Bluetooth headphones have won me over.

I freely admit that when wireless Bluetooth headphones began to become a mainstream, I was somewhat reluctant to make the jump. Mainly because all the bad press they got of bad audio quality for streaming music, and audio in general.

Until I got to try some Otium Beats that I got as a present some six years ago. They have a good audio quality, and a good battery life. The pretty much sold me to the Bluetooth headphones, mainly when I'm on the go. The main thing for me, was not having to worry about a cable snagging on something, or it getting tangled on my bag.

Yet, the fact that still has a cable paring the headphones was not optimal for me. Not a deal breaker for me, but I had the feeling that going for a pair of Bluetooth earbuds without the cable was the way to go for me. So when the time came to replace them, I went with the JLAB GO Air True Wireless earbuds.

So far, they have worked great for me. The sound is more than good enough for what I expect from the earbuds I use with my smartphone, with great battery life and not real issue for my use case. If anything, they have showed me that the sport variants of the Bluetooth earbuds could be a better fit for my use case.

A few days ago, my wired headphones that I use with my laptop died. Since my experience with Bluetooth earphones for my smartphone has been more than satisfactory, I decided to get some over the ear headphones for use with my laptop

After some shopping, I decided to go for some entry level headphones I got Mercado Libre(link in Spanish). What sold me, was it that it comes with a bag which is plus since I plan to bring them with me in my backpack where ever I go. After a week of use, they have been great. So much so, that when it comes time to replace them, I'll get a better set of headphones.

I should add that the laptop I use, runs my favorite Linux distro: Linux Mint. I'm using Linux Mint 21 Vanessa, and the headphones have been pairing without issues, and the sound quality has been much better than expected. May be not up to par for audiophiles, but much more that good enough for regular users that just want to listen to music, or podcasts, while they work to filter out distractions. So much so, that I'm writing this post at one of my favorite bars and I only hear the music that I'm playing.

So, if you had doubts about making the jump to Bluetooth headphones now is the time to make it. The options are wide, so you are sure to find one that fits you.

If companies can't make the right to repair happen, legislation should make it happen.

The existence of third-party repair shops for computers, smartphones, and home appliances so that people can repair them and extend their useful lives, should be something people can have easy access to. Not only so they can save money, but also to reduce the electronic waste.

Yet companies making their products harder to repair, not allowing third-parties having access to whats needed to conduct the repairs, and some repair shops malpractices, show that some level of government regulations should be put in place if companies and the people who run the repair shops don't clean-up their game. People have the right to repair things when they choose to do it, only replacing when they see fit to do so and not because its made artificially difficult by companies to do so.

The right to repair doesn't strife innovation, since to make repairs technicians don't need to know the internal workings of things, or access to the source code of the software that runs our devices. They just need to have the schematics needed to make the repair, or software tools to verify the repair leaves the device working as intended.

Most often than not stealing the intellectual property used to build modern appliances, and other consumer electronics, by third-party shops is almost impossible because of their complexity. Not only that, those third-party shops don't need access to all the schematics, or to the source code of the software used in them, to make repairs. They just need the specific schematics for the repairs they performed, or to software tools to verify the repair was successful.

People should be the ones making the decision of when to repair, or when to replace their things. Planned obsolescence should be made illegal, since it needlessly increases e-waste at the benefit of companies not of the people or our environment.

Short term economic gains of companies shouldn't come before the people interests, or the environment. As a society, we need to be playing on out long term interests.

The Nothing Phone 1 upgrade.

Each time I upgrade my Android smartphone, I get remained why Android has become my go to mobile operating system. While the iPhone and iOS are great, Apple fails to give what I expect from an smartphone at a price point that's good for me.

My Motorola One Fusion started to restart itself at random times, and getting stock on while booting, so I decided to upgrade my smartphone taking advantage of the discounts of the El Buen Fin here in Mexico. After a couple of weeks of shopping, and doing some research, I choose the Nothing Phone 1.

The Nothing Phone 1 is a really solid mid-range Android smartphone, that comes with a near vanilla Android. The biggest change it has from stock Android, is the Nothing OS user interface. While Nothing OS is quite nice, I changed to Discreet launcher, which has become my go to Android launcher.

The Nothing Phone 1 has proven to be an upgrade from the Motorola One Fusion in every aspect. While the Motorola One Fusion was a solid smartphone while I had it, the Nothing Phone 1 is a better smartphone for me as a daily driver. Not only that, it proves that a solid mid-range Android smartphone gives covers all my needs for my everyday carry smartphone.

As an Android fan, the Nothing Phone 1 is a great mid-range smartphone that delivers a great user experience. It come with Android 12 out of the box, and so far I've find it an improvement over Android 11 that the Motorola One Fusion use.

Free speech is a two-way street.

Elon Musk take-over of Twitter, has made it a lot more toxic than it already was before. While there was toxic behavior before hand, as in many other social media sites, it was kept at somewhat acceptable levels.

