Assuming you can get some templates, and I'd be shocked if they weren't available either from Nintendo or from fans within days, then it's very much a minimal cost / minimal difficulty DIY project.
"Yep, a welcoming inclusive environment that excludes some people"
You say that as if you were making a valid point?
I mean, you can get yourself thrown out and banned from a restaurant, theatre, or store for being a sufficinetly obnoxious assclown. And these are businesses just trying to sell things. They aren't on a mission to create a 'safe space for snowflakes' they just want things to be civil enough that their other customers aren't driven out.
Should the store be criticized for hypocrisy for kicking an obnoxious ass clown who was driving away other customers; if they said it was done because they want their store to be welcoming to visitors.
Is that hypocrisy? Isn't kicking obnoxious jack asses out simply a necessary part of keeping ANY space welcoming?
(I say all that aside from Damore... writing a memo for discussion isn't aggressive, so I'm not siding with google for firing him. But I see your sentiment, implying hypocrisy every time anyone is kicked out of a 'welcoming' or 'inclusive' space no matter how obnoxious they are acting.
Ah yes, you're right that it does. The reality is a bit more complicated.
The issue is that she has 2 sets of headphones. A wired 3.5mm pair, and a wireless pair. The wired pair doesn't work with her phone. The wireless pair doesn't work with the switch.
Yup, we're already seeing the mess. My daughter's phone needs one connector. The laptop another. And the Nintendo switch a 3rd. (the switch is still using 3.1mm jack)
Its beyond irritating, she used to just go from one device to antoher without even thinking... her old phone, her old laptop, and her old 3DS... now its a chore, carrying different headphones, little adapters...
"2FA isn't secure if it only relies on a phone number as a substitute for cryptography. A single call to the outsourced customer service department of your phone company could transfer your number to the sim card of a malicious actor."
So now it requires they know your phone number, and dedicate up to an hour or so of human time, of a human capable of social engineering a telco rep...to transfer a sim. They'll do that for a specific high value target, but not some rando.
Plus, without 2FA, i've already pwned your account and stolen your bitcoins by the time you read this post. With 2FA, assuming i can even figure out your phone number (not a given), I'll still be on hold with your telco for another 10 minutes before I can even attempt to start social engineering a SIM transfer.
Your absolutely right... 2FA isn't perfect, especially SMS based 2FA. But its about a million times better than no 2FA at all.
" If there is reasonable chance the client can see a particular player - send the coordinate"
see or hear
Which mostly reduces to are they within a box around the player, which is what they do.
"If you are sure the client can't see a player (solid wall "
lots of games have mirrors and reflective surfaces now. Behind a solid wall doesn't mean I can't see you. lots of games have positional audio -- if you are behind the wall, I might still know exactly where you are, between the creak of a door, footsteps, popopop of your rifle.
Some games, like Ghost Recon iirc even had stuff like heartbeat sensors as gear.
"- or another part of the map) "
Yes. Maps can be divided into pre-computed regions that can't 'see/detect' eachother, that's basically another version of the 'distance box' --and is very low overhead to compute, and you see it in most big open world zombie sandbox games for example. it only sends you the other players coordinates when they are in the same or adjacent regions.
Unfortunately it doesn't help when the enemy is near, when you are dancing around a farm house with shotguns. And that is where cheaters get the most advantage, and where it is exceedingly difficult to simply 'not send the information', because the two players may be able to see, or hear eachother or may be within milliseconds of seeing or hearing eachother throughout the encounter.
Apparently real and test were two adjacent entries in a drop down list; and then there was a confirmation box "Are you sure?"
Seems like an easy issue to fat-finger, especially if you get the same confirmation box with either selection.
Yesterday I had to make a dash for the printer to cancel a job because "Print" and "Edit" are adjacent in the right click context menu for the windows desktop.
(Really... does anyone really need one-click print without opening the document first, that they even need a right click print context menu item?? I've always wondered about why its there.)
" The server should be able to figure out what my client can see "
Sure, it just has to raytrace the scene and account for everything from reflections in water, to mirrors, to fog, to construactable / destructable terrain elements. And partial occlusions -- you can't just project from my view point to their center of mass... what if I can just see their head? Nor can you project to their extents... maybe I can just see his knee while looking up from a basement window to him outside.
Then it also needs to consider the terrain materials in the area, capability -- i might not be able to see playerX all, but if he's stomping around the roof above me, perhaps I can hear him, or maybe i hear the rusltling in the leaves outside the window. Or maybe he's unloading his shotgun into someone, and I can hear all this positionally rendered in 3d surround so my PC will still need position info in order to give me all those audio cues properly.
