We are not sustainable • Hacker News Board

Re: We are not sustainable

#81

Post by fbdab103 » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:38 AM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #33

gpm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline Five year CO2 production roughly equivalent to two tanks of gas in a honda civic. It's not nothing, but if you're looking to reduce your CO2 footprint I'm not sure this is what I'd look towards as the low hanging fruit for just about anyone who can afford their product. For instance for most people driving less, or driving smaller vehicles, would be far more…

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Tr…

Good thing my employer has mandated RTO two days a week where I continue to have exclusively remote interactions with coworkers.

Re: We are not sustainable

#82

Post by russelg » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:45 AM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #64

toast0 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you buy it from Apple directly, or a retailer? If from Apple, you may consider a chargeback. Or suggest that you'll do a chargeback if they don't refund you when you next check on the status of the replacement.

Great idea. I did order directly from them. Thanks for this suggestion.

Companies may retaliate if you initiate a charge back. Not sure if Apple does or will, but you could possibly lose your Apple ID.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250418193 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6474540 https://www.reddit.com/r/applehelp/comments/enfza3/ramificat... https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/9qdynm/apple_not_hel... https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252449855

Re: We are not sustainable

#83

Post by kelnos » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:47 AM UTC

palata wrote: post #69

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives. Cardboard straws suck ass . Without exception, every single cardboard straw I've ever used was soggy and tasted... well, like cardboard. They simply are not viable replacements. Fake…

> If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives. If people are not ideologically onboard with "we don't want society to collapse" while wanting to keep using plastic straws... I think they need information more than viable alternatives.

Part of the issue with your argument is that most policymakers will be dead by the time society collapses, so they don't care as much. Sure, there's often rhetoric around "saving the world for my children and their children", but in the end most people are selfish and are fine with making things the problems of future generations.

"Information" doesn't sway people. Feelings do. If they feel like they're eating/using/whatever something inferior to what they've grown up using, all in the name of sustainability, they're going to balk.

Re: We are not sustainable

#84

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:48 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #55

Everyone forgets the first two Rs of conservation. Buying one electronic gadget and holding on to it for 5-7 years or longer, including being able to make repairs and upgrades, is vastly better for the planet then getting that new iDevice every year or two and feeling better about yourself because it is advertised as "sustainably made".

[deleted]

Re: We are not sustainable

#85

Post by Yujf » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:48 AM UTC

palata wrote: post #73

gsky wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still use 12y laptop and I'm very of that even though people around me make jokes

Software developers tend to like their new toy and find excuses like "it's my job, so I need the latest hardware". They should realize that it makes them optimize their software for the latest hardware, and it forces everybody else to buy new hardware. People who make jokes about keeping old hardware need to understand that they are part of the problem.

"Optimize" as though most end user software is optimised. It is just written without much thought for perfomance most of the time

Re: We are not sustainable

#86

Post by kelnos » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:50 AM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #80

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job…

The only two options are not "you, individual, drive less" and "go to wall-street^W^W the office of shell gas and tell them to cut it out." A lot of americans are forced into car dependency, but at the very same time, it is very easy to drive in downtowns in the US even where it is difficult to own a car. You need to do both, both disincentivize driving on the personal level and regulate companies and change land-use…

The problem with making driving more expensive (which is what happens when you try to legally disincentivize it) is that it becomes a regressive tax: lower-income folks get hurt very badly by it. The rich of course don't love paying extra for something (and, being the ones usually in power, will fight against it), but can usually bear the cost without much pain.

Re: We are not sustainable

#87

Post by tonyedgecombe » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC

langsoul-com wrote: post #56

Now if only these laptops were a cost competitive price. Given the price, you can get much better.

Not if you want something repairable.

Re: We are not sustainable

#88

Post by kelnos » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #44

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

> If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil. Yes and no. Or at least maybe. If demand from autos drops so does the price of oil. At some point it becomes feasible to be used for things that were previously too expensive. Like what? I'm not sure but these things happen. It's how the market "thinks". Worst case, the cost of plastic falls even further. Less autos equals m…

OPEC (et al.) won't let that happen. If demand drops, they'll artificially constrain supply in order to prop up the price.

Of course, there could end up being a point in time when demand is so low that their whole thing just collapses.

Re: We are not sustainable

#89

Post by tonyedgecombe » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:56 AM UTC

klooney wrote: post #60

_8j50 wrote: post #58

Cost aside, is an i5 cpu and nvme laptop from 6yrs ago noticably underperformant enough to consider an upgrade under standard web browing and document editing workloads? I think plastic-free metallic casing is a big deal for ewaste. But also, SoC convergence is a terrible thing. It would have been nice if components were modular. Imagine if the 4g/5g, bluetooth and wifi modules if the billions of phones out there cou…

Web browsing is rough on my circa-2015 laptop.

I bet it was fine before React.js came along.

Re: We are not sustainable

#90

Post by kelnos » Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 5:59 AM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #21

icegreentea2 wrote: post #15

The life cycle assessment shows that over a five year life span, production is responsible for 65% of CO2e, and usage about 25% (out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline) using "a typical US energy mix". Component wise (during production), the largest CO2e contributor was the display at ~25%, then the mainboard at 20%, and then battery around 15%. Take aways for me are that: from a sustainability stan…

Regarding display production: I recently bought a Studio Display from Apple with the thought that it should last a very long time. It bricked itself with a software update after maybe 3 months. I realized these things depend on Apple supporting the A13 chip in order for it to remain compatible with new technologies and, absurdly, to remain secure from exploits. A monitor. I couldn’t regret my purchase much more and f…

Ugh, that sounds awful.

One option you might have would be to sell it on the used market, once you get the replacement. Certainly you won't get full price for it, but especially if Apple gives up and sends you a new-in-box replacement, you might be able to get pretty close.

Then you can buy something better. Hopefully the buyer of your Studio Display will be happy with it, and you'll have denied Apple a first-hand sale, while giving (most of) the money to another manufacturer that deserves it more.