• 0 posts
  • 5 comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 5th, 2023
  • It, if it is imagined as using a similar underlying technology, would also be an example of that technology that is both far more mature and understood (at least until the writers want to use it as an excuse for whatever shenanigans of the day) than current AI tech, and more capable, and also not shoved into everything in an attempt to force people to use it so that it’s owners can extract more of everyone else’s shrinking supply of money, and also not part of an economic house of cards that people are told will eventually impoverish masses of people when it inevitability collapses.

    It’s like saying that in the 21st century we have decorative plants and everyone loves those, to a dutch person from the 1630s who has complaints about the tulip industry.

  • It really depends on the product Id think. For an extreme example, a packaging company making packaging that does not degrade after a reasonable time contributes to landfill waste in a way that a packaging that eventually breaks down would be less responsible for.

    If a product’s useful life is limited by some other fundamental reason to the thing simply breaking (I don’t mean planned obsolescence here, but more objects only needs for a certain period of time and which customers are almost certain to throw out afterwards), then making the product last longer than needed just turns the extra material needed to get that robustness into extra waste.

    If we are talking planned obsolescence, that reasoning flips around to making longer lasting stuff cause less waste obviously, though nothing is truly needed for or able to last forever so there is always going to be a point where making the thing tougher is not going to help the end user any further.