To top all that off it would have to consider latency and a potential movement. Sure I might not be able to see you *NOW* but based on our relative movement, I'll be able to see him 50 milliseconds from now. If you don't want him popping into existence in front of me with the next update from the server, I need to know he's coming up to the corner... just that is going to give my 'cheat tools' enough advance notice to create a usable advantage.
It depends. Suppose the savings from not having a driver allows the delivery company to have 2 vehicles on the road instead of one.
Or suppose, right now that I drop my kids off at school on the way to work. It works, but the timing isn't ideal and its not exactly on the way. In the future I can send the kids in an autonomous car, which will drop them off and then drive home empty. I can leave for work directly on my own (overlapping) schedule.
That requires street parking. There isn't much in a lot of places, and much of what there is pay parking. Won't be suitable for work since it mostly has 2 hour maximums. Won't suitable at home or on weekends for much the same reason. What little free parking is out there is nearly always full.
"Get state-minimum liability insurance."
Cheapest insurance I could get in Toronto in the late '90s as a university student with a fender-bender on his record and a car 10+ year old car from the mid 80s was upwards of $3000.
"Where are you that taking a taxi twice a day is cheaper than driving yourself?"
Pretty much anywhere where you have to pay for parking at both home and work, where insurance is exorbitant for young drivers. That could describe a lot of places.
To be fair, I think there's a little segment between Thunderbay and Nipigon were there is only 1 road connecting east to west.
Everywhere else there is at least two.
(I think Labrador can only be reached on one road; and there are very few... possibly just one road to the north coast (their s one to Tuktoyaktuk (from Whitehorse)).
Its an interesting question, if I falsely call 911 to report a heart attack as a prank. (ie I am not merely 'mistaken' about the heart attack, I am just doing it to send an ambulance to someone's house for lulz...)
What if the ambulance is involved in an accident and someone dies? You weren't driving the ambulance, but you are the reason the ambulance was in emergency response mode. It wouldn't have been running red lights, or driving in the oncoming lane, or doing all the things ambulances do to get to a site as quickly as possible. Granted the ambulance driver is trained, and is still responsible for getting there safely, but he is still taking an elevated level of risk on deliberately false pretenses. I do think you should take responsibility for that.
And that's just a heart attack; just an EMT response.
Even if you don't think that rises to the threshold of 'dangerous'...
When you call 911 with the deliberate intent to dispatch an armed SWAT response on false pretenses -- sending heavily armed emergency response police into a situation you have told them is extremely volatile, extremely dangerous, where people have already been shot... do you really think that doesn't rise to the level of 'dangerous'?
'heat of passion' is just one criteria for voluntary manslaughter.
States sometimes also define voluntary manslaughter as a homicide that occurs with the mistaken belief that the killing was justified. For instance, if the defendant kills in self-defense, but was the original aggressor in the situation that led to the homicide, the state could potentially charge the killing as voluntary manslaughter. In addition, voluntary manslaughter can also encompass a homicide that occurs based on the defendant's honest but unreasonable belief that a situation requires deadly force.
I think the latter in particular could be applied here.
I think we're in general agreement that the officer who shot the guy is criminally responsible for a homicide. As for the specific charge we think should be brought against the officer, I'm not going to argue with you further. 2nd degree murder might well be the correct charge.
The main argument I am interested in furthering is that the 'prank caller' is jointly responsible for this death.
"It's nice that your current phone doesn't need a battery replacement after a couple of years but I'd rather have the option because I don't know if mine will."
At some point though, its like insisting your car should still have a manual crank start because you don't trust the battery + starter motor.
"Involuntary manslaughter is an appropriate charge for the swatter"
I tend to agree that does seem appropropriate. And for the purposes of sentencing, as aggravating factors I'd note the lack of real remorse, and the fact that he has done this several times.
"ALSO the appropriate charge for the shooting officer is Murder 2."
Based on my understanding of the facts I'd argue for a charge of voluntary manslaughter.
"What if there actually HAD been a genuine hostage situation"
Then calling in the incident wouldn't have been a felony. And the callers intent wasn't to send a team of amped up armed police into a situation that didn't exist.
"Just why does it make any difference in either situation?"
Because the intent of the peole involved always matters.
"NOW would you agree the SWAT team at fault?"
I never suggested the SWAT wasn't at fault. In your scenario they'd be soley at fault. In the actual scenario both are at fault.
