Why though? What added utility does it offer? What problem does it solve? How does it improve upon the experience? These phones have fundamentally bad designs; not because of how they look (though that doesn't help many of them), but because of how they work.

The Samsung Galaxy Fold was a complete disaster. The new Motorola Razr seems pretty poorly built as well. The Samsung Galaxy Flip Z looks like a GameBoy and can’t really be used while it’s closed, and they’re marketing it as having “foldable glass”, which is clearly a lie.

Not only do these phones not offer a measurably better experience, by all indications, they’re garbage. Even the ones that seem well built break and fall apart, often in a very short amount of time.

I think we’ll eventually see foldable devices that feel like they’re truly more useful than non-foldable ones, but so far nobody knows what the use case is for a phone with a folding display. As of right now, all of these phones have a gimmicky feel to me. They’re strangely reminiscent of the phone I had in seventh grade, the Motorola Krave, which was a touchscreen flip phone with a completely transparent flip. Sure, phones like this look cool and they seem to be pushing the envelope of what technology can do in the present, but their blockbuster features arguably make them less useful. At least the Motorola Krave had decent build quality.

Check out this great piece on Mark Zuckerberg by Steven Levy, writing for WIRED.

In the early days of Facebook, Zuck kept his plans for world domination in handwritten journals. He destroyed them. But a few revealing pages survived.

Much of Levy’s piece was informed by what Zuckerberg wrote in those journals, as well as interviews with Zuckerberg himself and other Facebook executives. The pattern of corporate irresponsibility and depravity we’ve seen from Facebook recently has been there since the very beginning.

What distinguished Facebook from other social networks was the assumed privacy provided by its gated setup [when Facebook was only available to college students]. Open Reg[istration] would throw open those gates to the masses. But would people then no longer see Facebook as a safe space? In designing Open Reg, he posted one final question to himself.

“What makes this seem secure, whether or not it actually is?” He seemed at least as concerned about the perception of privacy as with privacy itself.

”What makes this seem secure, whether or not it actually is?” Incredible.

Using Facebook needs to feel like you're using a futuristic government-style interface to access a database full of information linked to every person. The user needs to be able to look at information at any depth … The user experience needs to feel “full.” That is, when you click on a person in a governmental database, there is always information about them.

A government-esque catalog of every person in the world. Charming. But not everyone would sign up for Facebook, so this wasn’t achievable. Not to fear, Zuckerberg had a plan.

He took three pages to lay out a vision for something he called “Dark Profiles.” These would be Facebook pages for people who, whether by omission or intention, had not signed up for Facebook. […]

Zuckerberg was aware that allowing the creation of profiles for people who had no desire to be on Facebook might stir up privacy concerns. He spent some time pondering how this could avoid being “creepy.” Maybe, he mused, dark accounts might not be included in search engines.

Shadow profiles are not a joke, they’ve been a part of Facebook’s plan from the very early days.

There will be a tipping point for Facebook. One after another, the curtains are being pulled back and what we’re finding is that the people behind Facebook have always been immeasurably negligent and downright disrespectful of their users. Hopefully, stories like this will move public opinion against Facebook sooner than later, and embolden people to delete their profiles.

#deletefacebook

A Primer On Pete

This time last year, like most people, I had no clue who Pete Buttigieg was. I first heard about him when my cousin sent me a tweet from The Hill that linked to a story where Chasten Buttigieg, Pete’s husband, told of making Pete taking the Pottermore sorting quiz (R.I.P. Pottermore), and finding out that he was a Hufflepuff. I thought this was interesting and out of character for a politician (they’re a very Slytherin-y bunch), so I decided to look into him a bit more, and I liked what I found.

At the time, Pete had very little name recognition, so he was a bit less reserved in sharing his opinions, and he didn’t have to be quite as “on” in all of his interviews. He felt distinctly human, and he wasn’t afraid to opine on weighty topics like court reform and other issues that more standard candidates weren’t enthusiastic to tackle. One of the most interesting aspects of Pete’s campaign early on was his focus on healing the division in our nation through expanded public service programs. He used his military experience to provide anecdotes to illustrate the strength of service to heal wounds and bring people together who may have drastically different political beliefs and world views. Pete remains the only candidate to have put forth such a proposal, and I think it has real potential.

I was also encouraged that the first gay candidate to make a serious run for President wasn’t one who relied upon his sexuality to build a base of support; being gay was a part of Pete’s personal story but it’s far from the dominant aspect of his personality. He’s done a good job of not allowing his sexuality to become his personality, as so many openly gay men do.

