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

Permacomputing Principles

permacomputing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 228 posts

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#201

Post by zahlman »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #91
myrmidon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. I find it generally remarkable that the whole sustainability/environmentalism cause still struggles to find conservative support, because those things are basically perfectly aligned, and preserving the environment should be a trivial sell to a conservative base (it's literally in the name). I see significant blame with environmentalist orgs/pushes like this that are deliberately anti-conservative…

> preserving the environment should be a trivial sell to a conservative base (it's literally in the name). Be careful with such a statement: in the USA conservatism is defined as something different than what the Latin word origin suggests. See for example Russell Kirk's principles of conservatism: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism_in_t...

> A faith in custom, convention, and prescription.

> A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.[173]

100% compatible with environmentalism, described as "preserving the environment".

Environmentalism is also compatible with Haidt's findings about US conservatives valuing "sanctity"/"purity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory).

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#202

Post by zahlman »

yawpitch wrote: post #179
perching_aix wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you supposing they either lack or had blanked on their critical thinking and metacognition somehow, or how did you arrive at the conclusion that they are merely "experiencing the symptoms of polarization" then instead? Why couldn't they have simply also just used the same critical thinking and metacognition you yourself seem to be so proud of, to reach their conclusion? Maybe you're the one who's so aligned to…

You truly do have an impressive imagination. Again, there’s no insult, there’s simply an observation. Nothing on that page is particularly political from any position but a substantially polarized one. It’s not entirely apolitical, sure, but it’s pretty milquetoast for a manifesto. If you see polarization there it’s because you’re looking through a polarized filter, in the literal photographic sense as much as the po…

> Nothing on that page is particularly political from any position but a substantially polarized one.

For example:

> The history of computing is deeply intertwined with capitalism and militarism.

To assert this as if it were significant, and continue on as the article does, is inherently making a political statement. It is trying to paint capitalism and militarism as inherently bad, and draw ingroup/outgroup lines in the sand. There is no reason why a capitalist or a military supporter might fail to see the value in more efficient computing, or in environmentalism generally.

There's also, you know, all the stuff it says on the main page of the site.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#203

Post by awongh »

zahlman wrote: post #200
awongh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extremely hard for me to separate where we are now from the way that Moore's law dictates a pretty insane level of planned obsolescence for chips and therefore everything with a chip in it. If we make batteries replaceable or whatever other thing, how much do we change this fundamental dynamic? I feel like it's not very much. People are kidding themselves if they think somehow recycling ewaste or reusing your la…

> How could a computing field that moves slower than Moore's law even work? Moore's Law has been breaking down for years already (to the point that people shift the goalposts as to what the actual quantity is that improves exponentially), so it's strange to ask. There are known physical limits that will prevent it from continuing indefinitely; and we aren't even that far away, to my understanding.

Moore's law is ending but the power laws of increased capacity and capability of computing in general continues at a similar rate- so this isn't a question of the specific technology of how many transistors you can fit in a given area.

Moore's law is just a stand-in for the planned obsolescence of all computing related things almost since computers were invented, and the fundamental tech question is always, when thing x gets 10x cheaper/faster, what new use case gets unlocked? Right now it's AI model capability. Maybe also battery tech.

The idea of the slow growth of computing smells to me like the Bill Gates quote about 640k of RAM being enough for anyone.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#204

Post by awongh »

dwaltrip wrote: post #194
awongh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extremely hard for me to separate where we are now from the way that Moore's law dictates a pretty insane level of planned obsolescence for chips and therefore everything with a chip in it. If we make batteries replaceable or whatever other thing, how much do we change this fundamental dynamic? I feel like it's not very much. People are kidding themselves if they think somehow recycling ewaste or reusing your la…

Let's pick one example: E-waste. It’s a negative externality. We can argue about the magnitude and the details, but the basic fact remains. There are ways of dealing with negative externalities. Some work better than others. The details do matter a lot. And we definitely need better ways of tackling problems like this, especially when the cost is less immediate. The more diffuse, temporally removed, downstream, hidde…

We should definitely be doing better, and it's also clear that these negative externalities are not being priced in at all.

I do and would want to buy tech that I'm not coerced into to throwing away after a year. It's insane to be how many objects today have batteries that are sealed inside and are meant to be thrown away after- that should be regulated.

But that seems to me to be an implementation detail rather than aspect that's worthy of an entire manifesto.

I do think the political aspects of things like Ring and Flock cameras and Palantir are super important (the reenforcing of existing power structures part).

But I don't get the folding in of this idea that not consuming computing devices is part of the solution- Like I said, it feels like the planned obsolescence of all computing devices and software is fundamental to the field.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#205

Post by iamnothere »

bccdee wrote: post #171
iamnothere wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of fringe politics is a social club/hobby. You can really see this in action when fringe groups stumble upon an opportunity to grow support among the mainstream, but then they choose to squander it on counter-signaling to drive away people who aren’t perfectly aligned. The “Just Stop Oil” people are a great example of this. There’s a lot of headwind behind green energy and moving away from oil, but the activists…

The way people talk about Just Stop Oil is interesting. People often say, "Just Stop Oil is doing activism wrong," but I never hear anyone talk about orgs that "do activism right" because the public never talks about them at all. Like them or not, Just Stop Oil is very good at making headlines and stirring up controversy, which is their goal. If you go into a party with a megaphone and shout about beavers, everyone w…

At least in recent years, conservatives don’t usually do radical stunts like throwing junk on paintings, which may be why their activism has been more effective lately. Conservative activists do often say things that cause controversy, but the public seems more forgiving of words alone versus things like defacing art or blocking traffic at random.

