How HTC UK Honour Guarantees

Introduction

I have been a supporter & fan of HTC since they made phones for others, when they seemed to always be ahead of the game, after falling in love with my old Orange SPV C500 Smartphone, before smartphones were a thing, and so I have been through all of these HTC phones to date:-

orange_spv_c500O2 XDA II (HTC) 2003

Orange SPV C500 (HTC) 2004

HTC Wildfire 2010

HTC One S 2012

HTC One M7 2013

HTC One M8 2015

HTC One M9 Prime 2016

I really liked my M8, but when it was stolen I had to buy the M9 Prime rather than buy the latest HTC again, the HTC 10, which was a shame as it felt like id finally swapped my phone for something half the price, but i was broke at the time, and it was half a HTC 10’s price.


Within 6 months, this phone had broken, my 1st HTC to ever break.


Initial fault

1JVyUmSTqCSAiVq3.hugeOne day my HTC M9 screen backlight failed, making it almost impossible to see anything on the screen or use the phone. It came back but would flicker on and off if the phone was tapped, and went again a day later. As i was preparing to send ît to HTC, it was unused for a couple of weeks. When i went to send it, the phone appeared as if the battery was dead. It appeared to have no power at all, and was impossible to charge. I sent it off, under its 1 year guarantee still.

Continue reading “How HTC UK Honour Guarantees”

Advertisements

What election results tell us

France

UK Referendum

USA Trump

In each case, the result shows people want change.  They want something other than what they see as a system that is only superficially dependent upon them, during elections, but the choices are “all the same”.  What people mean is that after elections, the people’s wishes are not in mirrored by their elected proxy, and it is really is far from what they see as democratic.  The public are a means to an end for most politicians.   They are useful as a tool when they want what the politician wants, to back up their argument, but for the most part are superfluous.

When the public are least likely to agree with a course of action, the more chance they wont be considered worth consulting.  The politicians know this, but don’t see it as necessary.

The public should be represented by their representative, in a way that mirrors how they would decide themselves.  It doesn’t require consultation necessarily always, if the politician does as they know they should really.

BUT, the public may not be able to choose without enough understanding in some cases,  is the argument that some MPs may offer.  In some cases this may be true, and can be fixed easily as you will see.    It also is rather a dangerous argument, as it may make the politician assume they know enough too easily,and become applied always afterwards to other situations.   What we need is a way for them to see what  the public who understand would decide.  It is often easy to assume if someone doesn’t agree that they aren’t up to speed, and so dismiss those that may understand better than yourself.

 

 

Buy British/American as the best start, but whats the best end?

As a start, if everybody particularly in these foreign deficit running countries just changed 1% of their shopping extra to buying their own nation’s product, then the result to their own pocket would be substantial. Less foreign deficit by a small amount can be enough to change the flow completely where it is running low, and hugely beneficial otherwise. This act of buying is amplified hugely, to the government, and the nation, and yourself ultimately, and quite effectively. As a basic rule, this is great.
At some point you run into a decision, when the choices are few. Do I buy from my own nations company, or a foreign, friendly company that supports our country maybe better. Maybe I buy British from a company that is listed on the stock exchange, and is based almost entirely abroad, where one or 2 directors may get too much money, that isn’t invested back into the nation, but just amassed, or spent abroad too, and all manufacture, and tax is paid abroad, ie the worst case scenario, or do I buy foreign, maybe a friendly country, that supports staff here or maybe pays tax here? Surely the 2nd alternative is better? You think about who spends more of their pay as opposed to saving, which is not necessarily good for a nation, especially where this saving accumulates over generations, here it is bad for government, and currency value, or is it? Where a country has sum total of double the currency in existence but at the same value, well, this provides a buffer, or rather a dependency on a currency being self stabilising over nasty events, even when hit hard, it will recover, okay harder to manipulate but not as hard as it should be, which is good for government. It has many advantages too, and in fact, the actual quantity of money unused to used, and its value, is important. We don’t want it to grow too much, sometimes quite the opposite, but it all depends upon others, and global normals and conditions and national currency and exchange needs and goals, depending on type of economy. Often, what we do has its context in that of others, but I digress.

Ultimately, there is a circular problem with exchange rates and cost of goods, as export and import and made and purchased domestically and not. Over the long-term, supporting self is self limiting, if still correct, as cost of goods and exchange rates change in favour of foreign, the harder you try, and this leads to further thinking, and a final position, which governments must adapt, a policy that is the only real policy to ensure a nation’s future, the best economic policy a national government could ever have, and must always adhere to, and it has nothing to do with how we started at all.
It is a policy that isn’t circular and self limiting in the way so many economic policies are when thought out.

