I’ve been very stressed lately and have been doing some window shopping to calm down. I’m interested in gadgets, but a lot of things can just be replaced with apps. I realize a phone won’t replace very large appliances like refrigerators or washing machines so I’m trying to scope my question to portable devices. So what are some portable devices or gadgets that their specialization hasn’t been replaced by smart phone apps? Extra points if they’re super useful and reliable.

      • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
        31·
        7 days ago

        Would love to have one, but my neurologist said even slight vibrations in my mouth can fuck with my epilepsy. That means a migraine because my medicine prevents seizures. Going to the dentist is an affair that wrecks me for the whole day.

        • Kitsuko@lazysoci.al
          2·
          6 days ago

          It’s OK. My dentist thinks electric toothbrushes are too harsh on your teeth and shames anyone who even brings up the subject. So at least 1 dentist thinks it’s junk. He prefers soft bristles that you softly glide across your teeth by hand.

          • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
            3·
            6 days ago

            Soft bristles are pretty much the only thing anyone should use, regardless of whether or not it’s electric. Hard bristles are too harsh on your gums.

  • Etterra@discuss.onlineEnglish
    161·
    7 days ago

    Paper and pencil: an analog data storage medium immune to power outages, data costs, EMPs, and remote surveillance.

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    14·
    7 days ago

    Honestly most of the non digital functions of a phone are still inferior to it’s dedicated counterparts, but I would argue that a phone is good enough for 99% of people.

    So get a pocket multitool thingy, I always carry one in my bag and it has helped me quite a few time in my life.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      6 days ago

      Which multi tool? I carry a Benchmade bugout knockoff and a genuine Leatherman skeletool, ifixit Minnow screwdriver set and a generic basic screwdriver with small/large Philips and flathead in my work bag. Oh and a small adjustable wrench… Covers 95% of my work.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        4·
        6 days ago

        Yeah, the issue with multi tools is the same issue with phones; They’re mediocre at a lot of different things. A dedicated multi-bit screwdriver will almost always be better than a multitool. A solid pair of pliers will almost always be better than a multitool. Et cetera, et cetera…

        But in a pinch, a multitool is better than nothing. And a multitool is a hell of a lot easier to carry as a “just in case” thing than an entire toolbox of individual tools. As a freelancer I habitually keep a lot of tools in my trunk, but I don’t want to walk all the way out to my car just to tighten one screw. So I also keep a multitool around as a “good enough” solution.

        • thermal_shock@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 days ago

          My stuff is pretty basic. I’d carry something like that if I owned one already, over the years I’ve pretty much shed anything I don’t use enough on a regular basis. My whole kit is probably $80, mostly cause of the Leatherman. The bugout is a knockoff from AliExpress and I LOVE it. $15 is a steal for that style/size/design for a pocket knife.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      14·
      6 days ago

      To be clear: Hospitals use pagers because they use a longer (and much lower bandwidth) wavelength, which is affected less by things like thick fire-resistant walls. Hospitals are built like bunkers so that things like fires don’t require the entire building to be evacuated. Pagers can still reliably get signal even in the basement of a hospital, when behind multiple fire-resistant walls and solid concrete floors. Texting has effectively replaced pagers for 99% of the population. But hospitals still use them because reliability is prioritized in the medical world; No hospital wants to lose a patient because a doctor was in the basement and didn’t get a text.

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        There was a good episode of Planet Money which went into this. I addition to what you said, when doctors would get texts, they were more likely to dismiss the message and not respond immediately which was more dangerous.

      • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 days ago

        Also they don’t mess with radiology and it lets doctors have a way of being contacted that doesn’t give patients their number.

  • sleepmode@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    5 days ago

    Vicegrips. Wirestrippers. A light screwdriver with common bits carried on its handle like a Sidewinder. Rake lockpick. SDR. Elevator key. Punch. File. Multimeter. Multitool with good pliers. Crank radio. Survival guide. Poncho. Silver exposure blanket. Fire starters. Multihammer thing. MREs. Good flashlight. Beater laptop like an old x200. Serial console adapter. Flares. Camping stove. Throw it all in a bugout bag after you learn how to use them.

    • duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      6 days ago

      I know some phones are starting to work with satellite comms, so these may be replaced by cell phones in the near future heh, maybe not. See the comment below. At least currently, I have several friends who still have wilderness beacons.

      • Syakaizin@lemm.ee
        3·
        6 days ago

        They’ll never replace PLB/EPIRBs unless they bake in 406Mhz and 121.5Mhz communication. Satellite devices aren’t reliable enough for SAR. I’d even argue that they won’t replace Satellite Communicators - battery life isn’t good enough and the connection stability isn’t good enough

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    2·
    5 days ago
    • smartwatch
    • e-reader

    But from your description maybe you need a gadget related hobby. How about home automation? It’s not just multiple gadgets but having fun with what they can do together. You can do anything from dip your toes in to going all out

  • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
    6710·
    7 days ago

    Cameras. You can take pictures with your phone, but despite Apple’s advertisements, a phone camera will never produce anywhere near the same quality a dedicated digital camera with interchangeable lenses. And neither are as good as film.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 days ago

      And cameras will never replace a good painting!

