> Things will only change when democratically elected governments across the world step in with regulation, drag Big Tech through the courts, and fine them billions of dollars.
Well, good laws should facilitate healthy incentives, also by restricting/discouraging bad behaviors, right?
How do we engineer incentives for regulators to be willing to prioritize the broader and industrial engineering of healthier incentives?
In perfectly competitive markets noone makes a profit. As a result, capital is only allocated to imperfect markets, defined through various inefficiences: barriers to entry (monopolistic practices), information asymmetries (cheating), …
If you regulate away bad practices, capital will flow elsewhere. The level of equity investment in IT (and the valuations) is largely due to bad practices; fixing that will take away the OP’s favorite toys.
> In perfectly competitive markets noone makes a profit
Bit of an aside, but this is not true btw. Even in situations which most closely approximate what you describe, there is a positive, nonzero floor to profit taking. This is typically explained as the opportunity cost of allocating money, which is not just the known alternative investments you are giving up, but the unknown-unknown risks. Among certain schools of political economics, it is also taught that this is a built-in action bias towards holders of money. Essentially, the rich get richer (quantified).
They won't be good citizens so long as there is a considerable power disparity that is enabled by them having a lot more money. Giving them even more money would only make things worse.
Because they’re better than everyone else on the inside but are forced down to our level by minor inconveniences. But it’s okay because they know what we should do.
If we're praying for unicorns, they might also notice they're paying millions for licenses to software they can't self-support or even audit. Then reinvest money from fines into in-house, open development, and use that instead of closed solutions.
Can't? Governments most certainly CAN do this. The US government is by far the closest to doing this, but they are definitely not close to doing this entirely.
It’s not. There are centralist countries that do better than Americans.
I’m not criticizing democracy. It works and has good sides and downsides compared with say communism. But man does democracy like communism come with major downsides.
The question is why is democracy worshipped? Don’t worship it. It’s one side of complex 6 sided die. I was going to say one side of a coin but the situation is much more complicated than that.
I would love it if I could use Linux on the Desktop.
Windows 11 feels a practical joke played on humanity by Nadella.
The new Macbooks have amazing hardware, but the software quality has deteriorated considerably - even spotlight has bugs nowadays.
However, I need basic sleep/restore to work on my laptop - and it feels like this is a Mars-mission-effort level problem for Linux to solve.
If the Linux Software Foundation started a Linux-On-The-Desktop project that addressed core usability and stability issues, I would gladly contribute monthly towards it.
Then it will probably still work, that just happens to be a nice way to ensure make sure ahead of time. Also, I would argue that expecting any OS to work on every machine anyone anywhere owns is a touch unreasonable; none of the other options (Windows, macOS, Android, ChromeOS) are held to that standard.
I hate that this is true. I have 10 year old hardware and I still haven't managed to get suspend on lid close to work.
Also, power management? Linux seems really power hungry. I expect 6ish hours out of the battery I have, but with Linux doing browsing and coding I get 2 to 3ish hours, even with cpu throttling and the dimmest back light settings.
Have mainline Fedora or Ubuntu solved these issues?
No distro solves problems by itself, the upstream kernel does. Fedora pushes upstream first, ubuntu much later if it does.
Because computers are complex, and there are many computers with many different hardware configurations nobody can answer if it solves the issues for you.
It all depends on your hardware and whether that is well supported. The blame lies with hardware manufacturers keeping secrets and proprietary software vendors. It is a reverse engineering effort to get this stuff to work properly.
I'm on mainline Fedora on a Thinkpad Z13 (Gen 1). Sleep works unless I connect or disconnect a thunderbolt device while the machine is sleeping (which hard crashes the system); I would say it's noticeably more reliable than Windows. Power consumption is still poor in all states - usable, but generally worse than under Windows and pathetic compared to a Macbook.
> I would love it if I could use Linux on the Desktop.
Not sure what you use your desktop for. If your issue is that you need certain professional applications that are not compatible with Linux you may be out of luck.
But if your complaint id "core usability and stability", I am not really sure what you are complaining about.
I migrated my personal laptop from Windows to Linux Mint around 3 years ago, and it's amazing how much more stable and easy to use it is in comparison - case in point, back in Windows days I would have to do a fresh install every year or so.
And don't get me started on OSX. I have to use it daily on my work-issued laptop, and I deeply loathe it how it is hostile to more technical users (I would sincerely prefere using Windows than that crap).
