So I could track who clicks on the link, of course! /s

The website gives a shortened link to share by default, so that’s what I copied.

I think machines are coming for the sort of tedious jobs that only require work ethic, i.e. the ability to focus and get through boredom. If that’s so, we’ll only be left with the complex jobs that require real intelligence.

Is it really just a marketshare thing? The iOS lockdown seems a lot more insidious than Microsoft’s IE bundling, for example. If it was iOS that had a 80%+ marketshare would Apple be the ones targeted?

The “what should Facebook do if this isn’t profitable” question reminds me of the response to Taxi company’s being upset at Uber/Lyft cannibalizing their business: you don’t have a moral right to your business model, if it’s not profitable, do something else. We shouldn’t reduce quality of medical care because it victimizes undertakes.

I think the Uber comparison isn’t half bad.

For example, in Europe, a frequent problem was that Uber tried to undercut reasonable regulations (like having proper insurance for passenger transport and adhering to service standards like having to take any passengers). Here, Ubers approach was morally problematic (“moral” being local and all), and they tried to spin it as a moral issue and users choice.

I’m not in the EU and don’t know enough about GDPR to make a comment on it specifically. I just asked what others thought Facebook should do if we assume that the restrictions placed on the by GDPR make their fundamental business model nonviable.

What ls the right question?

Indeed, it’s not the fault of the economic system (if you think Capitalistic societies are wasteful, take a look at the waste and inefficiency of industry under the USSR). If externalities are correctly accounted for, or to be safe, even over-accounted for by means of taxation or otherwise, the market will work itself out. If the environmental cost means the new iPhone costs $2000 in real costs, Apple will work to reduce environmental cost in order to make an affordable phone again and everyone wins. And if they don’t, another company will figure it out instead and Apple will lose.

Currently, there is basically no accounting for these externalities, and in some cases (although afaik not related to smart phones), there are subsidies and price-ceiling regulations and subsidies that actually decreases the cost of some externalities artificially and are worse for the environment than no government intervention at all.

The easy example of this is California State water subsidies for farmers. Artificially cheap water for farmers means they grow water-guzzling crops that are not otherwise efficient to grow in arid parts of the state, and cause environmental damage and water shortage to normal consumers. Can you imagine your local government asking you to take shorter showers and not wash your car, when farmers are paying 94% less than you to grow crops that could much more efficiently be grown in other parts of the country? That’s what happens in California.

Step 1 and 2 are to get rid of the current subsidies and regulations that aggravate externalities and impose new regulation/taxes that help account for externalities.

I have talked to a factory owner in china. He said China is more capitalist than the USA. He said China prioritizes capital over social concerns.

You’re blaming the consumer? I’d really recommend watching Century of the Self. Advertising has a massive impact and the mass of humans are being fed this desire for all the things we consume.

I mean, this really delves into the deeper question of self-awareness, agency and free will, but I really don’t think most human beings are even remotely aware.

Engineers, people on Lobster, et. al do really want standard devices. Fuck ARM. Give me a god damn mobile platform. Microsoft for the love of god, just publish your unlock key for your dead phone line so we can have at least one line of devices with UEFI+ARM. Device tree can go die in a fire.

The Linux-style revolution of the 2000s (among developers) isn’t happening on mobile because every device is just too damn different. The average consumer could care less. Most people like to buy new things, and we’re been indoctrinated to that point. Retailers and manufactures have focus groups geared right at delivering the dopamine rush.

I personally hate buying things. When my mobile stopped charging yesterday and the back broke again, I thought about changing it out. I’ve replaced the back twice already and the camera has spots on the sensor under the lenses.

I was able to get it charging when I got home on a high amp USB port, so instead I just ordered yet another back and a new camera (I thought it’d be a bitch to get out, but a few YouTube videos show I was looking at the ribbon wrong and it’s actually pretty easy to replace).

I feel bad when I buy things, but it took a lot of work to get to that point. I’ve sold or given away most of my things multiple times to go backpacking, I run ad block .. I mean if everyone did what I’d did, my life wouldn’t be sustainable. :-P

We are in a really solidly locked paradigm and I don’t think it can simply shift. If you believe the authors of The Dictators Handbook, we literally have to run our of resources before the general public and really push for dramatically different changes.

We really need more commitment to open standards mobile devices. The Ubuntu Edge could have been a game changer, or even the Fairphone. The Edge never got funded and the Fairphone can’t even keep parts sourced for their older models.

We need a combination of people’s attitudes + engineers working on OSS alternatives, and I don’t see either happening any time soon.

Edit: I forgot to mention, Postmarket OS is making huge strides into making older cellphones useful and I hope we see more of that too.

Capitalism, by it’s very nature, drives companies to not be satisfied with what already sells. Companies are constantly looking to create new markets and products, and that includes creating demand.

IOW, consumers aren’t fixed actors who buy what they need; they are acted upon to create an ever increasing number of needs.

There are too many examples of this dynamic to bother listing.

It’s also very difficult for the consumer to tell exactly how destructive a particular product is. The only price we pay is the sticker price. Unless you really want to put a lot of time into research it is hard to tell which product is better for the environment.

It’s ridiculous to expect everyone to be an expert on every supply chain in the world, starting right from the mines and energy production all the way to the store shelf. That’s effectively what you are requiring.