Pete’s campaign continued to steadily gain steam from when I first learned about him in March, eventually making it to the debate stage in June, where he impressed me again. He didn’t get a ton of talk time, mostly due to the crowded field of hopefuls, but he did well enough to justify the interest I’d had in him for the past few months. After the second debate, I felt a little let down. It was clear that Pete was gaining in popularity, but he still wasn’t performing how I’d have liked in the debates, and his second round seemed a little weaker than the first. Throughout the next several debates, Pete‘s performances had a very “same story, different day” feel that I couldn’t see past. It was as if his gaining popularity had tongue tied him a bit, and he was more afraid to keep up the genuine persona he had brought forth in the interviews that made me like him so much. He stopped talking about his truly new ideas and started relying on cliches about a “new generation” of American politics. In turn, I began to look toward other candidates for a potential favorite, but I kept Mayor Pete in my back pocket.

Fast forward a few months, and Pete has made it farther than I expected, while no other candidate has been able to pique my interest the way he did. We’re now at the point where a Buttigieg presidency is not a pipe dream. After all, from a delegate standpoint, he’s currently winning the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination (delegates aren’t necessarily the best metric and the race is far from over, but still, he’s doing much better than most people predicted in the run up to the Iowa caucuses).

Pete has a wide base of support, in part because he made it a point early on to welcome independents and frustrated Republicans to his campaign. His appeal reaches across demographics like education level, class, and sex, though he struggles mightily with minority voters. His welcoming rhetoric from a year ago has helped him position himself as serious candidate who is diametrically opposed to Donald Trump in almost every way, though without alienating the moderate Republicans and independents he’ll need to win the general election. While Trump is old, steeped in corruption, temperamental, and offensive, Pete is young, a political newcomer, measured, and compassionate, and he knows that’s what a lot of “future former Republicans”, as he calls them, are looking for.

His appeal to Republicans is not negated by the fact that the way he speaks is strikingly reminiscent of Barack Obama. Many have drawn this conclusion, and for better or for worse, he seems to be leaning into it, having ramped up on the cliches and the dramatic-yet-matter of fact tone of voice. Colin Jost called him out for it on SNL last week, and it was a pretty funny sketch.

Buttigieg has his critics though: he seems to be the internet’s favorite person to attack, lately. The air left, social Justice Warriors, and Bernie fans across the Twittersphere jump at the opportunity to lambast Pete whenever they unearth any tiny morsel of a reason for them to dislike him. Some go so far as to call him a “closet Republican” or a “corporate tool”. They accept his decade-ago work with McKinsey and his openness to accepting donations from wealthy individuals as stone cold proof that he’s a conservative double agent. We shouldn’t ignore relevant evidence that provides insight into any candidate’s intentions, but what they've got on Pete is pretty sparse.

While his policies aren’t as progressive as some of the candidates’, to call Pete a “closet Republican” is severely misguided — I’m unaware of any Republican politicians who are calling for any meaningful action to combat the climate crisis, universal healthcare, more affordable college, gun control, or expanding DACA — Pete would have the most progressive agenda of any President, if elected. At the same time, he’s drawn out his policy proposals carefully, and he hasn’t gone as far as some candidates, not only because he doesn’t want to alienate moderates, but because he’s pragmatic, and he knows that some of the proposals coming out of the Bernie and Warren campaigns simply aren’t feasible.

The Elephant In The Room

Contrary to the historical nature of Pete being the first gay candidate to make a serious run for the White House, his sexuality seems to be the aspect of his candidacy that people are most reluctant to discuss. My primary concern with Pete at this point is that he is gay, and I think we’ve got to stop pretending that America is now so progressive that we don’t even need to look at how running a gay guy against Donald Trump may not be a great plan. The issue isn’t that I believe his sexuality would prevent him from winning, though it would be a hurdle with some voters. Instead, I fear that his candidacy, whether he wins the general election or not, would do more harm than good for LGB people, particularly those in less progressive areas: allow me to elaborate.

Despite Donald Trump’s remarks that he thinks Pete’s marriage is “great” and “absolutely fine”, he knows as well as we do that many of his evangelical supporters do not think Pete’s relationship is fine, much less great. While Trump himself may refrain from outright homophobic attacks, his supporters will not, and we know that Trump has no moral qualm with benefiting from dangerous social problems like racism and xenophobia that enflame his base — to assume that he would be above benefitting from homophobia would be a rosy assumption. Given the extreme political division in our country right now, it’s easy to imagine the outrage from the right and the low levels to which they would stoop to tear down and discredit a Democratic presidential candidate who is gay. The smears and attacks that would emanate from the far right nuts and evangelicals would give young people in less progressive areas who are questioning or coming to terms with their sexuality a debilitatingly grim idea of what the future may hold for them. And that’s not even to mention that Trumpism can be clearly associated with significant increases in hate crimes, which could pose a direct threat to LGB people who are already out in regressive communities.

