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

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#121

Post by Paul-Craft »

gpm wrote: post #23
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…

> 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…

"Carbon footprint" is nothing but fossil fuel industry propaganda. The average consumer can't really do very much about "their" carbon footprint.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/opinion/climate-change-ca...

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...

Here's the money quote of the bunch, from the Mashable article:

> The evidence, unfortunately, comes in the form of the worst pandemic to hit humanity in a century. We were confined. We were quarantined, and in many places still are. Forced by an insidious parasite, many of us dramatically slashed our individual carbon footprints by not driving to work and flying on planes. Yet, critically, the true number global warming cares about — the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide saturating the atmosphere — won’t be impacted much by an unprecedented drop in carbon emissions in 2020 (a drop the International Energy Agency estimates at nearly eight percent compared to 2019). This means bounties of carbon from civilization’s cars, power plants, and industries will still be added (like a bank deposit) to a swelling atmospheric bank account of carbon dioxide. But 2020’s deposit will just be slightly less than last year’s. In fact, the levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere peaked at an all-time high in May — because we’re still making big carbon deposits.

Re: We are not sustainable

#122

Post by acuozzo »

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.

> Software developers tend to like their new toy

This depends on the industry, I suppose. Out here on the east coast in the defense industry it's a badge of honor to have a stickered-up 12 year old ThinkPad running a BSD.

Re: We are not sustainable

#123

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #109
palata wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I mean of course it could. Much like we have parking minimums, we could just mandate bike locker minimums. There's already a robust bike locker program in the area called Bikelink so it would just be about expanding the program. The problem is nobody has lobbied the government to do this yet and updating code like this is hard because maintaining the status quo is easy. Developers will also undoubtedly fight it becau…

Bike lockers are expensive and take up space. The Dutch have multilevel parking for bikes, but it is manned.

Law enforcement actually caring about bike theft and having resources to crack down on bike thieves would help, but these days they don’t have room in jails for bike thieves, and they are considered a low priority along with shoplifters and drug dealers.

Re: We are not sustainable

#124

Post by greedo »

dzonga wrote: post #115
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…

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

We could implement a Federal tax based on gross vehicle weight...

Re: We are not sustainable

#125

Post by Oleksa_dr »

What Framework could really do. A keyboard like Lenovo legion/thinkpad, not something neutered in the style of Apple. Don't make a terrible proprietary video card slot, but use pci-e/u.2/oculink, etc. The battery charging controller should be a separate module, with only +/- and i2s/usb going to the motherboard (for charge information and control/firmware). And it should be quick-replaceable. The idea with external connectors needs to be refined. Still, it is worthwhile to output one high-speed USB on both sides as standard, 1 USB-A, 1-LAN, 1-DP Then allow 3-4 slots to insert some additional connectors. It's good if you want proprietary connectors. Then it's worth it, like for a video card. Then it is worth doing this more globally for CPU, RAM (CAMM), PCI-E. So that you can insert either high-speed memory or a so-dimm adapter. So that you can replace the processor, not the entire motherboard (no one will resell the old board, it will be in the garage like garbage). Develop 3-4 cases: light, medium, heavy gaming, heavy workstations. Make it an open standard so that it can be imposed on other manufacturers or enthusiasts. In general, we will get a square motherboard with connectors, to which you can attach or not attach connectors/slots. Today I have enough money only for ryzen 5, 16gb so-dimm, 1 m.2 and 3 usb. After 4 years, I would be able to replace with a ryzen 7, 64gb, 2 m.2 and 6 usb-c, and connect a modern graphics card at that time. As a startup, you have slow change and innovation, you already act like a corporation, although you don't have the burden of supporting many devices and compatibility. So for me, the "framework" looks like a typical greenwashing, which so far generates more garbage than a typical laptop (because no one changes anything there, like in your laptops with fake upgrades).

Re: We are not sustainable

#126

Post by lucb1e »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #67
ncallaway wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never take a vendor’s word for what the laws are. Many will simply violate the law, and see what they can get away with. Look up your local consumer protection laws, and see if their behavior is allowed. If not, write to them demanding the refund, citing to the specific consumer protection laws, and informing them that if they don’t resolve the issue your next step is to file a complaint with your state AG. E…

I’m in Canada (BC), and unfortunately there is no law governing refunds for consumer goods. Apple offers if of their own volition and can implement it here as they see fit. In this case it’s within their right to insist that the unit is repaired rather than replaced.

Can they just keep it indefinitely and never refund you? I doubt that.

We also don't have a law that says "when XYZ then you must get a refund", but it follows from the law that says "the consumer has a right to a product conforming expectations". If they don't provide what they promised or lead you to expect, you can start to make demands.

(Fun fact: we have indefinite warranty because of this, so long as you can make it believable that the product should have lasted the given amount of time. In practice, all shops use the EU minimum of 2 years as maximum warranty term, also for things that can be expected to last five times as long, such as a TV. The person above you is right: they just pretend and see what they can get away with.)

Eventually it would be up to a judge to say whether any given demand is reasonable, but for most situations there's case law available and most companies don't feel like going to court when the case law is established enough that the consumer market authority has guidance on what rights follow from this.

I had this exact situation: a good in repair for months with no feedback besides promises to update me soon. They finally sent the refund one day before the date I had told them I was going to hand it off to a no-cure-no-pay collection agency. Half a year of pushing them at least once a week: calling, emailing, snailmailing, trying to get stuff moving. (Possession really is 90% of the law.) What a headache that was. Later found there were more people in reviews describing the same situation for this store. Only a handful per hundred superficial positive reviews but, still, the negative reviews were elaborate and I could have known.

Re: We are not sustainable

#127

Post by firebat45 »

tourmalinetaco wrote: post #40
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…

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…

>There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS.

Demand, no. That would be silly. However, there was/is a demand for lower costs, which is how every single one of these anti-consumer ideas is sold to the public, and the public is fully accepting of inferior products for (theoretically) lower prices. The irony, of course, is that lower up-front costs usually mean higher costs over time, which is exactly why companies are happy to oblige.

This is where the whole concept that China makes poor quality stuff comes from. China is fully capable of high quality manufacturing. However, most consumers prioritize cost over quality, and China is willing to do the same.

Re: We are not sustainable

#128

Post by firebat45 »

acuozzo wrote: post #122
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.

> Software developers tend to like their new toy This depends on the industry, I suppose. Out here on the east coast in the defense industry it's a badge of honor to have a stickered-up 12 year old ThinkPad running a BSD.

I've still got (and use daily) my T40. It's even got a sticker on it. Damn thing won't die.

Re: We are not sustainable

#129

Post by mh8h »

palata wrote: post #71
mh8h wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you know why wildfires are increasing worldwide? ...

Absolutely. And I'm all for reducing our environmental impact.

My point is that even if we could flick a magic wand, and reduce the transportation emissions to zero overnight, we wouldn't be able to meet the long term emission goals given the trend in wildfires. Forests in Canada have been carbon positive in the past many years.

It's much easier for the governments to pass regulations, and put the burden on the consumers to reduce the emissions, than do anything about wildfires. It's important to have a sense of the diminishing effects, and focus our efforts on the most important factor.

Re: We are not sustainable

#130

Post by mh8h »

rypskar wrote: post #119
mh8h wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Evidently that hasn't been the case in Canada. Forests have been a carbon source, rather than a sink, in Canada for many years now. And with the recent wildfires, the numbers are now larger than ever.
Post reply on HN