If you rob a 7-11 at gun point, and the clerk pulls a gun in self defense and accidently shoots a bystander, not only might you get charged with murder the clerk might not be.
If someone dies as a result of a crime you committed, you can be charged with murder.
In this case, the 'prank' was to commit a felony by intentionally reporting a false alarm. For the express purpose of having an armed force dispatched into a private residence, and to maximize their tension by leading them to believe they were likely going into an extremely volatile situation with an armed murderer.
"He didn't pull the trigger."
So fucking what? What's next? You'll be telling me that mafia bosses who send thugs to intimidate people aren't responsible for any injuries or deaths that result...
"I actually recycle my shower gray water. It is in fact easy to do correctly. We redid about 10 feet of plumbing to include a second outlet from our drain."
So you decide when to reclaim or not? Because I just know this would bite people in the ass the day they wash out the red dye in their hair and send it straight into the washing machine with their whites...:/
"Capt obvious here: Lengthening the battery life is good but does nothing to help the problem of batteries holding less charge over time. In the end a battery replacement is still necessary if you want to use the same phone for more than 2 years."
That's just it, no you don't. Because my S3 barely made it through a day when it was brand new, it needed a new battery the 2nd year, before my contract with it was even over, the loss of half an hour meant I wasn't even getting through the work day, let alone having any charge in the evening.
Because the S5 comfortably lasted a day and half or so, even losing a couple hours hasn't been an issue, its over 4 years old now and my wife is using it; on the original battery, and it's still fine because it still easily lasts the full day and beyond. So, by lasting longer its directly address the need for replacement.
And the S7 is even better.
"I personally keep my phones until they break..."
Sure. Me too at least if you count 'hand me downs' within the family. But its at the point now, where I might have to replace one battery one time after 4-5 years to get another 4-5 years, that's easily the device life.
"having user replaceable batteries is something I value a lot."
And that's just it, why? As long as its not a ridiculous project to replace, then it it's an hour of your time the one or two times you replace it, or it costs $10-15 have the guy you bought it from replace it for you while you wait in 15 minutes.
Why should you put a lot of value on being able to swap a battery? If its something you'll do once every 4 years and costs $10-15 bucks... its just not that big of a deal.
Sure if you run through multiple batteries a day, that's one thing. (But there are external power packs and battery-cases that probably would suit you better if that's your need.)
But if you are demanding user replaceable batteries and dramatically limitting your choice of phones, just to save $10 four years from now? That doesn't really make a ton of sense.
I said only that it could be tamed to be reasonable to use. Cortana's default settings of nagging me to use it to ask about sports scores, and then sending queries out to the web, and returning celebrity gossip from bing and microsoft store app and game suggestions when i want to search for a locally installed app or document while im working is actually distracting and obnoxious to use. I am focused on a task, and Cortana actively tries to distract me with frivolous SHIT. If Cortana was a human PA I'd fire her.
The fact that the settings app is reporting back to microsoft how many people are using the 'dark' theme vs the 'light' them, and how many people are using the 150% scaling etc and other telemetry stuff like that -- its obnoxious that they don't make it trivial to completely opt out, but its not actively ruining the experience of using the software; and its more obectionable on principle rather than causing me actual harm.
ok... looks like the rugby's available are old stock, that would explain the difficulty getting it and the old android version. Guess its been a few years since I looked at them.
Samsung's successor looks to be something like the S8 Active, which hits a lot of your specs... although the battery may not be replaceable. It is pretty waterproof though.
Its not bad, and I've done harder repairs. Plus where I live the little cellphone shops will replace the battery in most phones while you wait for an extra few bucks. So for me, a replaceable battery isn't as crucial.
Plus the new batteries and phones are simply much better. My S3 to S5 was like night and day as the S3 barely got through a day, and then my S5 to S7 was another big step, where the S5 comfortably got a day, the S7 usually gets me close to 2 days. So my need for replaceable batteries and battery replacements has dropped off a cliff. But that's me...
That said, if replacing the battery is your #1 feature, there are other phones from other makers that would be better.
Slashdot Mirror
It's cardboard.
Assuming you can get some templates, and I'd be shocked if they weren't available either from Nintendo or from fans within days, then it's very much a minimal cost / minimal difficulty DIY project.
"Yep, a welcoming inclusive environment that excludes some people"
You say that as if you were making a valid point?
