The shoe horn is the bidet of getting dressed.

Active noise cancelling - noise cancelling that doesn’t just rely on making a seal between your ears and the earbuds/headphones.

Sounds like a you problem, I have it on good authority that it’s pretty common:

how many times does the average person use wireless charging? Seriously, I haven’t seen anyone do that yet, or know of someone who uses that.

and yet that’s still a major feature in lots of phones

You’ve shown everyone that you can, in fact, listen to wired headphones and charge at the same time with “major features found in lots of phones”, which solves your original complaint, which itself depends on some very specific scenarios.

Funny you bring up wireless charging.

Does that not solve your proposed problem? You can use a usb-c to audio dongle, which often comes with better sound quality than a phones DAC, and wirelessly charge, even via many powerbanks. These are features found fairly commonly in today’s phones, so problem solved?

If I’ve asked a question twice and you’ve danced around it both times, that tells everyone what your answer is.

Sure, for simplicities sake let’s just say it’s impossible.

How many times has the average person needed to do so in a year?

If we revisit the “loud” vs “statistically significant” paradigm, while it is a shame you will not be able to charge the phone with a dac in without buying a specific cable, how often does the average person do so?

Here’s a relevant stack exchange question. Regarding what an ISP can learn. Of note, everybody is ceding that the ISP can tell you’re using signal, and they’ve moved on to whether or not they’d be able to fingerprint your usage patterns.

Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

Right, so if the header isn’t encrypted, it’d be trivial for them to see who you’re sending to, which is why that’s important.

You never answered my question - do you think the network connection itself is encrypted? Or just the content of the messages?

You’re talking about encryption and signal because you’re worried about folks whose network you’re connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

I’d say it’s a pretty reasonable suggestion to say we start with those guys. If you don’t worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

If the header isn’t encrypted it’d be easy to inspect, and thus easy to determine where it goes, which is why it matters.

Based on your questions, it sounds like you’re expecting the network traffic itself to be encrypted, as if there were a VPN. Does signal offer such a feature? My understanding is that the messages themselves are encrypted, but the traffic isn’t, but I could be wrong.

Would you? Are the headers encrypted?

How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted

Not my specialty, but signals end to end encryption is akin to sealing a letter. Nobody but the sender and the recipient can open that letter.

But you still gotta send it through the mail. That’s the network traffic analysis that can be used.

Here’s an example of why that could be bad.

How exactly do you think encryption prevents the analysis of seeing when an encrypted message is sent? It feels like you’re trying to hand-waive away by saying “encryption means you’re good!”

Cyber security is not my thing, but my understanding is that you’d still see network traffic - you just wouldn’t know what it says.

Reusable rockets, in particular.

Imagine having a reusable car in a world where they were all disposable.