You’re replying to a 5 day old comment and your reply has almost nothing to do with my
Are you OK?
You’re replying to a 5 day old comment and your reply has almost nothing to do with my
Are you OK?
FTC rules, you are joking. FTC rules are supposed to promote competition , rather than promoting monopolies Gogle etc. SPC waived any recourse that people had possibly against Big Pharma.
I laugh ( in your general direction ha ha brrrraaaaappp)
5 days old, is that important to you? Have you got your appointment yet?
It was off topic and old; I was just checking whether you were intending to reply to me. Creating off-topic posts with personal insults is childish and against forum rules.
Since when is attacking the product part of forum rules?
Criticizing products in good faith is not against the forum rules.
Off topic posts are against forum rules.
Personal insults that have nothing to do with the arguments are against forum rules. I reported your post for attacking me; it was also off-topic. Stop.
Excellent . You have done very well.
Yes, legally Purism should have followed its stated refund policy and kept paying out refunds for the L5 until it declared bankruptcy. If disgruntled customers had organized a class-action lawsuit against Purism for not repaying their refund requests or a governmental agency had cracked down on Purism, they could have forced the company into bankruptcy.
That would have helped the people who demanded their refunds early before Purism ran out of funds and had to declare bankruptcy. However, it is likely that a bankruptcy would have cancelled the L5, deprived the world of the code produced for the L5 and resulted in far more people being harmed than Purism’s decision to delay paying the refunds and only provide immediate refunds in the form of credit to buy other Purism products. My conclusion is that there was no good decision that Purism could have made in early 2020 which wouldn’t have resulted in some customers getting harmed, but it appears to me that Purism made a decision in favor of the majority at the expense of the minority that wanted refunds. The law doesn’t work according to Thomas Bentham’s “utilitarian calculus”, but I don’t think the legal solution to the problem would have resulted in a good outcome for the majority of people involved.
@Privacy2 has pointed to the example of Jolla to argue that Purism could have reorganized under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but I’m skeptical that would have worked for Purism. Jolla was a company formed principally to continue the development of the mobile operating system which Nokia had abandoned, and its hardware sales were primarily a means to advertise its Sailfish OS so it could sell the OS. Jolla was able to retreat to just being a software company and it found new funders to avoid a formal bankruptcy.
Purism didn’t have another business to fall back on like Jolla and if Purism had declared bankruptcy, I doubt that it could have continued as a company selling Linux hardware, because customers for its other products (laptops, mini-PCs, etc) would have lost confidence in its ability to deliver and simply stopped ordering. Maybe Purism could have tried to do a Chapter 11 reorganization, but I’m pretty sure that Purism wouldn’t have lasted long without new orders and ended up in a Chapter 7 liquidation. This is all speculation on my part, since I haven’t seen Purism’s books, but it is hard to imagine anyone ordering from Purism if it had declared bankruptcy and had thousands of angry customers complaining about their lost deposits for the L5. In that situation, I don’t see how Purism could have gotten preorders for the L14 and Mini to bring them to market, how it could have raised any money on Kickfurther or how it could have raised $10 million in convertible notes.
It is instructive to look at what happened to Jolla’s customers. From what I read, Jolla was unable to deliver its Jolla C tablet, because one of its chief backers had financial problems, and couldn’t keep funding the company. Jolla was able to refund half of each pre-order, and it said that its customers could use the other half of their preorders for the Jolla C to get licenses for Sailfish OS that they could use to install the OS on Xperias and other phones. 163 customers were randomly selected to get their full refunds, but the vast majority only got half of their money back. In contrast, Purism has been able to deliver the L5 to the majority of customers who didn’t cancel their orders.
This isn’t excusing how Purism has handled the refunds. I think that it is disgraceful how Purism has treated those customers, telling them that they would get their refund when they got to their position in the queue, and then saying privately in email to some customers that they couldn’t get a refund and could only get credit to buy other products, while saying in the email to Rossmann that the company still is trying to pay back the refunds when it gets the funds. I have criticized Purism for not publicly clarifying its policy for the the 600 customers who are still awaiting refunds. At this point we don’t know if Purism intends to ever refund them or not. Still, they are in a better situation than Jolla’s customers who only got half refunds, since they at least have the possibility of recovering their deposits by accepting the Librem 5 and reselling it for at least as much as they paid.
