Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are not sustainable

frame.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#91

Post by kelnos »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #65
antonvs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could consider filing in small claims court.

toast0 suggested a chargeback as well; both seems like great mechanisms to encourage a refund. Thanks for the suggestion.

I would probably recommend the small-claims court first (assuming that's a thing where you live). If you issue a chargeback, Apple isn't constrained by any code of conduct, and could retaliate by deactivating your Apple ID or refusing to sell you anything in the future, or...

But if you get a court order for Apple to take some specific action (like a refund), I'd think they'd be less likely to retaliate since you could presumably bring another (legal) case against them that their retaliation was shady.

Then again, I don't know about laws where you live, so maybe this isn't a consideration.

Re: We are not sustainable

#92

Post by kelnos »

Yujf wrote: post #85
palata wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Heh, yeah, more like "it runs well enough on my top-of-the-line machine, so that's good enough for everyone".

Re: We are not sustainable

#93

Post by seanmcdirmid »

palata wrote: post #70
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…

> And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. Hmm without saying that Americans need to do without a car entirely (because the country screwed up in that sense), I am pretty sure that in many situations, it is possible to not use a car. My experience is that Americans tend to not even consider taking a bike for a short ride. I have been in multiple pl…

I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.

Re: We are not sustainable

#94

Post by kelnos »

palata wrote: post #72
ianburrell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world CO2 emissions are 36 billion tons. 4.5 tons per person per year. The tech industry is .1% of that. There are more important things to worry, like how got to the store. More importantly, the tech industry is a lot of electricity and some other energy in production. Decarbonize electricity and electrify everything possible, which we must do, will solve the problem with tech. There is nothing extra that needs…

> Decarbonize electricity and electrify everything possible, which we must do, will solve the problem with tech. There is nothing extra that needs to be done. Except that you don't have a miracle low-emission energy source. So whatever you "waste" in the tech industry, you don't use in, say, electric trucks. Also the tech industry emissions are growing pretty fast. For what? Mostly for people to swipe TikTok 4h per d…

> Except that you don't have a miracle low-emission energy source.

Sure you do. Solar and wind with battery storage, and fission to fill in the rest. Nuclear being politically unfeasible doesn't change the reality that it's pretty damn clean. Waste disposal/storage is a solved problem except for -- of course, again -- the politics.

Yes, you can argue that "the politics" is important, and that makes it not "solved", and I'd agree. But we do have a low-emission energy source, and it's not a miracle, it's just science from the middle of the last century.

Re: We are not sustainable

#95

Post by kelnos »

noobermin wrote: post #34

Small comment on framework only somewhat related to its sustainability as a country. I live in Asia (Singapore) now after buying mine in America, and I cannot buy replacement parts now, even though most of the parts are made in Taiwan which is quite close to here. I am guessing it's likely because framework cannot make their nice markup if I buy from their Taiwanese suppliers directly, but it has dented somewhat the…

The lack of availability isn't due to some nefarious profit-seeking plot, it's because selling a product like a laptop requires a bunch of regulatory and logistics work. That work takes time and money, and Framework has a limited supply of both.

Re: We are not sustainable

#96

Post by kelnos »

notpushkin wrote: post #10

Title feels clickbaity. At first I thought thry were talking about (not) being financially sustainable.

Huh, I'm surprised, but that thought didn't even enter my head. Now that you mention it, it seems like such an obvious way to read the title that I'm vaguely embarrassed I didn't think of it.

Re: We are not sustainable

#97

Post by kelnos »

langsoul-com wrote: post #56

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

I keep reading this, but I just don't buy it. A while back I did some price comparisons with Dell, and found that while yes, Dell was cheaper, it wasn't by all that much.

I think one piece of advice I'd give to people buying a Framework laptop is to go the DIY Edition route, and don't buy the RAM or NVMe drive from Framework. I got equivalent/better parts elsewhere and saved $350.

Re: We are not sustainable

#98

Post by kelnos »

nluken wrote: post #26
benatkin wrote: post #6

Meanwhile at Google, Microsoft, and Apple: Greenwash all the things! \o/ https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/net-zero... https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b... https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-1... Amazon has 2040 as a target, not sure if that says they're being more honest or it's because they deal more in physical products. https://sustainability.ab…

"We are not sustainable, and we know that, but buy our products anyway" is still greenwashing...

That's... literally not greenwashing.

Admitting that they're not where they want to be, and presenting the results of a commissioned study that shows that, is more transparent than most other companies would ever be. I do actually believe that Framework will try to get their sustainability numbers better over time.

Re: We are not sustainable

#99

Post by rg111 »

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".

I am just very lazy to upgrade devices.

I also like the amount of familiarity, ease you get from using one device for many years.

I go beyond what is considered reasonable to use all my devices for multiple years. Phones 4-6 years, and laptops 7-9 years.

Re: We are not sustainable

#100

Post by praisewhitey »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
noobermin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

>And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars.

Addressing this first makes the other issues manageable.

Post reply on HN