I'm confused that people think it normal to go to Apple to get an Apple device to run Apple OS, but the idea of going to a Linux vendor to get a Linux laptop to run Linux is a weird idea.
People who insist Apple makes good hardware are falling for marketing. Apple historically has had constant engineering poor choices and bad designs and outright flaws that they just never acknowledge, and for some reason people take that as "good".
Back in the day, Apple laptops used to cook and kill themselves with poor GPU heat management.
Several versions of macbooks shortened a display cable such that it would degrade over time because it simply wasn't up to task, and eventually your screen would be borked and have absolutely ungoogleable issues (this happened to me)
They had an entire run of macbooks with flawed batteries.
The entire keyboard fiasco, all in an effort to bikeshed computer thinness FFS. Meanwhile even before the butterfly tech, macbook keyboards have always been trash. They have un-ergonomic keys and no travel and just seem to prioritize aesthetics over usage.
Internal connectors have 50v backlight pins right next to logic level pins which means instead of a drop of water just killing the backlight power supply, it routes 50v through everything and kills half your mainboard components.
Pre M series macbooks hard thermal throttling issues if you charged them from the ports on one side, but not the other.
Apple laptops have NEVER had good thermal management.
Soldered SSDs that are stupidly tiny, especially in the early M1 machines that had 8gb RAM and bad swap behavior that was actively killing people's SSDs
Apple buys good screens to put in their machines, and the frame is pretty rigid, and THAT'S IT. Nothing else about their machines is a step above other laptop manufacturers hardware wise
I can't comment on the internals (and I actually don't like Apple and their software), but comparing my TP X1 Yoga (basically Lenovo's top of the line) with my partner's new Macbook, the build of the latter is noticeably more tight, with barely noticeable seams where the metal panels come together. The Thinkpad's build is pretty good too and I'm fine with it, but I just can't help noticing the build quality of the Macbook.
> Several versions of macbooks shortened a display cable such that it would degrade over time because it simply wasn't up to task, and eventually your screen would be borked and have absolutely ungoogleable issues (this happened to me)
Had this happen to a 17 inch PPC, red line in the middle of the display then completely dead. Had to be hooked to an ext monitor. Never knew i it was a cable or inverter thing.
Geez, bookmarking this one. I wonder if you've blogged about this anywhere? Would love to read more about the nitty gritty, and I'd love to see it existing concretely (in a general sense).
As I said in another comment, I just bought my third MacBook since 2008. 8.5 years on average so far is what I get out of these laptops.
All of the things you say may be true, but I have never needed to repair one and in that time I travel constantly and generally have beat them to hell with daily use. My milage may vary of course, but what in theory might be poor and bad design decisions didn’t materialize to poor quality in my experience.
I am on my third MacBook (recently acquired #3 this month), since 2008. None have needed repair or “upgrades”. I find that an average longevity of 8.5 years on a laptop is pretty amazing.
For what it’s worth, my wife is now using the one I just retired…so it ain’t dead or unusable yet.
Umm get a framework laptop. Sleep/restore works out of the box. Admittedly I only tried it on QubesOS and Nixos, but if it works in both of those places chances are pretty good that it will work for any distro.
THere’s a reasonable chance if you get a lenovo thinkpad or similar very mainstream laptop it will just work there as well, but get a framework anyway because they’re good and you deserve a nice laptop.
Yes, framework looks really good. Wasn't an option before due to extremely heavy import duty and they didn't bother opening ordering. (But hopefully changing now that Trump has raised the reciprocal hammer and revised trade agreements are being signed..)
I always found it funny that my ASUS laptop has always functioned perfectly under linux... except that putting it to sleep would trigger a full shutdown every time lmao. I may or may not have lost some data once or twice by being overly gullible.
Same here! I'd love to know why the author keeps crawling back to Mac after trying Linux. I feel grateful that Linux exists and would never contemplate moving away from it. I totally understand that I am an esoteric techie and other people may have different experiences, of course. But in the ~14 years Linux has been my daily driver, it has improved so much.
Every major OS update Apple changes something that breaks either specific programs or restricts the OS further which leads to breakage.
The "too many files open" error could be fixed by raising the limit of open files (there are instances where a tool really does need lots of open files and isn't leaking) but nowadays I need to break the security of my own hardware to maybe be able to raise it as Apple adds hoops and is changing what to do every so often.
