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

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#111

Post by noobermin »

kelnos wrote: post #95
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.

And they found that time for europe because...the EU's regulatory environment is easier to deal with?

Re: We are not sustainable

#112

Post by ralfd »

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…

Apple and Google and Microsoft are exaggerating for marketing their accomplishments, but the do really try to accomplish something. Apples „reasonably ambitious“ plans are aligned with the 1.5 degree target.

https://newclimate.org/news/reaction-apple-unveils-its-first...

> *Apple is one of very few companies* assessed in the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM, published February 2023) to have set and be implementing reasonably ambitious medium-term emission reduction targets.

> *Apple could stand out as a role model for various aspects of its climate strategy* without the exaggerating claims that let it down. Apple’s GHG emission reduction targets are relatively strong, it has one of the highest quality strategies in the industry for the procurement of renewable electricity for its own operations, and we see that the company is taken meaningful measures to extend the lifetime of its products.

https://newclimate.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/CCRM23_Fi...

Re: We are not sustainable

#113

Post by ralfd »

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…

This is a useful comparison for me to check Apples claims:

https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/14-...

The M2 MacBook Pro is 240 kg CO2 with a similar split of 79% production and 20% usage.

Re: We are not sustainable

#114

Post by 0x38B »

notpushkin wrote: post #10

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

I saw the title in my email and had a moment of panic; my favorite laptop maker, in trouble?

The first paragraph relieved my concerns and reading about Ryzen graphical performance on the Framework 13 got me thinking about upgrading my 11th gen i5 - Skyrim, the Mass Effects, and more recently Dishonored all run ok (often at 720p for decent FPS), but the multiplayer games my friends play are more than my system can handle.

Framework is a deal that’s getting sweeter the longer they make laptops, as users like me forgo buying a new laptop in favor of a new main board, repurposing the old one (maybe a Retroarch box?).

Re: We are not sustainable

#115

Post by dzonga »

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…

people need private transportation in the us.

but surely people don't need big suv's. I like big cars too - but those things are unsustaianble.

wish people would adopt the smaller cars found in asia, motorcycles, mopeds etc. i'm sure you can even have a 'jek' like vehicle which protects user from elements and can go up to 70mph on a motorcycle engine.

but alas there's no drive

Re: We are not sustainable

#116

Post by theshrike79 »

noobermin wrote: post #111
kelnos wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And they found that time for europe because...the EU's regulatory environment is easier to deal with?

They're still not selling to the Nordics, even though (most of us) are in the EU or at least very similar law-wise.

Re: We are not sustainable

#117

Post by _8j50 »

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 have a 2015 MBP with only 16GB ram that is my reliable and sturdy daily workhorse. Curious if your storage is hdd and your OS is windows?

Re: We are not sustainable

#118

Post by _8j50 »

duskwuff wrote: post #79
_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…

> the best part is if the components are reused from consumer devices, they might be dirt cheap Older hardware takes substantially more power to do the same work (and more power at idle); in a datacenter environment, this also means more power consumption for cooling. There's a case to be made for keeping old hardware in service where possible, but this isn't a situation where it makes economic or environmental sense…

But consumer cpus use less power and having a lot of them means you can be granular with power usage and use a lot less power. I would also challenge that using more power is not a problem if your energy sourcre is nuclear or renewable.

Re: We are not sustainable

#119

Post by rypskar »

mh8h wrote: post #59
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…

I don’t have the numbers for US wildfires this year. But the emission caused by the wildfires in Canada this year was about 2x the annual emissions generated by transportation.

That don't compare since wildfires are releasing carbon that is part of the natural cycle while transportation is adding to the natural cycle. What is released from wildfires are soon absorbed by new forest growing where the old was

Re: We are not sustainable

#120

Post by chiefalchemist »

kelnos wrote: post #88
chiefalchemist wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a good point, thanks. However, as demand drops so does the unity of such cartels. Less demand will likely destabilize those arrangements. In this case, raising prices to compensate for drop in demand is self defeating as it makes alternatives more cost effective. At some point there's a tipping point where volume is the only option (to make up for less demand).

We'll see. It's complicated. And if you or I could predict the future...we'd not be on HN guessing :)

Post reply on HN