Kris Law @greylaw89@qoto.org

@design_RG

Eh thats fair. Edge was a new product after all. I'm unfamiliar with their technical superiority or inferiority over Chrome.

That being said, its nice to have the default be Chrome based, because of the number of devs using Chrome and failing to adequately test Edge.

@design_RG

Depends on what you mean by durable... if there is a single book somewhere then one can assume reasonably that Kindles backup and recovery system is superior to something that vulnerable to fire or mold.

But yes, if the internet was ever destroyed then I suppose its good to have physical copies. Provided that people aren't all dead, still can read, and the physical copy can last until people have time to appreciate it again.

@design_RG

It fills my heart with joy to know that people I've told to use Chrome will now be secretly forced to use it. Finally IE is truly dead

@design_RG

What you are referring to with Books or DVDs is the transfer of sentimental value in an older book or movie. While this certainly exists (and I've bought a few old books myself) this isn't necessarily something that an economy of scale is going to involve. Sentimental value of something is very specific between the individual and the product.

In your examples we've already found vastly superior (both economically and environmentally) means of distribution (that being digital). For any product that is a conveyance of information,
digital production of that product is a moot point.

A book might be sentimental because it is the last copy. In that case its just waiting to be scanned into a PDF for its digital immortality, followed by sitting in a museum somewhere. It might even be more valuable for its age and character that comes with age, to certain people.

Forward onto a phone, no ones cracked screen is going to be sentimental to anyone else. People want new things, and will gather used things based mostly on savings. While we could say, de "externalize" the environmental costs of production, there will still be a substantial majority of people that buy new things. Recycling will be more and more necessary to sustain this in the future.

@design_RG

The only way to ever make something circular like that is going to be recycling... I doubt people are going to accept used goods as readily as new goods.

They don't have to be "new" though, just recycled. Trends and technology are always changing, we just need to recycle and reuse the raw materials with sufficient energy input to make new things. Nuclear can give us all the power we ever need, from there it shouldn't be chemically impossible to reprocess goods.

Is it wasteful? Well of course it is. But a large amount of the economy is based on what we want, not what we need. It may seem wasteful to want the newest model of phone, but that is what helps push that technology forward. We can't be throwing away a trillion phones into a landfill each year, but we also should be finding ways to melt them down into new models.

@rvlobato

Tell that to a bunch of boomers who can barely use Outlook without causing massive issues with it (20 mb attachments, everyday, what do you mean I have to delete email).

Trust me, if you've ever worked in IT then you both know the value of Linux, and the value of giving your colleagues (quite a few of which are desperately trying to evade learning anything new until retirement) what they want.

@snow

They would have to remove Umatrix too, which is helpful in that it blocks all the crap Javascript that isn't necessary for reading text

Is there anyway to auto translate Mastodon posts? I'm afraid my Spanish is terribly terrible.

@design_RG

It would be much more tolerable if it was something that was "market driven" like that... it wouldn't be anyone's active attempt at shutting it down.

If you watch the video (live now), the sides are not as absolute as that, but its getting very hard to get new permits, etc here (they put a moratorium on new permits after a surface expression (ie, a bunch of oil leaked to the surface, which isn't allowed)... which will eventually drive out many oil companies, especially the smaller guys that share very little in common with your mega oil corps like Chevron, etc. These often provide some trickle income for senior citizens or other people with moderate means.

Vehicle size is fair, I don't understand the motive behind driving a giant hard to maintain hunk of metal everywhere (except in cases of poverty, where it is pretty much the only option). On the other hand, if you think we can all afford a Tesla or Hybrid, thats not going to happen.

Kern County is screwed if California stops oil production. I'm not a global warming denier nor do I deny the environmental issues related to extraction (although some are certainly exaggerated)

Bakersfield is fucked if they do that... it'll become another coal town situation where WalMart and some agricultural jobs are all there is.

If California's politicians want to sacrifice Kern to achieve carbon neutrality (if such a thing is even possible, I'm pretty sure all our efforts haven't even halted the rise of carbon emissions) then I wish they would just state that, rather than just reading off some boilerplate "just transition" speech.

Perhaps its necessary that the oil industry here should shut down.(although this is one of the cleaner operations, its not like California didn't regulate it before). We get most of our other oil here in California from Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps it will even be a push from renewable that does it. Its just going to be very depressing seeing hundreds of good jobs go down the shitter with it.

A part time job using your own car to beg homeowners to install solar on their rooftops isn't going to replace a 40$ per hour rig job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZdElVx8t1A

@design_RG

I never understood the psychology of trying to censor things, regardless of the public or private nature of the censorship. Its one thing to refuse to engage with content (perfectly valid and an excellent case for just ignoring or not federating with servers with it) and trying to deplatform it.

I remember the Anarchists C Cookbook (certainly something which, if you read and applied it, has a lot more destructive potential than the average troll Gab post) In censoring anything, you automatically make it desirable to have to curious people (I remember tracking down a PDF of this book with dogged resolve, even using an application to transform it to readable form on my PSP as a kid, just to have it because authorities didn't want me to, I learned something of encryption and stenography just to hide it)

Anyone who keeps trying to quash these things just ends up amplifying them by virtue of talking about them. I'm pretty sure most of these people don't really care, they just want to be seen "caring" and "doing something".

If they really cared, they'd shut the hell up about it and let these crappy sites die in silence (trolling / being an asshole becomes a lot more tedious after you are ignored) rather than providing an endless stream of curious people looking for "what they don't want you to see".

This federated timeline feels like the insane schitzo thoughts of a dying civilization

ES6 seems to be set in Hammerfell or High Rock... considering the obvious focus on the coast, then hopefully we get ship to ship combat in an Elder Scrolls game, Sea of Thieves / AC Black Flag style. Hell, sailable ships would be insanely awesome.

I feel like the internet is the Altmer afterlife. Its just a bunch of people (or mer as in ES) sitting around arguing with other strangers: "I am very smart." "Well, sure, but I am smarter." "Well ACTUALLY...".