Note that I said blocking traffic at random. Targeted roadblocks are actually effective (such as in the ICE protests/interventions) and were also used to great effect by Canadian truckers. (Speaking of the Canadian truckers, maybe you noticed how the useless and constant honking was the thing that turned the public against them.)

This idea that attention alone, even negative attention, is enough is one of the worst mistakes of modern activists, particularly on the left, and it’s completely derailed their effectiveness in many cases.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#206

Post by keybored »

botanrice wrote: post #183
keybored wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using your own final example: could you not argue that if you trim the edges every day to fight weeds (read: practice permacomputing as a daily lifestyle), then over time the weeds may never grow to their fullest extent? There are two parts. 1. Counter-forces overwhelming your efforts meaning you just lose because they overwhelm you (e.g. climate change acceleration) 2. Permanently (nothing in life is permanent but…

idk man I see your points for sure but feel like you're taking a pessimistic and dramatic take on it. Doing a little something is better than nothing when it comes to climate action. And doing a little something a couple times might lead to greater involvement. environmentalists (myself included) have tried the doomsday "we need to act now!" approach and it turns off a lot of people, clearly, as evidenced by our soci…

So far I’ve indulged the complaining from OP in this subthread. Here’s a contrast. I have always hated environmentalism that is solely about individual, piecemeal work.

A cause that correctly identifies the political problem is exactly something that I would get behind.

So it’s not this simplistic picture (presented by OP) of being some “inclusive” and “non-political” group that can get all the normies on board, or being a bunch of arseholes that only associate with people who intersect exactly with their interests and proclivities.

But it’s not like you can lead with that when someone says that having a political focus is “extra politics” and “polarization”. The good old “let’s leave politics out of climate change/wealth inequality/tech feudalism” chestnut.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#207

Post by 2snakes »

dwaltrip wrote: post #194
awongh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extremely hard for me to separate where we are now from the way that Moore's law dictates a pretty insane level of planned obsolescence for chips and therefore everything with a chip in it. If we make batteries replaceable or whatever other thing, how much do we change this fundamental dynamic? I feel like it's not very much. People are kidding themselves if they think somehow recycling ewaste or reusing your la…

Let's pick one example: E-waste. It’s a negative externality. We can argue about the magnitude and the details, but the basic fact remains. There are ways of dealing with negative externalities. Some work better than others. The details do matter a lot. And we definitely need better ways of tackling problems like this, especially when the cost is less immediate. The more diffuse, temporally removed, downstream, hidde…

Can we combine centrifuge element extraction with metal shredders? Crush all that ewaste and then make some things from it: recycling loop.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#208

Post by LennyHenrysNuts »

I'm not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination but I'm a strong believer in Repair, Re-use, Recycle.

I'm writing this comment on a Lenovo Yoga I bought for $10 and fixed up. It's a quad core with 4GB of soldered RAM and a 128GB SSD but I slapped CachyOS on it and it works for nearly anything I want to do when I'm out and about. The battery lasts me about 3 1/2 hours. I've picked up CRT monitors for virtually nothing and they work just fine.

We throw things away too easily.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#209

Post by Barrin92 »

myrmidon wrote: post #187
Barrin92 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can advocate for sustainability, right-to-repair, privacy etc. while being strongly capitalist just fine. you really can't. I mean I get the point that maybe anarchism or feminism are more contingent when it comes to their idea of perma-computing, but you cannot advocate for radical ecology and long-lived computing under the logic of capital. The entire point of capitalism is to constantly shove new things into…

The entire point of capitalism is to incentivise people to do things that other people are willing to pay for. Induced demand is a second order effect of that at best, and both ecological concerns and negative growth are demonstrably compatible with capitalism: Just consider leaded gas/CFC and per-capita primary energy consumption as direct examples. The big problem with sustainability/climate change in general is no…

Demand, mass society and mass consumption/production aren't just a second order effect. Payment and incentives you have in pre-capitalist society. What defines the modern world is capital accumulation, hence the name. And capital will never go where it cannot grow. There is no VC company that funds a degrowth social media platform that has the explicit goal of slowing communication down and reduce the commercial value of its investment.

It is true that right now you de-facto have places that experience degrowth and are capitalist at the same time, but that's transitory. Firms do not go where they shrink, debt will increase, labor will emigrate, privation will increase, and then you'll have a crisis. You can't stand still or shrink under the current regime. If a perma-culture is something you want to pursue you'll need a new form of social ownership and production.

Re: Permacomputing Principles

#210

Post by Lanzaa »

This didn't pass my sniff test. Each of the three key ethics; "Earth Care", "People Care", and "Fair Share", only appear once in the document. I feel like that is a clear rhetorical failure. "Fair Share" triggers my economic mind and made me look directly for their alternative to capitalism, they have none.
Post reply on HN