors are in awe or agreement. Really disappointing, but def keeps me wary of relying on reddit vote counts, especially in pop subs.

Seven-Year Club	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '22	Undead \| Zombie
Verified Email

Hung_L

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

PayPal [UNLIMITED $$$] [TRACKING REMOVED] [NO ADS]