I don't want to dismiss your premise, I know I don't pay much attention, so please tell me what I'm missing.
I suspect the main thing I'm missing is Schedule I. And I think even that can be had if I go enable proton or something? Haven't really looked into it yet.
I'd personally take Gnome Shell over both Windows and OSX. It's minimal, gets out of your way, has better touchpad gestures and keyboard shortcuts for navigating, and looks great. So I think Linux is there.
But this is kind of a personal thing. My wife likes Windows with a super cluttered desktop and I absolutely hate the idea of any desktop icons and I like everything hidden. I have a colleague who has OSX with again, a ton of desktop icons and like 20 things open at any given time, just looking at his screen gives me anxiety.
It’s not just the desktop, it is the app ecosystem too. There are a lot of really great UX and productivity hacks in the macOS sphere which dead simple to install and intuitive to use.
Install a modern distro. It does just work. I've literally done zero config to my laptop, nothing has broken or not worked. Literally everything works. Touchpad, touchscreen, webcam, fingerprint reader, stylus, suspend, audio, etc...
Always love how arrogant Linux users are: "You can't possibly experience something different from me"
I wanted to make a genuine effort to get into using Linux because it's the only OS I'm not super comfortable admin'ing. I bought a secondhand Lenovo t440 and installed Linux Mint on it. Everything seemed to work well, boot was nice and quick, no issues with WiFi chipset or sleep and battery life was at least okay.
It was fine for browsing the web with Firefox for my normal web browsing, and made a great netflix machine.
Then I kept trying to do other things. I was playing with Blender at the time and despite the laptop being old at the time, it Mint installed a broken intel graphics driver. It couldn't render anything without artifacts and was unusable. The fixed driver was older than the release of Mint I was using. Why didn't Mint install an up to date driver?
I wanted use my steam controller to control mouse and keyboard input exactly like you can on any windows machine. In Linux, it required you to hand edit some config files to allow Steam to even communicate with it's own controller. Like what the fuck? Why?
I wanted to dual boot Windows to play more steam games (this was before proton) but if you want to dual boot Linux and Windows, you have to install windows FIRST. Otherwise you have to be an expert in x86-64 boot semantics to do the configuration required. So this was impossible without reinstalling everything.
So fine, I decided to just install Windows on it. Windows pulled the license details out of the BIOS from the previous owner (whoops) and auto-registered itself, and had the fixed intel graphics driver from the get go. I installed steam and the steam controller worked as expected. Battery life was SIGNIFICANTLY better.
Not going to lie, Mint is a buggy POS and the fact anyone recommends it at all is a travesty. It's so bad it makes me think it's sponsored by Microsoft to sabotage new users.
Mint basically takes a years old Ubuntu, then an even older fork of a DE, uses an abandoned protocol then rolls it together and adds even more bugs to it. It's honestly one of the worst distros that exists.
Ubuntu, Fedora and (open)Suse are the only ones worth using if you want a smooth experience (ie. the corporate ones).
Edit - also needing to install Windows first to dual boot is a result of Windows installation wiping existing bootloaders.
Funny you should say that. I just tried to install some recent Linux distro on my Thinkpad two days ago. Fedora 42 wouldn't even install because apparently the installer doesn't support boot partition located past the 2Tb boundary, and that laptop has a 4Tb SSD with the first 2Tb used up by Windows. The error was completely incomprehensible, though.
Mint, OTOH, installed just fine and is working great.
Between Google Sheets, Gnumeric (Python "macros" are so much better than VBA), R Studio, I definitely don't miss Excel an iota.
Google Sheets is a better choice for average Joe spreadsheet user, make a spreadsheet, some nice graphics, share it. Gnumeric has better scripting and better maths functions. R Studio is better for data analysis. I have a degree in economics and didn't touch Excel for any of it (Stata, R, Python got me through).
In fact, I could go further and write an entire dissertation about how Excel as a program is cursed and a net negative to society. The amount of times I've seen broken spreadsheets lead to real business problems is way, way higher than it should be. So much of what people do in Excel should just be handled by a Python script or something. Whoever thought it was a good idea to couple data and functions and then to put that in the hands of Jane from accounting did a massive disservice to all of society.