Yet, since Elon Musk took over there has been a increased level of toxicity from people who believe that free speech means they shouldn't face the consequences of its use. Seems like those people believe that any kind of moderation on what they post is censorship, when in reality good moderation is there for people being able to have a base level of respect and security.

The fact that people seem to believe that they should be able to say whatever push back is something to be expected. The irony is that they don't really expect it in reality, since they are conscious that you can't say all you think all the time.

There is always some level of moderation, even censorship, in our everyday interactions. Not saying all we have in our mind is something we have to do in order to have an orderly society, knowing what to say is an skill we have to learn from a young age.

Most importantly, free speech doesn't shield you from other people reactions or answers. While there are limits on how people can react to what is being said, it doesn't mean that they can't react to it in positive or negative ways. People can't express their thoughts on what it's said, exercising their own free speech.

What seems to be the problem, is that some people can't take other people expressing that they find what they said as offensive, or with any negative feeling, openly. It seems like there is still an expectation that people can't voice any negative feeling openly, and should just take it without saying anything.

The idea that people can call them out seems to be something they can't deal with, they really expect other just not doing so.

Calling people out for what they say should be normalized. Free speech is meant to enable debate, give people the to express they mind, and the exchange of ideas. Free speech is a two-way street, and the response won't always be one you like or agree with.

The Internet needs to be built, and remain on, open standards.

Since Monday I couldn't stream Disney+ on the Linux Mint laptop I use to stream media, and it turns out that its a bug that prevents the service to stream on Linux.

To be honest it was quite confusing, since I've been able to stream Disney+ for more a year now without any issues. What's more, that Netflix, and Prime Video, continue to work as usual only added to the frustration. Hope the issue on Disney+ gets resolved soon, since it should be an issue since they have official support for Linux for quite a while now.

Users should be able to use any OS they like on their computer, and should be able to access any service they like on the Internet. This specially true for payed sites, like streaming services.

The Internet has to be built on open standards, since it has become the one of the most important public forums, and repository of knowledge humanity has seen so far in history. The Internet has become a piece of infrastructure vital for the world as we know it.

All modern services depend on the Internet working correctly, not to mention being able to accessing it with as little restrictions as possible. The walls should be kept to a reasonable level, since there are certain things that shouldn't be accessed by everyone.

Yet, the standards used to build the Internet shouldn't be those walls. Any browser, or app, meant to be used to access the Internet should be built on open standards, as not to stifle the users access to it.

At the end, the Internet should be free like free speech not like free beer.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of the consequence of its use.

Afer Elon Musk took over Twitter, there has been a lot of talk about how freedom of speech will be restored to the platform and such. The thing is that, those claiming that their freedom of speech was breached by being banned from Twitter forget a couple of things.

To begin with, freedom of speech doesn't mean one is free from the consequences of exercising it. People can answer you back, stop talking to you, or sue you for defamation. There are some other consequences you could face, both positive or negative, but there you can't escape from them.

Secondly, Twitter is private company. As such, it can ban of using its platform to spread speech that goes against the user agreement. When you open an account on any social media platform, everyone agrees to a set of rules to follow. If a user breach the user agreement, the platform can ban the user.

Who can't take away your freedom of speech is the government, and you can't be banned from used public forums. Yet, that doesn't mean other people can't use the same public forums to answer your speech, and you aren't immune from the consequences of your speech.

Yes, there are limits on what can be included on user agreements, or at least it should be clear set of rules on the matter. But, that doesn't mean consequences of using your freedom of speech shouldn't exist.

There are consequences of using your freedom of speech, and everyone should expect them to be.

Right to repair should taken for granted by users.

The fact the the right to repair our cars, electronics, home appliance, and other thing we own, isn't a given or something that has to be legislated about is ludicrous. The option of repairing thing that we own, like smartphones and microwaves, should always be an option.

Specially since being able to extend the life of devices helps our pockets, since most of the time repairing is cheaper that replacing, it also means less waste over time. Yet, most importantly we paid to be able to fully own our devices.

Companies shouldn't be able to artificially restrict our right to repair what we own, by raising artificial walls to prevent us to repair the devices we purchased from them. That we can't repair our devices artificially shortens the lifespan of our devices, and only benefits the companies by forcing us to buy a new one we want it or not.

Not only that, repairs should be able to be performed by third parties or even by the owners of the devices. Such repairs shouldn't be a risk to companies intellectual property, specially when a way for companies are given the ways to protect it and third parties are given the tools to make such repairs without risking the respective intellectual properties.

It is important to bring attention to the fact, the most third parties don't want, or need, to steal the intellectual property of the companies who own it. They just need the pertinent information to make the repairs asked for by their costumers. Even if they need access to software to test repairs, they just need the tools to verify the repair is done correctly, even if they see how the tools actually work.

If anything is needed, is to make sure that the framework needed to protect intellectual property while making repairs easily accessible for consumers the norm. Consumers should be able to repair their devices easily, and to choose who makes the repair.

At the end of the day, consumers should have the final choice to repair or renew the devices they own.