I mean, you can get yourself thrown out and banned from a restaurant, theatre, or store for being a sufficinetly obnoxious assclown. And these are businesses just trying to sell things. They aren't on a mission to create a 'safe space for snowflakes' they just want things to be civil enough that their other customers aren't driven out.
Should the store be criticized for hypocrisy for kicking an obnoxious ass clown who was driving away other customers; if they said it was done because they want their store to be welcoming to visitors.
Is that hypocrisy? Isn't kicking obnoxious jack asses out simply a necessary part of keeping ANY space welcoming?
(I say all that aside from Damore... writing a memo for discussion isn't aggressive, so I'm not siding with google for firing him. But I see your sentiment, implying hypocrisy every time anyone is kicked out of a 'welcoming' or 'inclusive' space no matter how obnoxious they are acting.
Ah yes, you're right that it does. The reality is a bit more complicated.
The issue is that she has 2 sets of headphones. A wired 3.5mm pair, and a wireless pair. The wired pair doesn't work with her phone. The wireless pair doesn't work with the switch.
Yup, we're already seeing the mess. My daughter's phone needs one connector. The laptop another. And the Nintendo switch a 3rd. (the switch is still using 3.1mm jack)
Its beyond irritating, she used to just go from one device to antoher without even thinking... her old phone, her old laptop, and her old 3DS... now its a chore, carrying different headphones, little adapters...
"2FA isn't secure if it only relies on a phone number as a substitute for cryptography. A single call to the outsourced customer service department of your phone company could transfer your number to the sim card of a malicious actor."
So now it requires they know your phone number, and dedicate up to an hour or so of human time, of a human capable of social engineering a telco rep...to transfer a sim. They'll do that for a specific high value target, but not some rando.
Plus, without 2FA, i've already pwned your account and stolen your bitcoins by the time you read this post. With 2FA, assuming i can even figure out your phone number (not a given), I'll still be on hold with your telco for another 10 minutes before I can even attempt to start social engineering a SIM transfer.
Your absolutely right... 2FA isn't perfect, especially SMS based 2FA. But its about a million times better than no 2FA at all.
Well that wasn't hard....
http://dedutch.com/menus/the-p...
First item on the menu... 'The Canadian'...'Served with genuine maple syrup'
"No need to be that difficult."
Yeah, it does.
" If there is reasonable chance the client can see a particular player - send the coordinate"
see or hear
Which mostly reduces to are they within a box around the player, which is what they do.
"If you are sure the client can't see a player (solid wall "
lots of games have mirrors and reflective surfaces now. Behind a solid wall doesn't mean I can't see you. lots of games have positional audio -- if you are behind the wall, I might still know exactly where you are, between the creak of a door, footsteps, popopop of your rifle.
Some games, like Ghost Recon iirc even had stuff like heartbeat sensors as gear.
"- or another part of the map) "
Yes. Maps can be divided into pre-computed regions that can't 'see/detect' eachother, that's basically another version of the 'distance box' --and is very low overhead to compute, and you see it in most big open world zombie sandbox games for example. it only sends you the other players coordinates when they are in the same or adjacent regions.
Unfortunately it doesn't help when the enemy is near, when you are dancing around a farm house with shotguns. And that is where cheaters get the most advantage, and where it is exceedingly difficult to simply 'not send the information', because the two players may be able to see, or hear eachother or may be within milliseconds of seeing or hearing eachother throughout the encounter.
Apparently real and test were two adjacent entries in a drop down list; and then there was a confirmation box "Are you sure?"
Seems like an easy issue to fat-finger, especially if you get the same confirmation box with either selection.
Yesterday I had to make a dash for the printer to cancel a job because "Print" and "Edit" are adjacent in the right click context menu for the windows desktop.
(Really... does anyone really need one-click print without opening the document first, that they even need a right click print context menu item?? I've always wondered about why its there.)
"If they have enough pizza orders to require two cars, they already have two cars. "
What if I only need two cars Friday night.
No reason not to use them both Monday night to shorten waits.
"Just buying another car with what you pay a current driver you no longer need won't generate pizza sales."
Unless the extra short wait times on off peak translates to a competitive advantage. Lets order from XYZ... they're delivery is a lot faster.
" The server should be able to figure out what my client can see "
Sure, it just has to raytrace the scene and account for everything from reflections in water, to mirrors, to fog, to construactable / destructable terrain elements. And partial occlusions -- you can't just project from my view point to their center of mass... what if I can just see their head? Nor can you project to their extents... maybe I can just see his knee while looking up from a basement window to him outside.