Switching to Linux is not easy. You almost have to hit a wall when you are just done with the bargaining to keep something like Apple or Windows. It kind of takes a major jump.
You also need to be persistent after that jump and not retrench when you can't pull from the familiar.
You'll get there at some point just don't think or care about the awful people - think about how and in what way you want to operate directionally going forward and it will click.
Which is a shame because in itself, most Linux distros _are_ easy. The ergonomics and the rationales are, imo, better/easier to understand than Windows or even MacOS.
In fact, even _installing_ a modern distro is easier than installing Windows 11.
What’s hard is not Linux, it’s switching. It requires to, well, think different :)
Having said that, I honestly think switching from Windows to MacOS is harder. I appreciate working with macOS and it can be pretty ergonomic but it’s honestly barely usable without installing and paying for half a dozen sharewares.
I think that's personal preference and circumstances though.
I have used Windows on the desktop since 1994, I have used Linux on desktops since 1998 (work machines being 50% or exclusively Linux since 2010ish) and I got my first mac last autumn. (Planned Linux but some unimportant things stood in the way, so I gave it a shot).
Working on Windows is pure pain for me. I use it as my gaming/browsing machine and every time I have to touch code I hate it.
Linux is 100% fine for work, but I noticed I am having problems with games with my usual setup with tiling window managers (i.e lots of fullscreen usage and non-easily-resizable windows, also getting my Logitech's G keys recognized).
macos is... 90% fine actually. I hate some small things but otherwise it just works, the windows key as cmd is actually in a nicer position than ctrl, but that might be my weird hands.
So if I wasn't playing certain games with certain keybinds, switching to Linux fulltime would have happened like 10y ago for me.
I still remember getting all amped up at taking the leap to Linux when I read this or that guide for doing so in a 90s issue of MaximumPC and I made it as far as realizing there weren't drivers that would work with my mouse (without _considerable_ effort) and noped right out.
> taking the leap to Linux when I read ... there weren't drivers that would work with my mouse (without _considerable_ effort) and noped [sic.] right out.
That wasn't much of a leap you were planning it a mouse got in your way, especially given you seem to have planned this "leap" in the 90's - solidly within Windows 9X territory which was infamous for its instability and reboot-tendency:
You moved your mouse pointer,
your PC needs to be restarted
for this change to be implemented.
.
[OK] [Ignore] [Cancel]
I've been using Linux exclusively for 15 years. Went through my entire university degree using only Linux.
The biggest issue people face when switching is the desire for it to be the same as their previous OS. It's not. It never will be. It's different (and IMO better).
Like GNOME Shell, so many people hate it. No dock, no way to minimize Windows, etc... Until you actually try to learn it a little. Launching apps is super quick with the search, you can bring up overview with 3 finger swipe up on the touchpad, scroll virtual desktops with 3 finger sideways swipe, arrange your windows with meta + arrow keys, etc... Its nearly as keyboard driven and quick to use as a tiling window manager yet my wife can use it as well (she's very much not technical).
As for apps, there's an app for everything normal people need to do. For developers, it's easily the best OS. Games, it's got most of them. I guess if you're an accountant forced to use Excel don't bother (and if you're not forced to use Excel, Gnumeric is better anyway).
> the desire for it to be the same as their previous OS
I think most FOSS developers completely miss this point, assuming their goal is to get more people to use their software.
Sure GNOME can be usable if you learn a different way, but you can't force everyone to do that. Not even most people. So I think if they really cared about doing what's necessary to get a lot more users, they're going to have to make their product more like what the potential new users expect, whether the developers like it or not.
Apple literally built a 3 trillion dollar business on "Think Different". Now they're the slow, lumbering behemoth, but copying cheapens your brand. Copies only reinforce the idea that the original thing is valuable.
Nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else, the only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is. Copying is how we learn. We can't introduce anything new until we're fluent in the language of our ___domain, and we do that through emulation.
Why do you think it's rare? Unless it's a personal project not meant for others, why would they not want more people to use it and get more popular?
To me this is like people getting upset when their favorite indie band "sells out", even though their increased popularity is always seen as a much bigger positive than any potential downsides of the "sellout".
My impression is that people are motivated by solving problems and filling gaps in the existing landscape. Popularity is not a goal, usually. Why would it be?
More contributors, community building, more competition/innovation, I could think of many reasons... but not wanting something to become more popular is quite perplexing to me.