While LGB rights gained traction with historic haste, a gay presidential candidate would drag LGB issues back into the spotlight just a mere handful of years since the legalization of gay marriage. My personal philosophy is that the best way to achieve societal normalcy and acceptance is to, more or less, fake it ‘til you make it. If you act like you’re already the same as everyone else, soon enough, they’ll see you that way. Obviously, there are going to be some homophobic assholes who never get on board, but feather boas and pride parades aren’t going to convince them, it’s just going to validate their misguided beliefs. I don’t think it’s in our best interest to have our individual liberties thrust back into the arena of public opinion for deliberation such a short time after the legal rights have been afforded to us.

Even despite the unease I feel for the future prospects for young men like myself who will have to deal with coming out to unaccepting family members in the south and other regressive places, I still think Mayor Pete is our best option for 2020. Occasionally, what may be best for you personally or people like you isn’t necessarily what’s best for everyone. Even if same sex attracted people have to sustain a few blows to oust Donald Trump, it will have been for the greater good, and I believe Pete Buttigieg has the best chance of defeating Donald Trump.

Decision Time

There are several good democratic candidates, though they each have their own electability hurdles. Bernie Sanders is clearly Pete’s biggest competition for the nomination at this point, but his self proclaimed status as a democratic socialist will hurt him among moderates and more or less guarantee the absence of any noteworthy level of Republican support, if only for the abysmal connotation of the word “socialism” in the United States. Amy Klobuchar, who’s popularity is spiking, hasn’t really had her record scrubbed yet, and she also has extremely low minority support, and she’s a woman (I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for a woman or that she’s any less qualified or capable on account of her sex, but that there are still plenty of sexists in the United States who may vote for a man but not a woman (a gay man though, who knows?)). Elizabeth Warren’s support is fading fast, and while her policy positions are clear, her position among the field of democratic candidates is not; increasingly few people seem to have an appetite for Diet Bernie®. Joe Biden's support is crumbling at an astonishing rate. Tulsi Gabbard is simply not a viable candidate. Andrew Yang has now dropped out. Mike Bloomberg is a billionaire, and if the left has learned anything over the past three years, is that candidates who buy their way into power are rarely suited for it.

Regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, anyone who wants rid of Trump should support them wholeheartedly. In any case, throughout the primary process, we should focus on building up our favorite candidate, not tearing down his or her competition or threatening not to vote for them in the general election.

Pete has demonstrated that he has staying power and that he can attract voters from across the political spectrum. He’s the candidate we need. If you agree that Pete Buttigieg is the best candidate to take on Donald Trump, you can support him by donating to his campaign and telling your friends and family about why you think he’s our best bet.

Emerson College Polling:

Among Sanders supporters, 16% will not vote for the nominee if Sanders doesn’t win, while 30% say it depends on the nominee.

This is clearly an issue among the Sanders campaign, in particular. If you’re one of these “Bernie or bust” people, you have a serious lack of foresight, and you should be ashamed. The time for moral absolutism is not when Donald Trump is the alternative. Stop being selfish and support the nominee, no matter who it is.

CopyrightBro has recently partnered with TwelveSouth, a company committed to making the finest accessories available for Apple products, to bring our readers reviews of some of their latest products.

The first product we reviewed was the AirFly Pro, which is a nifty little bluetooth dongle that provides bluetooth input and output functions for devices that otherwise rely on wires. An example of a use case where it would serve as a transmitter for output would be if you have wireless headphones that you want to use with a source that doesn’t support bluetooth output, like machines at the gym or the seatback screens on airplanes. An example of a good use for input is if your car has an AUX port but doesn’t connect to your phone via bluetooth, the AirFly Pro is the missing link that can give you a wireless audio setup.

I was able to test the output functionality at the gym so that I could hear the TVs on my AirPods, and everything went off without a hitch. However, unless you really like listening to whatever is playing on the TV at the gym or you’re a frequent flier who loves their airline’s in-flight infotainment systems, most people are probably just going to connect to their own devices anyway. Despite being marketed more for this use case, I found the input use to be far more handy.

My car has an AUX port but no bluetooth support, so the AirFly Pro has been able to save me from the messy situation I had before, where I was having to use an AUX cord and Apple’s lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack adapter. Now, I have the AirFly Pro connected to my AUX port and also plugged into the charger (it is battery powered, so you have to either take it inside to charge it every couple days, or just leave it connected to power in the car). The actual pairing process is easy: you just press the big button on the dongle for a second or two each time you get in the car, and it connects with no hiccups.

While it works well for input and output, I can’t help but imagine most people are going to use it for input. At $55, it’s not cheap, and there are certainly other options out there that don’t cost as much. However, the one-button simplicity of the AirFly Pro is very convenient, and it’s ability to work for a variety of use cases put it a step ahead of its competition. If you’re only looking for an input solution, you may find something better, but if you care about convenience and versatility, the AirFly Pro is a great option.