If Purism had declared bankruptcy in 2020, then the development of Phosh probably would have stopped, which would have been a loss for the users of mobile Linux, since Phosh has become the leading mobile Linux interface (according to PINE64’s poll). In addition, libhandy, libadwaita, Calls and Chats wouldn’t have become part of GNOME, and GNOME wouldn’t have become adaptive and touch friendly, so we would lose the benefit of Purism’s dev work for the wider Linux community.
If Purism had disappeared as a company, work on PureOS would have stopped, which would have an effect on the FSF, since PureOS has become the leading distro with 100% free software (according to distrowatch.org). Without Purism, we would probably have fewer Linux laptops on the market today that support Coreboot. People had been asking System76 to support Coreboot for years (2008, 2010, 2015, 2015), but it was likely the competitive pressure from Purism that convinced System76 to finally start working on it, and that in turn pushed Tuxedo Computer, Star Labs and NovaCustom to also add support for Coreboot.
Finally, we have to consider what would have happened to customers if Purism had declared bankruptcy. The US Bankruptcy Code establishes an order of priority for the payout to creditors. If Purism had any bank loans (i.e. secured creditors with a lien on the assets of the company), they would have been paid first. Any tort claims and any employees owed back pay or benefits would be paid next. If any money were still left, customers who have deposits up to $1800 for the “purchase, lease, or rental of property, good or service” would get paid next according to 11 U.S.C. Section 507(a)(7). However, customers who preordered the L5 would have to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case and they would have to do it before the “claims bar date” set by the court. If the customers failed to file a proof of claim by that date, then they would forfeit their right to payment. In all likelihood, most customers probably wouldn’t file their claims correctly, and it is doubtful that there would be much money left for the customers at that point, since a Purism employee said in the email to Rossmann that the company didn’t have the money to pay out the refund requests.
I feel for the people that are still waiting for their refunds from Purism, but it looks to me that they would be in a worse position if Purism had declared bankruptcy in 2020.
What is a better or worse position for refundees is not for us to decide; the fact that their refund request(s) are not being respected now with shipping parity across all Purism devices means everyone loses.
Bankruptcy law is based on “fairness” and balances all the promises made to all investors and creditors (whether they are stock holders == none, bond holders, secured creditors, customers). The fact of the matter is that the stock holders (Todd Weaver and, presumably, a few others) and bond holders (including convertible notes) took advantage of the creditors. That was not fair. At all. You’ve now sided with “business owners and big money” against many of the actual customers. And that is wrong.
No. That’s its current position. Jolla had a dual goal of continuing the Nokia + Meego/Maemo SW (SailfishOS) and creating and selling HW for that OS. Their original business plans recognized that the HW would have to be the income generating portion because they would not make money on Free SW. You must recall that they had promised to release everything as FOSS? After the 2nd round of funding, they had to clarify that this was “after their expenses had been recouped” (just like Purism’s promises in regard to the KiCAD files). Well, the fact of the matter is that this business plan didn’t work … and it’s exactly why SailfishOS is not entirely FOSS. [Edit: Here’s an article that shows when Jolla had to change from HW + SW to SW. Mobile Maker Jolla Splits In Two, With Sailfish OS Its First Order Of Business | TechCrunch ]
No. I think you don’t understand how private equity works. The “backers” didn’t have financial
problems, they didn’t want to “throw good money after bad”. Jolla made the mistake of using all of their investor money funding developers (their run rate was ridiculously unsustainable) and then thought
they “had to” use customer money — which was earmarked to pay the HW manufacturer for the product — for paying developers. In the end, the HW was made and Jolla no longer had the money to pay the HW manufacturer for all of the product (some customers did get their tablets). Familiar story, no?
It’s trying to. You’re saying “it’s bad, but still for the best”. That’s an excuse. And I don’t agree with it.
Rossman has quite clearly pointed out that Purism doesn’t see itself as the villain, when they should. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IjUryQOlgk .
I disagree. And I feel that this suggestion is akin to a hostage situation … and you say that it would be fine to pay the ransom and not try to arrest the hostage takers. The fact is that the investors (Todd Weaver or anyone holding stock … as well as those holding convertible bonds) should take the hit first. Don’t you see that???
