We used to have earbuds that don't need to be charged because they had a headphone jack, didn't get lost so easily because they had a cord attached to a headphone jack, never lost the bluetooth connection because they had a headphone jack, and they cost less because they had a headphone jack. https://bsky.app/profile/daisyfm.bsky.social/post/3l3mfjc6sn62k
You think wireless earbuds are better?? lol
Earbuds? Yes.
Real headphones? Nah
I'd imagine the limited lifespan of their batteries and the fact that they have ones to begin with would be of bigger concern
That’s fair. My first pair still works awesome after five years, and I’ve used them for 40+ hours a week for that whole time. I only have a new pair because I needed ANC, but I still use my old pair to sleep.
I think the headphones I'm using are 20 year old. But to be fair, a lot of them either don't last that long or are simply thrown away for some new thing.
Again, wasn't making a wired wireless argument. See my other reply itt for elaboration.
You might want to edit the comment since in the context it definitely sounds like saying wireless would be better
Not really, no. I'm responding to a comment about cheap buds that break too easily, which isn't exclusive to wired ones.
There's literally no mention of the wired vs wireless aspect in my comment or the one I'm replying to.
My friend, the whole thread is about wireless vs. wired. That's the context your post is in. And you've already had several people misunderstanding your intention because it is written in that context without clarification that it's not supposed to be the same as other comments here.
Not my comment. I'm clearly commenting on a separate aspect. That others try to ascribe a nonexistent secondary meaning that I haven't so much as hinted at isn't my fault.
I'm personally not a big fan of spelling out the obvious, but ok:
You're wrong to assume that my comment follows the previous theme from pure proximity and it's annoying to have to bend over backwards to facilitate the poor reading comprehension (if not bad faith) of people making up their minds about what I'm saying before reading it.
You seem to have been overestimated how clear that was.
That's just how context works.
Idk if you know how conversation work but people typically use and understand context. If you don't mind people misunderstanding you, then no need to do anything. If you do mind it, it might be helpful to spell things out. But it's up to you really, I don't mind either way.
Stop.
You know, a better way to stop the discussion would be to just stop replying and walk away from it. Some might think it a bit rude if you try to order them to stop lol.
Others might think it's rude to keep going on and on and on about me having the responsibility for your misunderstanding of my completely clear and concise commented and how clearly ANYTHING said within a comment thread is about the same thing, regardless of the words and immediately preceding context.
I keep answering because part of my mental handicap is impulse control problems. I'm not good at letting it go when people are being wrong and/or obnoxious and refuses to listen to reason.
What's YOUR excuse? Why is it so important to you that your misunderstanding be declared the only logical reaction to my comment?
I'm just saying that it clearly (heh) wasn't that clear since so many misunderstood it. The context threw people off. So I just suggested how it could be avoided and explained why it happened. But it's your comment, entirely up to you to do with it as you'd like.
I think you're taking this a bit too seriously and a lot more personally than it was intended tbh.
Literally you and one other person. That's not "many" by any definition of the word.
Again, you and one other person isn't "people"
There. Now everyone understands.
Could have fooled me with gestures towards this entire conversation
Yeah sure, use the "just kidding!" tactic of the stubbornly wrong. My younger brother does that too when he finally realizes that he's been confidently wrong for half an hour and doesn't want to admit it.
I counted three the first time we started talking (out of maybe five) but I might've read something twice. Not counted are of course the people who agreed with those sentiments but didn't make their own comments. Not that it is very important. It certainly confused some people (because of the context).
I wasn't kidding, I just think there's need to take it this seriously and especially personally. It was understood wrong because of the context, it could be clarified, only benefit from that would be that it could possibly prevent others from commenting about the wireless vs wireless thing. So no difference to me really.
There's literally two, including you. There was never a mass misunderstanding and the only other one confused enough to assume reacted MUCH better than you when I clarified. This is a YOU problem.
The only thing I'm taking personally is your insistence on disregarding everything I say in favor of your own obviously incorrect assumption. That's extremely disrespectful and thus personal.
I don't think this is a much of a problem at all tbh. It's just a comment and a misunderstanding.
I don't think there's need to take it so personally though. Nothing about this is big enough deal imo to be upset over.