Have the author did the reality check exercise? What might seem as awful conditions by some westerner, might be great given other options. Once I read a post about working at Foxconn - assembly line for majority of hardware manufacturers. You might remember people were dropping off the roof because of hard working conditions. Yet they have a line of candidates. Because the other option is working at the same intensity but at no conditioned and barely ventilated clothing shop.
Parodoxically, this aversion to convenience decreases his ability to make a positive impact. Much better to focus on improving your ability to make a positive impact instead.
Filling your mind with negativity makes you unhappy, outsources your power and attention ("minimize my impact", "do less bad"), and distracts you from doing good.
The part about melding human and machine feels awfully pretentious.
Just use the tools that let you be productive. It's okay to separate the art from the artist. And if you really do care about the global well-being, then... force yourself to the switch (for the moral greater good, after all!) and don't complain about it on the internet?
I switched to Linux 12 years ago and still use it daily, although I think the problem is bigger than that. Even though hardware support is getting better, some bugs are lingering for years, and Wayland took such a long time to be a viable option. Now, as desktop became more complex to support, new platforms are coming, VR and mobile.
Mobile:
I own Librem 5, and it was the biggest purchase disappointment I have ever had. I've been ridiculed by my friends while I was waiting for it for years, and when it was delivered, it was too outdated to use. The only silver lining from this is that mobile support exists in GNOME and KDE now. Hardware is still not there.
VR:
I have not seen any viable option.
I'm optimising, and hoping that with AI it would be easier to support all of this, but now it looks kinda gloomy.
> Why am I in this state of tension with computer products when I use a multitude of non-computer products made by corporations that cause much more harm to people and nature?
> I drive a Hyundai car, shop at Reliance stores, wear clothing made by Zara. Why am I not concerned about the poor behavior of these other organizations? It’s not like they’re any better than Google, Microsoft, or Apple.
> Honestly, the reason is not entirely rational.
Honestly I don't have the answer and it's a great question. There seems to be a mix of passion, trends, media, social exchanges and probably tons of small parameters making this happen in our heads.
I experience some of the same tension being a SW engineer and seing how much SW is dysfunctionning on a day to day basis, sometimes not being able to help relatives having issues with their phone/PC.
Actually most of the time this is SW business which is dysfunctionnal. I totally agree with the phrase "asshole companies", which make people's life miserable on purpose.
I think awful people is a bit unfair to the folks at Apple. They are probably much like other people, maybe a bit nicer judging by my years of using macs.
Large corporations will never be perfect but not much is. At least they are not Comcast or HP.
Stallman is interesting personality. To put it politely. Does he belong to good people? Somewhat orthogonal question. And goodness of his stances on software is also well something that can be debated validly.
There’s this modern affliction where people believe they are morally responsible for the actions of every person they buy anything from.
For your own sanity, please let this go. You are responsible for your own actions. If you buy a pen from a psychopath and he uses the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone, that’s not your fault. He’s responsible for his actions.
It’s like everyone somehow forgot that other humans are sentient beings with their own agency. Main character syndrome run amok.
you can be pragmatic and choose not to buy from certain companies whose behaviour you consider egregious, while at the same time not having to worry about each single expense you make.
Deciding what bank you will get your home loan from -> not something you do every day, it's ok to do some research
Deciding what cafe you will get your next lungo from -> not worth your time
Isn’t that the same as “just avoid things you’re morally opposed to as time and energy allows”? Why even bother with taking a moral stand if you only do it when it’s convenient?
I feel the same. It may be because it's easier to feel virtuous by not buying a company product than to actually be virtuous by going out doing virtuous things.
Giving up something you'd otherwise enjoy or find convenient because it would indirectly bring harm to other people feels a very virtuous action to me. I wish more people (including me) had the ability to do that more.
Yes, you are morally responsible for your own actions. But those actions don't happen in a vacuum. They happen in a world that you are able to observe and make predictions about, however imperfect those predictions are. If you don't know that you're enabling the shooter, sure. But if you do know and do it anyway, you are responsible for knowingly enabling the shooter.
This doesn't mean that the shooter doesn't have his own agency and his own responsibility for his actions. It just means that his responsibility for his actions doesn't diminish your responsibility for yours, even if your actions involve him.