Why UK Government gets old fast

grumbles on UK government in 21st century

  • Honesty would be lovely.  The PM could tell me she accidentally nuked most of Europe if she admitted she was drugged up with medication for her anxiety attacks and well, she thought it was another illusion.  Yup, the honesty would be lovely, awww bless her, i support her.
  • We see how government works now, and we dont like what we see.   We read about democracy & see something different.  We elect MPs as our proxies, but thats not how they view themselves.  They are the voice of reason to save us from our selves, but it goes further.  They know best and dont question whether they have it right.
  • They continue to tell themselves that selling off all our gold is too complex for us to really understand and there are reasons we dont see, really, now shussh.
  • For the most part we are useful to stick up for when it is convenient, but mostly an unwelcome annoyance.
  • We are easily appeased.  Here, ive added 50p to your grans pension.
  • We dont see the flaws with democracy.  Cameron said he wanted to look after his constituents after being PM, but as soon as it was clear he wasnt in the cabinet, he resigned.  stange huh??  At least it wasnt all about the power huh?  If PM pay isnt great, then the only reason to put yourself forward is power or to just help more people better.  Unfortunately, people that really help, dont want to get clogged down in office or more work getting in the way, usually, so generally dont volunteer.  Its the ones who dont ask who should get.
  • Cameron lost Brexit, was off, we all let him down, he deserved a few dodgy honours as reward, screw what they think, or how dare they question my motives.
  • Arlene Foster is just so damn important, more so than her country, or peace in it, how dare anyone question her that isnt on her high level.  Its her god given right, now shhh.

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

Expectation in Brexit and US Election was the real killer!

  1. Whatever they do, they can’t change the result, but maybe they want to send a message that they shouldn’t take it for granted and not to get to complacent, knowing it was safe to do so.
  2. Is it necessary to vote at all if voting for the inevitable anyway, as it is
  3. inevitable?

So those supporting the expected winner either vote for the opposite, or not at all!!

Have a look at the LATimes Polls.  These show that expectation is a dangerous thing:- (From http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/)

Who do you think will win?

capture

Who would you vote for?

We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.

capture2

LA Times usc-presidential-poll-dashboard

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

 

Bad Analysts Beat Good

Would you hire an analyst who predicted Brexit and Trump?chart_249x167

Or one that got it wrong, but understandably so from the polls?

How about one who didn’t make any predictions until the day before each, and then put their neck on the line and got it right?

An analyst goes with the probabilities and polls and social effects.

But the day before each, I’d like to explain why an analyst should have got it right both times.

With Brexit, the polls flipped on a daily basis before the vote.  People backed off when they felt the responsibility of their voting, and that leave may happen, playing it safe.  The day before, the polls ended on Stay.  It seemed likely that people would continue their pattern and vote leave, after realising it was unlikely again, and they did.

With Trump, there was more to it(as there was with Brexit actually), but the polls reached a point just short of 50:50, but nearer than ever, and following Brexit thinking, as there was no more campaigning to influence things, Trump could only improve upon that as people saw it as unlikely and their priorities changed in their minds from polling thinking to a state that had been improving his   ratings as the time got closer and other considerations became involved.  From a long time before, or a foreign perspective, the least controversial is always best, but you aren’t thinking about what is best for your country and that can only improve the alternatives chances, and this will rise over time and shoot up a little more come actual voting.  He could only have done better, and as he was predicted to lose by the polls, there was no pull back by anyone thinking that if they got it wrong they would be responsible, and so change is always more likely than before.

Both involved many types of voters with falling into many groups and much more complicated than this explanation.

I made a prediction for both the day before and got both correct.  I wouldn’t have before, because it wasnt possible to make the right choice before that without making the least probable choice and so being bad at your job.

Now analysts havent self corrected properly, and explain what happened incorrectly from a simplistic perspective, biased from the view that madness won out and so defied logic, as it keeps them feeling good analysts.  So they simplify the voters and make them self-destructive badly educated voters, rather than look into the various voters that interacted and their opinions and perceptions.  There are an amazing amount of interesting factors that were involved that provide a lot of insight into future election success and failure and do’s and don’t, once you understand this subject properly.

James Cook UKThinkTank.com

Leaving the EU to save it – Brexit

You wouldn’t believe that Europe was more important to some leave voters than any stay voters?

If you are worried about populism, you have seen self destructive illogical behaviour recently.  Analysts got it all wrong and explained it as the less educated choosing racist or nationalist views over self benefit.  You can see this too.
So you wouldn’t believe that some of these people put you above themselves?  You wouldn’t believe that Europe was more important to some leave voters than any stay voters?  What if your views had prevented these peoples sacrifice from being understood?  What if you were the biased one??

Nobody believed it would happen.  Not even those that voted for it.

Maybe someone would vote for something they didnt want??  Maybe to send a message?  Given the result being unchangeable, maybe rather than voting for, voting against could send a message that you had reservations.

What if the unexpected then happened? You voted for what you didnt want but didnt expect it?  Explain that without feeling silly.

What if then you hoped that the cost was worth it if it made a difference, but what if the message never arrived and  the sacrifice was for nothing?

A danger is to not see that maybe people cause what they dont want, to lose any message, to treat simply and allow others to hold it out as an example for their right wing parties.

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com