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

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#131

Post by jjav »

palata wrote: post #105
jjav wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Yes, this is a big factor. Where I live (around silicon valley area) I can easily bike to nearly everything I need. But! Secure bike parking is rarely available. So my bike is guaranteed to be stolen. So the result is I either walk (if within ~10 minute walk) or drive. I'm a cyclist so I'd love to bike everywhere…

I find it a bit sad that (secure) bike parking is missing in a country where it honestly feels like half of the constructed territory is parking lots. Not a criticism, but the area covered by parking lots in the US shocks me every time I visit. Instead of making half-working heavy autonomous electric cars, couldn't Silicon Valley somehow find a low-tech way to solve the secure bike parking issue? They are good at cla…

> low-tech way

There's no technical problem, it's just a public policy issue.

In low-theft areas it just takes bike racks/poles/etc where one can lock the bikes. Cost is nearly nothing, just political will to do it.

In high-theft areas bike lockers are needed, these cost money and take more space, but it's still a lot more efficient in terms of transportation units per sqft.

Re: We are not sustainable

#132

Post by duskwuff »

_8j50 wrote: post #118
duskwuff wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. There's quite a bit of "fixed" power consumption that doesn't scale with usage -- DRAM controllers, PCIe, Ethernet PHYs, etc. Not only does that power consumption not go away when a machine isn't being used, but it's all also incurred per machine that's running, so a network of many small computers will also use a lot more power on these constant loads.

> I would also challenge that using more power is not a problem if your energy sourcre is nuclear or renewable.

I would love to live in a world where that were the case. Sadly, it is not. Renewable does not mean free.

Re: We are not sustainable

#133

Post by Uptrenda »

nrp wrote: post #77
Uptrenda wrote: post #75

I really wish they would ship their laptops faster. I would buy one but don't really want to wait a year+. Guess my next laptop will probably be a ThinkPad.

Our Intel-based Framework Laptop 13 is in stock, AMD-based has pre-orders going three months out, and Framework Laptop 16 pre-orders are about six months out.

Thanks for the info. I hope you all keep doing well. The Framework Laptop is the most elegant design for a laptop I've seen and I definitely want to own one. Normal laptop repair and upgrade seems terrifying to a beginner. But with framework it seems like lego. I think it's actually cool as hell.

Re: We are not sustainable

#134

Post by afiori »

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?

The EU and the US are a bit bigger than Singapore.

And yes, EU's bureaucracy is vastly simpler than that of "the combined rest of the world"

Re: We are not sustainable

#135

Post by volkandkaya »

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.

Not sure I understand this at all.

Compiling code faster and running it are different things.

If the goal is code that runs better on slower machines then that code needs optimising and to do that a faster machine is better at.

Re: We are not sustainable

#136

Post by JohnClark1337 »

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.

[dead]

Re: We are not sustainable

#138

Post by pabs3 »

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…

Monitor firmware has had security exploits before, so firmware updates for them seem like a good idea.

https://github.com/RedBalloonShenanigans/MonitorDarkly https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32634467

Post reply on HN