It seems to be a common idea that we can just overlook the abuses committed by the other people we deal with, as things "I'm not responsible for", regardless of our actual ability to do something about them. I have no special insight, but I think it's a common idea because it lets us feel better about ourselves while we do nothing. But "feeling good about oneself" isn't a solid way to build or evaluate a moral framework.
Wrong. It's not about morality (or "main character"), it's about caring for your own and your beloved ones current and future.
Ignorance, apathy and indifference keep the buyers/consumers/followers encouraging the unhealthy yet very "focused and efficient" morons (big and small) to ruin the world for everyone while they accumulate enormous power to further abuse the rest.
__If you buy gold from someone who poisons a river (to extract the gold more "efficiently"), soon your whole forest will suffer from deceases and degradation.__
You may feel tiny and powerless but it's sane and healthy to care for the whole ecosystem and think about aftereffects of everyone's actions.
wrong about wrong. if you go down that path, you are powerless. we live in a society that is imperfect. but you cannot live on a pedestal alone and be perfect either.
you should shop at "walmart" or where-ever your dollar is the most effective. and that gives you the most stability and and position to challenge whether the current Walton regime's love of China is a good thing or not. but cutting your nose off to spite your face does nothing useful.
Right, and you posted this reply because you do care that others in the forest know that you deem something "wrong" (actions or ideas) and maybe there's a healthier way to pursue (while reminding to have realistic expectations). The river starts with many single drops gravitating to go somewhere )
We have a government to enforce laws to protect the commons. If someone is poisoning the river, the government should fine them and shut them down. They should be inspecting gold producers to make sure they are complying with regulations so that all gold is produced in a sustainable way that doesn't destroy the environment.
If that's not happening, then we need to fix the government so it does happen. Expecting each individual person to be their own EPA and research how every single item they consume is produced idiotic and doomed to failure.
Governments are pushed to do things to protect people by the people. Seat belts were not a thing (i.e., required by law) until there was sufficient public pressure to make them so. Heard of Ralph Nader? Food is made in unsafe conditions and governments are fine with it until there is pressure - have you ever heard of "The Jungle"?
Yeah, that's the theory, and by any mean we definitely need to pursue that as well. I wish we had the luxury of making it work on its own. But since we do not, we need to pull all the levers we have, not just one.
> Expecting each individual person to be their own EPA and research how every single item they consume is produced idiotic and doomed to failure.
That's a false dichotomy. There are many middle grounds between researching every single item you buy and dropping the problem as a whole. You can focus on items which are most likely to bring negative impact, you can draw information from journalistic reports and material produced from dedicated associations. There are many ways to be sensitive to economic externalities of the things you buy without getting insane and without considering the whole problem moot on general phylosophycal principles.
Your purchasing decisions are one of the more significant ways you impact the world and it makes sense people want to be cognizant of how they are effecting other people.
Though I recognize depending on people's mental health it can be stressful to think about and if you can't then it's okay, one of my friends in particular was worrying about what she was buying to the point where it was a significant source of stress in her life and that wasn't good (though therapy for her general anxiety helped a ton so she's now concientious about what she buys while not stressing over it. It took her a while to get there though).
It makes sense if consumerism is your only connection to human society.
It is a form of trained helplessness to fixate perpetually on consumption.
If someone wants to do good in the world, go out and do it. help someone for real. I think it is lack of real connection that leads people to navel gaze about the third order consequences of their clothes or software.
I think this substack [1] summed it up perfectly:
>I was 16 when I realized I had to kill myself. I was in a Denny’s with my friends, looking at an empty glass of Diet Coke. The glass was produced by taking the raw resources of a foreign country, exploiting its workers in horrible factories, and sent to me to drink out of. And I didn’t really have any other option for getting liquid from a nearby water source into my body, it had to travel through moral atrocity along the way. It wasn’t just one glass, of course. It was everything. It was the shoes I was wearing (shoes were a big deal in those days) and the flooring I walked on and the food I ate. The only moral act was to kill oneself, and failure to do that meant you accept your role as a vicious monster. (The depression helped, but maybe the depression/guilt causality was reversed.)
IMO you're pretty right on this front. A lot of the folks I see most concerned about consumption are the folks who have the hardest time engaging offline. I suspect a lot of these folks feel anxiety in interacting with a physical community and find consumption to be one of their main connections to the world around them.
No, they are one of the laziest, most do nothing ways.
