Since everyone here has the big brain idea of telling you you’re dumb for not just buying a phone every couple years (completely missing the point of what you were asking), I’ll take a minute to actually answer your question.

Yes. Annual refreshes are way too frequent for technology this mature. Slowing it to every other year instead (maybe software releases on odd years, hardware on even?) would dramatically reduce costs and improve stability. Changes would have time to be thoroughly rested and implemented, and they’d get more use out of the same design (including components, molds, tooling, etc.). It would actually be better for manufacturers too, in that it would be more efficient (they’d make slightly less money, but with significantly less work and investment), but they would never do it. Manufacturers don’t succeed by being good at what they do, they succeed by manipulating the meta. Regular releases keep your brand on people’s minds. Timing your announcements and making a big deal about it makes a huge difference (everyone wants to be the hot thing in Q4 so people buy them for Christmas), and brands don’t want to miss an opportunity.

The annual cycle is a marketing tactic. And it honestly works, so I think it’s probably here to stay.

Saw this a few months ago and can not get it out of my head. Absolutely brilliant.

I haven’t looked into the specifics of these policies, so I could be wrong, but I’d say no.

This graph doesn’t really take into account everything it should IMO. The massive tax cuts to the wealthy are going to dramatically screw over people with lower incomes, because there’ll be less money overall. I believe Trump’s case would involve making up that deficit with really high tariffs on things, especially Chinese goods. This means that, although your taxes would be slightly lower on paper, you’re spending a lot more money for literally everything that’s made in China (or contains parts or materials from China). Typically tax cuts for the wealthy also involve money leaving crucial areas for lower income areas, like schools and infrastructure. The Harris plan (I believe) is revenue neutral, meaning for you it’s literally free money with no downsides. In her case the extra money comes from slightly increasing the tax rates of the wealthy (as you can see here).

It’s also worth noting that your income is taxes in the brackets it falls in. The first $39,000 is taxed at that (lower) rate, then the next bit is taxed in the next bracket, etc. Breaking the $140,000 mark doesnt mean all your income is now taxed at a higher rate. I THINK this is taken into account in this graph, but I haven’t looked into it to be sure. I wanted to mention it though because it’s a constant point of confusion for people.

Hope this helps.

https://youtu.be/e2n2ftM-MwI?si=F_1PfmfYQadCr9Zl

Clicks keyboard?

As much as I love shitting on the French for being terrible with numbers (seriously, how the fuck is the word for ‘99’ ‘four-twenties, a ten, and a nine’?!?) this one seems intentional so you can feel when you run out.