Then it also needs to consider the terrain materials in the area, capability -- i might not be able to see playerX all, but if he's stomping around the roof above me, perhaps I can hear him, or maybe i hear the rusltling in the leaves outside the window. Or maybe he's unloading his shotgun into someone, and I can hear all this positionally rendered in 3d surround so my PC will still need position info in order to give me all those audio cues properly.
To top all that off it would have to consider latency and a potential movement. Sure I might not be able to see you *NOW* but based on our relative movement, I'll be able to see him 50 milliseconds from now. If you don't want him popping into existence in front of me with the next update from the server, I need to know he's coming up to the corner... just that is going to give my 'cheat tools' enough advance notice to create a usable advantage.
It depends. Suppose the savings from not having a driver allows the delivery company to have 2 vehicles on the road instead of one.
Or suppose, right now that I drop my kids off at school on the way to work. It works, but the timing isn't ideal and its not exactly on the way. In the future I can send the kids in an autonomous car, which will drop them off and then drive home empty. I can leave for work directly on my own (overlapping) schedule.
"Park on street."
That requires street parking. There isn't much in a lot of places, and much of what there is pay parking. Won't be suitable for work since it mostly has 2 hour maximums. Won't suitable at home or on weekends for much the same reason. What little free parking is out there is nearly always full.
"Get state-minimum liability insurance."
Cheapest insurance I could get in Toronto in the late '90s as a university student with a fender-bender on his record and a car 10+ year old car from the mid 80s was upwards of $3000.
"Where are you that taking a taxi twice a day is cheaper than driving yourself?"
Pretty much anywhere where you have to pay for parking at both home and work, where insurance is exorbitant for young drivers. That could describe a lot of places.
To be fair, I think there's a little segment between Thunderbay and Nipigon were there is only 1 road connecting east to west.
Everywhere else there is at least two.
(I think Labrador can only be reached on one road; and there are very few... possibly just one road to the north coast (their
s one to Tuktoyaktuk (from Whitehorse)).
Its an interesting question, if I falsely call 911 to report a heart attack as a prank. (ie I am not merely 'mistaken' about the heart attack, I am just doing it to send an ambulance to someone's house for lulz...)
What if the ambulance is involved in an accident and someone dies? You weren't driving the ambulance, but you are the reason the ambulance was in emergency response mode. It wouldn't have been running red lights, or driving in the oncoming lane, or doing all the things ambulances do to get to a site as quickly as possible. Granted the ambulance driver is trained, and is still responsible for getting there safely, but he is still taking an elevated level of risk on deliberately false pretenses. I do think you should take responsibility for that.
And that's just a heart attack; just an EMT response.
Even if you don't think that rises to the threshold of 'dangerous'...
When you call 911 with the deliberate intent to dispatch an armed SWAT response on false pretenses -- sending heavily armed emergency response police into a situation you have told them is extremely volatile, extremely dangerous, where people have already been shot... do you really think that doesn't rise to the level of 'dangerous'?
'heat of passion' is just one criteria for voluntary manslaughter.
States sometimes also define voluntary manslaughter as a homicide that occurs with the mistaken belief that the killing was justified. For instance, if the defendant kills in self-defense, but was the original aggressor in the situation that led to the homicide, the state could potentially charge the killing as voluntary manslaughter. In addition, voluntary manslaughter can also encompass a homicide that occurs based on the defendant's honest but unreasonable belief that a situation requires deadly force.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...
I think the latter in particular could be applied here.
I think we're in general agreement that the officer who shot the guy is criminally responsible for a homicide. As for the specific charge we think should be brought against the officer, I'm not going to argue with you further. 2nd degree murder might well be the correct charge.
The main argument I am interested in furthering is that the 'prank caller' is jointly responsible for this death.
"It's nice that your current phone doesn't need a battery replacement after a couple of years but I'd rather have the option because I don't know if mine will."
At some point though, its like insisting your car should still have a manual crank start because you don't trust the battery + starter motor.
"Involuntary manslaughter is an appropriate charge for the swatter"
I tend to agree that does seem appropropriate. And for the purposes of sentencing, as aggravating factors I'd note the lack of real remorse, and the fact that he has done this several times.
"ALSO the appropriate charge for the shooting officer is Murder 2."
Based on my understanding of the facts I'd argue for a charge of voluntary manslaughter.
"What if there actually HAD been a genuine hostage situation"
Then calling in the incident wouldn't have been a felony. And the callers intent wasn't to send a team of amped up armed police into a situation that didn't exist.