      Jk, I still use my handheld camera, a shame it takes 30 seconds to boot it

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        2·
        6 days ago

        30 seconds

        Yowsa. That’s an old camera!

        I have a point-and-shoot Canon from around the mid-2010s that’s still perfectly functional. It starts faster than I can get to the phone app on my phone, and takes pictures faster. The video is worse.

        My Fuji T-10 takes a couple of seconds to start from cold, but less than a second if it’s in stand-by.

        The only digital camera I ever owned that took double-digit seconds to start was my very first - I don’t even recall the brand, but it was before smart phones and the resolution was pathetic, like 800x600 or something. And it was so. Slow. Starting, and snapping.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          1·
          5 days ago

          Maybe I’m overly dramatic and it actually takes less than 10 seconds, but it feels like an eternity…

          I wonder why you “can’t” have a camera that is ready instantly.

      • rabber@lemmy.caEnglish
        16·
        6 days ago

        It’s impossible to get a film look with digital, you can get close but there is just something about film that feels like a capture of an actual moment

        Similar argument is vinyl vs digital, some people just refuse to believe vinyl is unbeatable

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        912·
        7 days ago

        It’s not, really. Most of the variables are quantifiable: granularity (or resolution, what have you), dynamic range, speed. A small, disposable, fixed-lens film camera may not match a 3/4 Fuji X model, but compare similar size frames and don’t try to sabotage film by getting the cheapest no-name brand, and the measurable qualifiers are always superior on film. There are very few, if any, digital cameras available at even the professional level that can match the dynamic range and granularity of large format film.

        Edit

        I’m just going to put this here, because there are clearly lot of folks with opinions about this backed by … opinions.

        The Wikipedia article, while not authoritative, provides a good summary across a variety of factors. Aside from convenience factors, the one area where digital has a clear lead over film is noise and grain for color photography, and even so, long-exposure time photos require doing things like cooling the sensor - the not doing of which increases noise in digital photographs.

        When it comes to dynamic range, it seems modern digital cameras have finally caught up with film. HDR is described only for digital, and ignores the fact that multiple shots-at-different-exposures-combined-at-print-time has been used in film for nearly as long as we’ve had film cameras. It’s just now easier to do in digital cameras.

        There’s a distressing amount of assertions with [citation needed] in the article. There’s also odd assertion that digital is capable of better low light performance right before the admission that digital speeds at lower than ISO 100 are rarely available, whereas it’s easy to find ISO 20 and 25 film - and you can ISO 0.8 film commercially.

        @Blue_Morpho responded about how film is so bad that Kubrik choose digital, and there are certainly some directors who agree with him. Then there are directors like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino who think film’s better.

        TL;DR All of this is wildly off-topic

        The question was what devices are better as specialized devices vs apps on phones. My answer was: cameras. Not many directors are going to be shooting major films on cell phones. All of the controversy has been around film vs digital, and I’ll grant that digital has finally caught up to film in some areas, although I wonder if we throw price in as a factor how this would look.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          7·
          7 days ago

          ignores the fact that multiple shots-at-different-exposures-combined-at-print-time has been used in film for nearly as long as we’ve had film cameras.

          Multi shot for HDR in film is restricted to still life because film is very slow compared to digital. There’s no film camera that will automatically change the stops to make that feasible. So it’s take a shot, adjust settings, take another, adjust settings. At the low and high end you’d need to swap film stock between shots.

          @Blue_Morpho responded about how film is so bad that Kubrik choose digital,

          ??? I said to achieve low light performance on FILM, Kubrick needed a lens that was (and is) so special that only 10 exist in the world. What was possible for Kubrick using extraordinarily rare and expensive equipment is achieved by anyone with a common digital camera today.

          So while you can find references to film that matches digital, it is so extreme that it isn’t valid. It would be like someone using the cryogenic cooled sensor in the $10B Webb telescope for their argument.

          • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
            2·
            6 days ago

            I apologize for the phrasing - my only excuse is that I use Lemmy mostly in an app, and unless it’s the comment I’m directly responding to, I have to memorize stuff from other comments. It’s usually all I can do to remember who made the comment; trying for an exact quote is beyond me.

            So: I’m sorry for a bad paraphrasing.

        • Artyom@lemm.ee
          1·
          7 days ago

          Actually, some movies have started popping up where they film substantial chunks on iPhones. Odds are this trend will continue and the “professional camera purists” will be considered archaic like the 35mm purists are now.

    • Mister Neon@lemmy.worldOP
      9·
      7 days ago

      I would add that even though you can slap a filter on a pic you won’t get the same quality of lighting as utilizing reflectors, diffusers, lamps, etc.