Target recently launched a new brand, All In Motion, which makes various activewear garments. They seem to be of decent quality, and I like some of the designs for the men’s products. However: the logo.

Yikes.

Surely, I’m not the only one who thinks this looks like “KKK” backwards?! What corporate dunce in Target’s marketing department let this horrible design get past the drawing board?

As I mentioned, I like several of the All In Motion products, but I’m honestly not comfortable buying a product with that logo on it. Hopefully they rebrand sooner rather than later.

Bookmark this for future reference.

"Don't you think it's just great to see the fact that you've got a guy there on the stage with his husband and it's normal?" Fox's Steve Hilton asked. 

"I think it's absolutely fine, I do," Trump said.

He agreed with Hilton’s assessment that Buttigieg’s candidacy “is a sign of great progress,” adding “yeah, I think it’s great. I think that’s something that perhaps some people will have a problem with, I have no problem with it whatsoever.”

This excerpt is from a CNN article*, but you can find the original video here.

Hopefully the day never comes when Trump falls back on attacking Buttigieg’s sexuality, but if it does, we’ll at least have this to sow discord among the homophobic bigots who never question Trump’s commitment to their straight white interests.

*It’s worth pointing out that CNN’s analysis of this story was a bit jaded and poorly informed, despite the fact that this was a rare occasion where they could’ve painted Trump in a positive light. They make the mistake of conflating LGB issues with transgender issues, as well as deploying the tired tactic of bringing up Mike Pence’s alleged historical support for conversion therapy to paint the Trump administration as homophobic. The fact is that while portraying Trump and his cronies as homophobic makes CNN’s more left leaning audience more likely to despise the administration, CNN’s status as a left leaning media outlet criticizing Trump for alleged homophobia is only going to entice Trump’s supporters to be more brazenly homophobic. The leftist media is, once again, throwing gay people under the bus for their own benefit. Division drives ratings.

I love this look for him.

I’m typically not a fan of songs with strong political undertones, but this release was impeccably well timed. 10/10.

See also: Taylor’s new documentary “Miss Americana” on Netflix. It had several very powerful moments, and it demonstrated the genuine nature of Taylor’s decision to finally voice her political opinions when she threw her support to Phil Bredesen in the 2018 midterms.

Today is a shameful day to be an American. What happened in the Senate last night offends truth and spits on the constitution.

In case you missed it, the Senate voted against hearing from witnesses in the impeachment trial. The final vote was 51-49, with two Republican senators joining the Democrats who voted for witnesses. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine both voted to hear from witnesses. You could call this bravery, or you could call it an effort to save face. Collins is from a purple state and is up for reelection in November. Romney had long been critical of Trump, and wants to seem like he can think for himself. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, both seen as potential swing votes, sided with republicans in refusing to allow witnesses to testify.

Have you EVER heard of a trial that didn’t have any witnesses? These 51 feckless Republicans are engaging in one of the most democratically damaging, partisan coverups in the history of our nation, for a president that they don’t like deep down anyway. Republicans DON’T like Donald Trump, they’re afraid of him. This vote will be seen as a point of inflection by future historians studying how the great American experiment went wrong. It is a vote that will permanently shift the balance of power from three coequal branches of government towards dictatorship. We are on a slippery slope, and the Senate just tore down the guardrails.

Some important things that happened during the “trial”:

Trump’s lawyer, Alan Dershowitz (who also represented Jeffery Epstein and OJ Simpson, FYI) argued that a president cannot be impeached for doing something to help his own reelection if he believes that his reelection is in the national interest. This is what those of us in the industry refer to as a “blank check”. Basically, this translates to “he can’t be impeached for anything, ever”.

Trump’s defenders also claimed that if the argument against him is so strong, the prosecutors shouldn’t need any witnesses to prove their case. Wild.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio claims that even though the president’s actions do warrant impeachment, he shouldn't necessarily be impeached. Translation: the rules only apply to some people some of the time.

Republican Senator Rand Paul tried to have SCOTUS Chief Justice and presiding officer over the impeachment trial John Roberts read the whistleblower’s name on national television. Roberts refused. Paul then said the alleged whistleblower’s name twice in interviews, because he’s a shitty person.

A bipartisan group of senators asked the president’s team to promise that Trump wouldn’t use private citizens to conduct foreign policy in the future, referring to Rudy Giuliani’s role in the Ukraine scandal. The president’s lawyers responded by saying that Giuliani wasn’t conducting foreign policy, he was just in Ukraine doing personal business for Trump. Which, might I point out, UNDERMINES THE WHOLE FUCKING ARGUMENT THAT TRUMP WASN’T NEGOTIATING WITH UKRAINE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.