I’m saying this as a very conscious consumer. I care about my carbon footprint, I don’t buy palm oil, I limit plastic consumption, I limit my consumption overall, but it’s all a drop in the ocean and changes nothing. There are still hundreds of compounds in the everyday items I buy whose provenance I know nothing about and which could be even more destructive. Not to mention that manufacturers really don’t want you to know, it’s simply not in their interest.

You’re creating an impossible task and setting people up to fail. It is not the answer.

The blame rests on the producers, not on the consumers.

Consumers are only able to select off of the menu of available products, so to speak. Most of the choices everyday consumers face are dictated by their employers and whatever is currently available to make it through their day.

No person can reasonably trace the entire supply chain for every item they purchase, and could likely be impossible even with generous time windows. Nor would I want every single consumer to spend their non-working time to tracing these chains.

Additionally, shifting this blame to the consumer creates conditions where producers can charge a premium on ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ products. Only consumers with the means to consume ‘ethically’ are able to do so, and thus shame people with less money for being the problem.

The blame falls squarely on the entities producing these products and the states tasked with regulating production. There will be no market-based solution to get us out of the climate catastrophe, and we certainly can’t vote for a green future with our dollars.

Exactly. The consumers could be doing more on issues like this. They’re complicit or actively contribute to the problems.

For example, I use old devices for as long as I can on purpose to reduce waste. I try to also buy things that last as long as possible. That’s a bit harder in some markets than others. For appliances, I just buy things that are 20 years old. They do the job and usually last 10 more years since planned obsolescence had fewer tricks at the time. ;) My smartphone is finally getting unreliable on essential functions, though. Bout to replace it. I’ll donate, reuse, or recycle it when I get new one.

On PC side, I’m using a backup whose age I can’t recall with a Celeron after my Ubuntu Dell w/ Core Duo 2 died. It was eight years old. Attempting to revive it soon in case it’s just HD or something simple. It’s acting weird, though, so might just become a box for VM experiments, fuzzing, opening highly-untrustworthy URLs or files, etc. :)

Which alternatives would make people happier to consume less – drive older cars, wear rattier clothing, and demand fewer exotic vacations?

Why do people want new cars, the latest fashions, and exotic vacations in the first place? If it’s all about status and bragging rights, then it’s going to take a massive cultural shift that goes against at least two generation’s worth of cultural programming by advertisers on the behalf of the auto, fashion and travel industries.

I don’t think consumerism kicked into high gear until after the end of World War II when modern advertising and television became ubiquitous, so perhaps the answer is to paraphrase Shakespeare:

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the advertisers.

OK, maybe killing them (or encouraging them to off themselves in the tradition of Bill Hicks) is overkill. Regardless, we should consider the possibility that advertising is nothing but private sector psyops on behalf of corporations, and should not be protected as “free speech”.

IMO, Hedonistic adaptation is a problem and getting worse. I try to actively fight against it.

It would be a start if we designed cities with walking and public transportation in mind, not cars.

My neighborhood is old and walkable. I do shopping on foot (I have a bicycle but don’t bother with it). For school/work, take a single bus and a few minutes walking. Getting a car would be a hassle, I don’t have a place to park it, and I’d have to pay large annual fees for rare use.

Newer neighborhoods appear to be planned with the idea that you’ll need a car for every single task. “Residential part” with no shops at all, but lots of room for parking. A large grocery store with a parking lot. Even train stations with a large parking lot, but no safe path for pedestrians/cyclists from the nearby neighborhoods.

There has been no evidence to my knowledge that anyone is slowing old phones down. This continues to be an unfounded rumor

The new features on phones are so fucking stupid as well.

I think the consumer who pays for it is stupid.

Ideology matters, and America has been aggressively promoting toxic capitalist ideology for many decades around the world. Humans aren’t perfect, but we can recognize our problems and create systems around us to help mitigate them. Capitalism is equivalent of giving a flamethrower to a pyromaniac.

Just keep in mind that the studies cited in Chapter 4 are of poor quality (as confirmed by Kahneman). Not sure about the other chapters.

That is nuts. But I guess Chrome is really an entire OS in drag & every tab is it’s own virtual machine, so 1-2Gb per running tab actually sounds about right if you think of them as full-fat VMs doing their own thing.

It’s still the most egregious waste of computing resources since the last one of course.

I loved it. Very engaging story and well-written. I don’t think anyone interested in the subject matter would be disappointed with the book.

I own a set of these, too, and, though the cleaning regimen is straightforward, the maintenance costs are large enough that there’s an entire arbitrage industry around it. And, yes, the initial product offering is free (and the first part refresh, though that happens pretty quickly given the total equipment lifetime), but replacing parts eventually becomes quite expensive, and requires significant downtime.

Don’t get me wrong – the convenience factor is very high with this product. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t downplay the (potentially significant) costs.

Juices are considered unhealthy in comparison to the actual fruit simply because of the sheer amount of it: a glass of orange juice contains juice from about 4 oranges which translates to about a full daily doze of sugar. And you’re not going to chew through 4 oranges each time you’re feeling thirsty :-)

What @isagalaev said, and adding to it, the “health benefit” is that fibers slow down the absorption of carbohydrates.

I thought I’d read that the act of mastication and digestion of intact whole fruit was something that required more energy and delivered a greater health benefit than merely the whole fruits’ ingredients.