That’s just in your imagination IMO. I recently posted a link to a video of how/why System76 started working with Intel on coreboot (edit: Here is a youtube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKSkPVz89o . I also posted a direct link from the OSFC site somewhere if you don’t like youtube). Basically it was because Intel offered to work with them. I can get you a URL if you want … but it was Jeremy Soller’s talk at the 2019 Open Source Firmware Conference. There’s also a talk there by someone from Intel explaining their Open Platform Enabling Plans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2aKDVuFaX8
It’s a good summary paragraph. What you should note is that the stock holders and convertible note holders (investors who intentionally took risks to get rewards) should take a hit before the customers. In your world, that would never happen and that, IMO, is morally wrong.
Jolla C Tablet, “C” ? Are you confused about Jolla C Phone?
Anyways let is wait for the upcoming Sailfish 4.6 supporting 5G, plus WPAN Tethering, HDR Cam, and huge more.
Also the upcoming fancy support for Sony Murray for Sailfish OS, to me will be the best ever elegance device for sailfish.
Oh sorry. I’m talking about the Jolla Tablet, not the Jolla C smartphone.
… and neither is Purism’s refund policy. We don’t even know what that policy is.
But how is any of this relevant to “Rob Braxman’s review of the Librem 5”?
Amos decides the topic of conversation since they are the OP, so if they go off-topic, I can follow it.
I hardly have anything to add to the main topic itself, since I do not use YouTube; the best I can do is do background research on Rob Braxman, and it is clear I am not very interested in them to begin with.
I meant … as it is being applied to historical “change of mind” orders. That link only tells us the policy as it is written now and would in theory apply to a new order placed today. There is anecdotal evidence that the current policy is being applied to historical “change of mind” orders but I haven’t seen any explicit statement from Purism to that effect.
Regardless though, Purism’s refund policy, for historical orders or for current orders, is not for us to decide.
Not that Purism has to care at all, but I actually think that Purism now has the correct policy regarding “change of mind”.
Megapixels and libcamera were happening without Purism, so I agree on that point. However, NXP poorly documented the CSI interface on its i.MX 8M chips and other projects like the MNT Reform don’t need it, so I doubt that anybody would have bothered to figure out what Purism did with the L5’s cameras, since it took months of painful trial and error. For example, one guy posted on the NXP forum:
I’m not entirely sure where to go for documentation as well, because it seems like the iMX8M Reference Manual has almost zero information on the CSI interface, and there are only 1-2 replies in forums saying that this device is somewhat of a mix of the iMX7 and iMX6 interfaces, regarding MIPI and CSI (?!)
If Purism had dropped development of the L5 in Feb. 2020 (when they decided to stop giving refunds), there would have been so few people who saw Purism’s code working that I doubt that any volunteers would have arisen to carry on the code projects that Purism started. By early 2020, only the few hundred people who got the L5 dev kits, Birch and Chestnut had seen libhandy and Phosh in action. Remember that the Mobian distro with Phosh started in May 2020, Debian first added Phosh in June 2020, the Pinephone postmarketOS Community Edition with Phosh was announced in June 2020, Fedora added Phosh in July 2020, and GNOME adopted libhandy as an official project in August 2020.
Furthermore, the history of GNOME shows that it hasn’t incorporated mobile code in the past if that code was abandoned by the developer. GNOME announced the GNOME Mobile & Embedded Initative in April 2007, and a month later Nokia offered the GNOME Foundation its Hildon code from Maemo to be incorporated over time into GTK. Maemo’s hildon-gtk made GTK 2 responsive and touch friendly, in a similar way that libhandy did for GTK 3. GNOME officially adopted Hildon as a project, yet GNOME relied on Nokia to do the work to incorporate it into GTK. Nokia bought Trolltech in January 2008 and switched to Qt as its mobile toolkit, so development of Hildon was abandoned and it wasn’t incorporated into GTK. The GNOME developers largely ignored the ideas in Hildon when designing GTK 3 (although they did support touch screens).
Despite a great deal of interest from GNOME users over the years, the GNOME Foundation did little to make its code mobile friendly, which I attribute to the lack of interest from GNOME’s major contributors. Red Hat and SUSE make most of their money from software and services running on servers. Google had no interest in developing GNOME Mobile as a competitor to Android and Canonical was developing its own mobile interface based on Qt. It was Purism’s work on libhandy/libadwaita and Purism paying Tobias Bernard to work on the design of a mobile interface that led to Bernard and Jonas Dreßler applying for a grant from the Prototype Fund for mobile development in GNOME 40+, which kickstarted GNOME Shell Mobile in April 2022
Given that GNOME made little progress on its mobile initiative between 2007 and 2020 without Purism, I see little reason to believe that GTK/GNOME volunteers would have picked up libhandy if Purism had abandoned it. The essential difference between Nokia’s Hildon and Purism’s libhandy/libadwaita was the fact that Purism worked actively with the GTK/GNOME projects to incorporate their code, and that work started in the second half of 2020 after Purism was already having financial trouble.