"Just why does it make any difference in either situation?"
Because the intent of the peole involved always matters.
"NOW would you agree the SWAT team at fault?"
I never suggested the SWAT wasn't at fault. In your scenario they'd be soley at fault. In the actual scenario both are at fault.
If you rob a 7-11 at gun point, and the clerk pulls a gun in self defense and accidently shoots a bystander, not only might you get charged with murder the clerk might not be.
If someone dies as a result of a crime you committed, you can be charged with murder.
In this case, the 'prank' was to commit a felony by intentionally reporting a false alarm. For the express purpose of having an armed force dispatched into a private residence, and to maximize their tension by leading them to believe they were likely going into an extremely volatile situation with an armed murderer.
"He didn't pull the trigger."
So fucking what? What's next? You'll be telling me that mafia bosses who send thugs to intimidate people aren't responsible for any injuries or deaths that result...
"I actually recycle my shower gray water. It is in fact easy to do correctly. We redid about 10 feet of plumbing to include a second outlet from our drain."
So you decide when to reclaim or not? Because I just know this would bite people in the ass the day they wash out the red dye in their hair and send it straight into the washing machine with their whites... :/
Or Blockchain City. Or maybe just lose circuit city entirely and call it "Blockchain! Blockchain! BLOCKCHAIN!!!"
"Capt obvious here: Lengthening the battery life is good but does nothing to help the problem of batteries holding less charge over time. In the end a battery replacement is still necessary if you want to use the same phone for more than 2 years."
That's just it, no you don't. Because my S3 barely made it through a day when it was brand new, it needed a new battery the 2nd year, before my contract with it was even over, the loss of half an hour meant I wasn't even getting through the work day, let alone having any charge in the evening.
Because the S5 comfortably lasted a day and half or so, even losing a couple hours hasn't been an issue, its over 4 years old now and my wife is using it; on the original battery, and it's still fine because it still easily lasts the full day and beyond. So, by lasting longer its directly address the need for replacement.
And the S7 is even better.
"I personally keep my phones until they break..."
Sure. Me too at least if you count 'hand me downs' within the family. But its at the point now, where I might have to replace one battery one time after 4-5 years to get another 4-5 years, that's easily the device life.
"having user replaceable batteries is something I value a lot."
And that's just it, why? As long as its not a ridiculous project to replace, then it it's an hour of your time the one or two times you replace it, or it costs $10-15 have the guy you bought it from replace it for you while you wait in 15 minutes.
Why should you put a lot of value on being able to swap a battery? If its something you'll do once every 4 years and costs $10-15 bucks... its just not that big of a deal.
Sure if you run through multiple batteries a day, that's one thing. (But there are external power packs and battery-cases that probably would suit you better if that's your need.)
But if you are demanding user replaceable batteries and dramatically limitting your choice of phones, just to save $10 four years from now? That doesn't really make a ton of sense.
I said only that it could be tamed to be reasonable to use. Cortana's default settings of nagging me to use it to ask about sports scores, and then sending queries out to the web, and returning celebrity gossip from bing and microsoft store app and game suggestions when i want to search for a locally installed app or document while im working is actually distracting and obnoxious to use. I am focused on a task, and Cortana actively tries to distract me with frivolous SHIT. If Cortana was a human PA I'd fire her.
The fact that the settings app is reporting back to microsoft how many people are using the 'dark' theme vs the 'light' them, and how many people are using the 150% scaling etc and other telemetry stuff like that -- its obnoxious that they don't make it trivial to completely opt out, but its not actively ruining the experience of using the software; and its more obectionable on principle rather than causing me actual harm.
ok... looks like the rugby's available are old stock, that would explain the difficulty getting it and the old android version. Guess its been a few years since I looked at them.
Samsung's successor looks to be something like the S8 Active, which hits a lot of your specs... although the battery may not be replaceable. It is pretty waterproof though.
I watched a video on the replacement process..
http://www.topmobilereviews.or...
Its not bad, and I've done harder repairs. Plus where I live the little cellphone shops will replace the battery in most phones while you wait for an extra few bucks. So for me, a replaceable battery isn't as crucial.
Plus the new batteries and phones are simply much better. My S3 to S5 was like night and day as the S3 barely got through a day, and then my S5 to S7 was another big step, where the S5 comfortably got a day, the S7 usually gets me close to 2 days. So my need for replaceable batteries and battery replacements has dropped off a cliff. But that's me...
That said, if replacing the battery is your #1 feature, there are other phones from other makers that would be better.