I bought one way back in 2015. A BQ Aquaris E5, quite decent hardware, factory-installed with Ubuntu Touch. It was an absolute disaster: buggy as hell, even the most basic native apps (SMS etc) hardly worked. Obviously no way to run Android apps. Somehow I made it work for about 3 months before giving up and flashing a CyanogenMod ROM.

There was one silver lining. At one point during those 3 months I managed to lose the phone in a (completely anonymous) taxi. The interface was obviously so weird and crappy that the taxi driver actually replied to my SMS and returned the thing to me.

Any decade now it will be ready!

Even in broad daylight I would have completely missed this owl.

Looks great. I don’t know why he’s playing dumb about the quirky product description. It’s obviously just auto-translated from Chinese, like with pretty much any manufactured product these days.

Personally I’m bothered by this talk of “empathy”. To me, animal welfare is an entirely different subject from biodiversity. And obviously it begs the question: what about empathy for the out-competed native creatures? Empathy can be dangerous here, IMO. For example, feral cats are a major hazard to biodiversity (not to mention their prey). This is an invasion case that is eminently solvable. Except it turns out there are a lot of humans with outsized empathy towards pussycats (see: New Zealand).

You’re within your rights to dismiss my points because I refuse to read the article, but I’m certain I’ve heard all these arguments before (including as you just outlined). Basically it’s a calque of the culture war onto science. I’d bet money the word “racist” is in it somewhere, or at least immigration. If the author is suggesting concrete ways to preserve biodiversity, then great. If it’s just to wage politics by another means (again: “prejudice”, “nativist dogma”), I’ll pass.

To be clear (and not having read the article because I know the argument already): the problem with anthropogenic species invasions is they reduce biodiversity in the short to medium term. Yes, sure, “life finds a way”, and on the 100m-year horizon everything will have recovered (perhaps on a different trajectory). But not in a timespan relevant to us. And a biosphere with less diversity is going to make things less pleasant and much harder for us, possibly quite badly and quite soon.

The article presumably recommends a more targeted and effective approach to conserving biodiversity. Fair enough if so, but words like “prejudice”, “nativist” and “dogma” are not encouraging me (personally) to give it a full hearing.

PS: if the added quotes are representative, and the author did not in fact go full “antiracist” on a topic of science, then credit for that at least. Clearly there are many cases where it makes little sense to push back against a fait accompli (Burmese pythons, cane toads, etc). But in other cases the “native” argument which so triggers the author might prove to be a useful lever for mobilizing useful action.

PPS: upvoted anyway, in the name of debate! Keep 'em coming.

People will bang on about it being a water displacer. Know what else displaces water? Oil. Grease. Pretty much anything else that doesn’t mix with water.

Glad to see I’m not going mad. “Water displacer”? Any oil is a water displacer duh.

As for being a degreaser, like dissolves like. Non-polar chemicals like oil and grease are generally miscible in other non-polar substances, so a lighter oil will help to thin out thicker grease so that they’re easier to clean away.

This was my hypothesis but you put it in impressively fancy terms so it must be right.

The stuff about other solvents makes sense too. Really helpful feedback, thanks.

Thanks for the tips.

This is the attitude I’m talking about… Please re-read, there is nothing for me to be “objectively wrong” about because I did not make any claim. I asked a question because I wanted to understand better. Others helped me to do so, as did you (after presumably downvoting me). This kind of ungenerous attitude is one reason why social media has such a toxic reputation.

Maybe try Mantel or Bike24?

Helpful thanks.

Useful, thanks.

Very useful, thanks.

Interesting, thanks! Unfortunately it’s a 30€ import here in Europe but it appear to be like that 1-Stop product so I’ll look for something similar.

To be clear, you put this only on the chain?

The axles and crank I don’t touch except for a complete disassembly and heavy greasing, is that right?

On the last trip I make the rookie mistake of over-oiling the chain. The oil got everywhere and sucked dirt into the crank, which blocked the cadence sensor (electric bike) and I needed to use detergent to clear it. What a mess.

That’s very helpful.

Useful, thanks. The bottom bracket is in fact my major issue. It’s an electric bike with a cadence sensor that stops working when gunk gets in there. Last time I managed to gunk it up, probably with excess chain oil, and had to resort to detergent to make it work again. Hence this whole dilemma. I know serious cyclists always say “degrease and then lubricate” but I’m looking for a pragmatic solution which means I won’t have to resort to detergent again.

This looks good. Alas as expected I can’t find it on sale here in Europe (even on Amazon!), just a load of other random-looking products with weird names. Generic names are so much better. If Coke and Pepsi are cola, what’s this (or WD-40)?

I guess I’ll look for something similar which magically has both"lubricant" and “cleaner” in the name.

Great article. Very stout.

What the hell is this completely random news article doing here? Seriously. Moderation needed.

OK I get all that and it’s not to be dismissed. But their product is better than what we have here. That’s why Blacksky built upon it and not upon this, despite the cost. The excessive centralization seems to be more of a human problem than a technical one. Humans take the path of least resistance and Bluesky’s resources have allowed it to make a product that the fediverse will never be able to compete with.

Personally, I get what I want here (I don’t use Bluesky) but it’s pretty clear to me that I’m not representative (in caring about the principle of decentralization) and neither are you. I’m a pragmatist by nature. Bluesky and AT Proto are an obvious improvement on Twitter. If they have the potential to be a version of decentralization that actually takes off and goes mainstream (because let’s be serious, the fediverse is not doing that), then personally I would take that win. It hasn’t happened yet but personally I’m not going to spit on it in advance like everyone here is doing.

they are in complete control of the real-world use of it

They’re not. I mentioned Blacksky.

As I understand it, their endgame is that Bluesky will be a big fish in a pond of other fish, and that the best way to get that fishpond is to make Bluesky as good a product as possible, hence the (limited) VC money.

As a strategy it has risks but so does the alternative. To make the obvious comparison, UX on the fediverse is rubbish, with an incomprehensible onboarding funnel, amateurish design, servers that keep disappearing. There’s a reason Bluesky has eaten the fediverse’s lunch.

With respect, I think people here are making this into a sterile religious war when really it’s a disagreement about strategy. Some of the people who vouch for Bluesky I have been following for years. They want exactly the same things as most people here. Personally, I see no reason to question their intentions.