Yes, I am biased, but that doesn’t change the fact that most people who preordered the L5 would be in a worse situation financially if Purism had declared bankruptcy in early 2020. Only those who cancelled their orders before Purism ran out of funds would have benefited, whereas the roughly 5400 people* who have received the Librem 5 and a sizable percentage of the 600 people who are currently waiting for their refunds would have been harmed financially. In contrast, today those 600 can either accept the Librem 5 and resell it or continue to wait for Purism to get enough new orders to be able to repay them. Either way, those people are probably better off financially with those two options than in a bankruptcy proceedings.
My position is to pressure Purism to make a public commitment to pay out the refund requests with the funds that it receives from new orders of other products, as Purism stated in its private letter to Rossman at 7:00:
The production of the phone ended up costing more than people had prepaid to order it. Another paradox that I discovered was that it was cheaper for Purism to refund the phone than to send the phone–the difference was financed through the sale of other products. Todd decided to honor his commitment to the majority and keep his investment in the R&D, while honoring the refund requests over time by funding them with other products.
Telling people to not buy Purism’s products makes it more likely that Purism won’t have new orders to pay the refunds, so I don’t understand what is your goal. If your goal is to prevent new people from being harmed, that doesn’t make much sense because people ordering from Purism today are not taking a risk like they did in preordering the L5, since the only new product for sale is the Librem 11 which Purism claims will ship within 10 days of ordering. If your goal is to punish Purism for its bad behavior, then continue publicly denouncing the company, but I don’t think that is going to help people get their refunds faster.
I can see the argument that Purism should be punished as a matter of principal, because it violated the rule of law and undermined public trust in the system of commerce. However, if we are going to look at this from the perspective of how many people were harmed financially, bankruptcy probably would not have resulted in a good outcome for most people who cancelled their orders.
As for your argument about a “fair order” in bankruptcy, I would say that customers who ordered a good or service from a company should have higher priority in getting paid than secured creditors (i.e. banks that loaned to the company), but that is not the way that the law works.
It is also worth pointing out that many of the people who refuse to accept the Librem 5 and resell it are not doing this for economic reasons, since most of them paid $599-$799 for a product that now has a list price of $999.
First of all, we should be grateful that anyone is willing to invest money in Purism considering how many business failures there have been with mobile Linux in the past. Investing in the development of mobile Linux is hardly a rational business decision considering that history.
The business owners and investors in Purism have taken a loss developing the L5, according to Purism’s letter to Rossmann. Given how tarnished Purism’s reputation is from developing the L5 and all the bad reviews it has received, Purism is unlikely to ever recoup what it invested in the project since it isn’t going to sell many L5’s in the future.
Purism reported that it received $2.81 million in preorders for the L5 by 2018-11-01, so let’s guesstimate $4 million total in preorders (since the preorders slowed down a lot over the course of 2018, and $4M would be 6000 preorders at an average price of $667, which aligns with the numbers in Purism’s letter to Rossmann*).
If we assume that Purism pays developers $5k per month, then I calculate that Purism has spent around $2.2 million developing the software in the L5.
