I've been looking at Linux phones for a while, and now the latest 'sideloading' lockdown from Google has pushed me to seriously consider getting off Android. What phones do you use or recommend for someone who has a little Linux experience?
Maybe start with GrapheneOS on a Google Pixel phone, its a privacy/security focused Android fork.
Otherwise for full Linux, take a look at shipping-with-Android devices that are semi-supported by postmarketOS, Mobian etc. Or go with vendors focused on non-Android Linux like Pine64 PinePhone, Purism Librem, Furilabs, Liberux and maybe some I forgot. The Debian Mobile wiki page has a whole lot of other links but I stopped maintaining it.
Smartphone Linux is a total mess. Even postmarketOS does not have a single fully supported and maintained device it can point to and say "buy this, you can run fully featured Linux on it". Very sad. The best option seems to be running Termux on GrapheneOS on the latest Pixels.
I fail to see what a new protocol would bring to the equation. I see it more as a human behaviour issue, network effect, worse is better etc etc.
My grandma uses Facebook because someone taught her how, she doesn't have the capability to explore technology on her own. That honestly goes for most people, they treat their computer as necessary for getting along in modern society and nothing more.
If you're willing to make the jump before GabeN makes it easy for all of us, I can recommend CachyOS with KDE Plasma.
I've recently made the jump and it seems to have stuck. This is at least the fifth time I've tried to switch over the last 20 years and it's the first time it even moderately feels like most things have just worked.
I'm not entirely sure that these fall specifically under the 'donation' and 'digital initiative' categories that OP specified, but these are the institutions and pieces of software that offer their wares for free which I use often enough to give money to/purchase from.
- Octoprint
- Grayjay/Futo
- Internet Archive
- Opensubtitles
- The Guardian
I used to donate to Wikipedia, but for various reasons switched that donation to IA.
I agree with every point here, and they all make a lot of sense... yet most alcoholic beverages are shipped to the consumer in glass bottles, including even the cheapest beers.
I have seen some drinks shipped in plastic, so it is possible to do, I wonder if glass packaging is a 'premium' thing. Though, if they can do it for cheap beer, then I'm sure they can do it for non-alcoholic drinks on scale.
It's about reducing costs for the producers and supermarkets, ignoring externalities. That is, tons of plastic that doesn't get recycled and goes to the landfill. Now the issue seems worse as another important externality are adverse effects to human health.
I can't believe costs of switching to glass or ceramic are that high. I've bought tons of inexpensive dairy and desserts that came packaged using those materials. But since most customers don't care, they tend to use plastic.
I've seen and had alcohol in plastic. They generally seem to do fine.
But damn did it feel cheap in a bad way. Being cheap is obviously one of the reasons we use plastic containers, but the feeling associated with plastic alcohol is just plain irrationally bad.
a 500 ml Al can weights 13 grams. life knows if we can skim down its weight if we don't have self openers, the price if we develop a better recycling system etc.
if plastics have impact on human health, how many $ we can save for using re-usable glass and metal?
I still haven't found a tactful way to bring this up, but have you considered a low- or zero-carb diet?
As far as I underdstand it, if you don't eat carbohydrates, you don't require insulin to deal with the spikes, and apart from a few grams in the bloodstream, humans require extremely little to no exogenous carbs.
I'd love to hear your thoughts if you've looked into this already.
Imho you can't really do a zero carb diet that's healthy. Keep in mind that even leafy vegetables have a bit of carbs in them. Low carb is possible and does indeed generally keep your blood sugar levels more stable. But even a meal that's mostly low carb vegetables and some meat still requires insulin if your pancreas has stopped working entirely.
I'm obviously a patient and not a doctor, but from what I've read as a Type 1 diabetic with (next to) no insulin production you have a life expectancy in the order of weeks, no matter what your diet is.
I didn't mean 'requires no insulin at all,' I know T1D requires some insulin to regulate blood sugar and to perform other functions in the body.
What I meant was that, for example in the OP article, a 60g bolus of carbs brings blood sugar from the bottom of healthy range all the way to the top of the healthy range in one go.
It just seems like an unnecessarily large and (for most) difficult to control jump in blood sugar. A lower-carb diet, say under 50g total carbs per day, should reduce blood sugar swings and increase their controllability, letting patients be in the healthy range of blood sugar for a higher percentage of the day.
In general yes, but again, unfortunately there are a lot of complicating factors. I can eat meals with 60g carb content and have my blood sugar levels barely move at all and I can also have, for instance, a beer with 15-20g of carbs that causes a 6 to 8 point rise. The trickiest part for me is finding the right balance between not having a massive meal peak, but also having stable levels in between meals. What works best for me personally is eating 'slow' meals i.e. meals that have a low glycemic index. These don't necessarily have to be low on carbs, but should be high in fiber, protein and unsaturated fats, which again is also very personal since each of our guts responds differently resulting in different rates of blood sugar production for different meals.
The problem with just eating low carb meals in my case is generally that it offsets the balance in between meals, i.e. I'll start seeing a consistent rise that might be something like 0.5-1 point per hour which eventually adds up. Of course you could increase your baseline insulin to offset that again, but it requires a lot of experimentation to get that balance right.
I do occasionally switch out my somewhat carb heavy lunch for a lighter low carb meal if I'm really busy and don't have time to go for a walk for instance. Generally that does work just fine to keep the initial rise low, but requires another 2 units of insulin about 2.5 hours after the meal because my blood sugar level keeps rising.
So in short, yes moderating your carb intake and especially ensuring your meals are slow are ways to make managing your blood sugar levels easier, but in my opinion it still requires experimentation to find out what works or does not work for you personally.
Type 1 diabetic as well here - I do this and I can confirm that I have much better control over my HB1C (average blood sugar reading) since I eat mostly a keto and plant based healthy diet (composed of minimally processed foods). One issue that I have though deals with hypoglycemia (low-blood sugar levels) since type 1 diabetics don't just require immediate insulin after meals - they require long-term acting insulin which works throughout the day. I've had multiple cases where I lost consciousness and woke up either in an ambulance or in a hospital feeling like someone hit me with a truck and having no recollection of how I got there. There is no 'magic' in managing type 1 diabetes unfortunately. The issue with us is that our blood sugar can swing in both directions - with the lower swing possibly resulting in death.
> As far as I underdstand it, if you don't eat carbohydrates, you don't require insulin to deal with the spikes, and apart from a few grams in the bloodstream, humans require extremely little to no exogenous carbs.
To put it bluntly: You don’t understand it.
Type 1 is different from Type 2.
A Type 1 person without insulin will die.
> “I will see that in someone with 0 percent insulin production, they’ll begin to fall ill within 12 to 24 hours after their last insulin injection, depending on its duration of effect. Within 24 to 48 hours, they’ll be in DKA. Beyond that, mortal outcomes would likely occur within days to perhaps a week or two. But I could not see someone surviving much longer than that.”