|Guido Gunther||Distinguished Engineer||phosh, phoc, libhandy, feedbackd, gtherm, linux-next||2018-05-07||65.4|
|Mohammed Sadiq||GTK Developer||Chatty, gtk||2019-06-04||52.3|
|Adrien Plazas (purism)||GTK Developer||libhandy, geary, epiphany, libadwaita, pureos-store||2018-02-01||68.6|
|Sebastian Krzyszkowiak||Shell Developer||mobile apps, phosh, millipixels||2019-07-03||51.4|
|Dorota Czaplejewicz||Application Developer||Squeekboard, camera configuration, Millipixels||2017-12-08||70.4|
|Julian Sparber (½ time)||Application Developer||Calls, Fractal, Phosh||2019-06-23||2023-04-27||23.4|
|Alice Mikhaylenko||Application Developer||libhandy, epiphany, kgx||2020-09-22||18.2|
|Tobias Bernard (1/3 time)||Lead UI/UX Designer||design of Phosh and future camera app||2018-05-30||2021-11-22||14.1|
|Andrea Schaefer||Application Developer||chatty||2018-05-28||2020-07-20||26.1|
|Bob Ham||Phone Developer||Calls, ModemManager, haegtesse||2018-02-01||2020-03-05||25.4|
|Sam Hewitt (1/3 time)||UI/UX Designer||Design of chatty & millipixels||2019-07-30||16.8|
|Martin Kepplinger||Kernel Developer||linux,||2019-05-31||26.2|
|Evangelos Ribeiro Tzaras||Application Developer||GTK4, libadwaita, chatty, calls||2020-12-03||17.0|
|Angus Ainslie||Full Stack Developer||uboot, agps, zephyr, linux||2018-05-07||32.7|
|Total cost (assume $5k/mth)||$2168k|
If we estimate the bill of materials was $400 per phone, that would cost $2.16 million for 5400 phones. Then add in the cost of designing the phone, which includes paying some design firm in Taiwan or China and the salaries of Nicole Færber and Eric Kuzmenko. Faerber reported that the main circuit board went through over a dozen iterations. With some back of the envelope math, it isn’t hard to see how Purism spent over $4M on the L5. Canonical estimated that it would have needed $32 million in preorders to pay for its Ubuntu Edge phone, so its hardly surprising that Purism ran into financial trouble.
However, there is a larger argument that Purism’s dev work benefits society as a whole, which should be taken into account because sticking it to the rich Purism investors means harming a lot of other people. For example, the Pine64 survey in Jan 2022 found that roughly 35% of PinePhone owners are using Phosh. Given that the 3079 respondents to the poll represented “less than 5%” of the PinePhone owners, that works out to over 60,000 PinePhone sales in 2 years, or about 100,000 by now, so roughly 35,000 PinePhone users are benefiting from Purism dev work. In addition, there are roughly 30 million desktop Linux users in the world, and the majority are using GTK/GNOME software that has been improved by libhandy/libadwaita.
Then consider the long-term goal for mobile Linux to become a viable alternative to Android and iOS, so people have the option to not be controlled and manipulated by powerful companies and big moneyed interests. People should control the technology in their pockets rather than it becoming a means to spy on their personal lives and monetize them through targeted advertising.
When big tech companies design cell phones to only last a couple years, they are pushing millions of poor people to keep buying expensive planned-obsolescent devices. To get to a world where cell phones can last 10 years rather than 3 years, we need mobile Linux to succeed and that will only happen if companies like Purism are paying developers to work on it, rather than driving those companies into bankruptcy.
As I see it, the goal is for mobile Linux to get good enough that it goes beyond the Linux enthusiast market and starts reaching normal people. At some point there will be enough demand to convince the makers of the leading-edge mobile SoC’s (Qualcomm, MediaTek, Samsung, UNISOC and HiSilicon) to start supporting Linux, rather than just supporting Android. If the bootloader isn’t locked and the SoC is fully supported by Linux, then people can switch their phones from Android to Linux to keep using them for many more years and avoid the harvesting of their personal data. Extending the life of mobile devices with Linux will dramatically lower their economic and environmental costs.
I see little chance of mobile Linux succeeding in a reasonable time frame without paid developers working on it, and I see little hope for AOSP derivatives ever reaching beyond a niche market, because Google can simply stop releasing new AOSP versions if it ever becomes a true threat to Google’s profits. It is for these reasons, why I advocate for people to support Purism despite its flaws, because I don’t see another company that is willing to invest in mobile Linux in the right way. Unlike Palm/HP/LG’s WebOS, Canonical’s Ubuntu Touch, Mozilla’s FirefoxOS and Samsung’s Tizen, Purism has tried to upstream its code as much as possible, and get its code incorporating into the principal Linux distros, rather than building unsustainable code silos, which is why the majority of the 344k lines of code in projects that Purism started are now part of GNOME.
* Purism’s letter to Rossman said that 10% cancelled their L5 orders and there are 600 outstanding refund requests, so we can calculate 5400 orders that weren’t cancelled, but that ignores the number of refunds that have already been paid, so the number of uncancelled orders might be larger.
I am honored to report some of my posts were hidden I am not sorry.
I will continue to defend Purism and the Liberty 5 phone to my dying breath
The Champions of gogle MS and Fruity Coy will and are doing everything in their power to stop Purism.
Since when is calling Purism scammers and criminals allowed by forum rules. Stop
By the way, I know that this is just a dream at this point. Realistically, the leading-edge mobile SoC manufacturers probably won’t upgrade their firmware blobs and proprietary binaries to be compatible with newer kernels, regardless of whether of whether Android or Linux, so there will probably be some functions that don’t work, which is what we see currently with postmarketOS on Snapdragon phones.
You admitted bias and, without even pausing, proceeded to assert something as “fact” when it is “speculation.” It’s speculation because you don’t know how much money Purism had because you have no transparency as to their funds. You have no way of knowing whether they could have honored all of their refund requests or done so after reorganizing. You aren’t convincing me, you are only consoling yourself.
I doubt it … and you repeating it doesn’t make it true or excusable. e.g. As part of bankruptcy there would be a sell-off of the remaining inventory to help with the refunds. e.g. Any money left, including from the convertible loans, would be dispensed in an orderly manner.
As long as you make excuses for their behavior and minimize blame, I think you are decreasing pressure. I find it unlikely that Purism will publicly commit to refunds. IMO Purism had choices and made the choice to not honor their agreement with regard to refunds. They are to blame because they are the only party here to make a choice to act poorly.
I haven’t told people not to buy Purism products. I’ve only told people what I would or wouldn’t do. There is a difference between sharing advice and directing behavior. I’ve only told people the following (and, for the record, I’ve mostly done this on reddit and not here):
My goal is to make sure that Purism customers know that they can not necessarily trust Purism to honor their commitments to their customers.
On products that are “in stock” I’ve basically given the advice of 3 and 4 above. If/When the Librem 16 comes out, I will continue to point out those greater risks as well as Purism’s new policy ( which includes “Once an order is placed Purism will deliver that product to you, no refund is offered nor given for an order in the processing queue.” ). I do this because a potential
customer deserves to know this.
There is a risk, even on the Librem 11: See (4), from above and ask yourself what one should do if you buy the Librem 11 and Purism doesn’t ship in 10 days and makes some excuse saying that it will take an additional 30 days because of [problems with coreboot, problems with the EC firmware, we discovered a HW problem, …].
It was a private letter from, AFAICT, the new marketing guy at Purism. I don’t trust marketers. My opinion of that letter matches Rossmann’s. I’m not going to repeat it here.
Part of what makes it “fair” is that the business doesn’t get to put their investors ahead of their customers … along with the fact that “priority” is transparent and was set to be as fair as possible by people who understand bankruptcy/debt/customers/investments more than you do.
“benefits society as a whole” == irrelevant and doesn’t excuse them from not honoring their commitments. I can guarantee you a bankruptcy judge wouldn’t let you blather on about that because it’s irrelevant.
And then you go on about “sticking it to the rich Purism investors”. I didn’t say they were rich. Investors are taking risks for rewards. It’s exactly the people that signed up for the risks. It’s exactly why they are last in priority when it comes to bankruptcy … and they know that in advance.
Is that relevant to the conversation at all? As I said before, a bankruptcy judge wouldn’t think so and neither do I.
Also, go through that paragraph and see how much BS you are shoveling. Arguably, poor people are better served by either not buying a phone or buying a $150 motorola G and have it last 3 years supported and longer unsupported —> all of that is cheaper and more useful than spending $999 on a Librem 5 that will probably die in a few years. And that’s only one thing. I could and would go on if it were relevant. If you reply with your screed about “the environment” and go further off topic, I will block you.
As I see it, you are shoveling this BS for a for-profit company where you have turned their marketing into some sort of dream utopia that can’t exist without them. Because of that I’m going to end this with a true story. Take from it what you will.
I am friends with several Mormon families. The Mormon church recently changed the age and length of service for their missionary program for young men: younger (from 19yo to 18yo) and longer (from 18months to 2 years). I asked why. Curiously, they were honest and truthful: Too many children were “losing their faith” after being in college for a year. I also found out that a mission was a success if they had even one conversion. And, with a wink, I was told that the real point of the mission was to convert the missionary. It turns out that two solid years of trying to convince other people about their religion mainly worked to cement their own beliefs. And, even more surprising, is that this is not really a secret. When the missionary returns, that’s often exactly what they see as their greatest accomplishment. They basically spent 2 years convincing themselves and are happy about that result.
A self-fulfilling prophecy, but does it stand up in college/university thereafter?