Right now in your community are tons of organizations looking for people to actually help.
I've restored nesting habitat for endangered birds. And I just happened to be able the beach when volunteers came around. That did more than stressing over what I bought ever did, and it was just hanging out at the beach. There are orgs for driving people to medical appointments. That can be an amazing impact on someone's life and on yourself (more than buying the right ketchup).
Make yourself financially strong so that you can help others. Sacrificing your money to make a point is wasted virtue signaling.
I mainly see people who shop correct/rescue animals as the most minimal helpers who want to feel they are helping. There is an old woman dieing crying in your town right now because she's overwhelmed and doesn't know how to get to an appointment she needs. An no one cares. But if I buy the right ketchup, that matters? If I drive 2 hours to save a dog (while the old woman dies crying and alone, unable to get to the doctor, a 15 minute trip) I'm a good person?
You don't know up front what's going to happen. Seeing the future is not an ability humans have. Unless the pen is being sold as part of some murder fundraiser and you're going out of your way to specifically buy it there than from any better options the person doing the murder is the one responsible for the murdering.
If that's the rebuke then the whole comparison is silly. Since if you buy clothes at some chain like Zara you know before hand what the conditions are which they impose on their workers. You don't need "future sight" for that.
You personally know the conditions? You know that the workers would be better off not having the option of working in the Zara factory? I don't mean a choice between working for Zara and a hypothetical fantasy option of them working in an office with 40 hour work weeks and air conditioning, I mean their actual other option like subsistence farming or whatever they did before there was a Zara factory. You feel you are more entitled to make that choice for the workers than they are themselves?
> You think I can only understand the conditions if.. what? I've directly worked at the factory? Published a peer-reviewed study?
When do you think you understand the conditions? When you watch a TikTok video about it? When you read an artistic the Atlantic? When you watch a segment 60 minutes?
I guess I’m unclear why you don’t want to answer what I thought was a fairly simple question. Being evasive just looks like doubling-down on the dishonest way you’ve approached the entire conversation.
The example is deliberately contrived and hyperbolic. In real life, if there is reliable evidence that someone is murdering people, the police conduct an investigation, we have a trial, and they go to jail. You know what we don't do? We don't go "Hey, I think Bob the pen-seller is a murderer. Nobody buy his pens so hopefully he runs out of money and can't afford to murder people anymore". We don't do that because it would be a really stupid and ineffective way of stopping murderers, and it's really stupid and ineffective for most other things too.
Yes. If you determine a Tesla is the best car to fit your needs, there are far better ways to influence Elon's actions than depriving yourself of the best car for you. You could write your Senator / Congressperson to support laws that would curtail Elon's actions. You could speak publicly and propose better things than what Elon is doing or publicize how and why they're harmful, etc. Buying or not buying a Tesla is very unlikely to influence Elon at all.
Also consider: There are thousands of employees at Tesla and thousands of shareholders. Do you also need to individually vet every one of their opinions before you enrich them by buying a Tesla? What if they don't all have the same opinion? Are you supposed to take a poll and go with the majority? This is silly.
> Buying or not buying a Tesla is very unlikely to influence Elon at all.
But it can certainly influence other people's perception of you... I think what we all have to decide though is how much that matters to us, should we decide to buy one anyway.
> Do you also need to individually vet every one of their opinions before you enrich them by buying a Tesla?
I think most people's negative image of a company/project tends to come from the leadership, or the most public leader, and not all the individual employees.
To that end I would consider Linux to be a tool mainly led by a habitually emotionally abusive person (Linus). Or when people mention Kitty I point out to them Kovid's many personal attacks on end-users, etc.
For some reason a lot of people in tech (and probably everywhere) seem to have real issues with staunch dogmatism and god complexes. I know people make mistakes and that's fine, but I'm talking about the ones that show consistent and daily life-long problems with usually no remorse.
You don't know everything, none of us do, and there can actually be other valid perspectives if you allow yourself to be wrong occasionally. Definitely not enough introspection/self-reflection going on IMO.
I'm sure people will downvote this but I don't think people should be forced to (or shamed when they don't want to) separate the art from the artist.
> But it can certainly influence other people's perception of you... I think what we all have to decide though is how much that matters to us, should we decide to buy one anyway.
Yes, this is a concern, and it's a direct result of the phenomenon I'm talking about. There are violent, stupid people who will attack you because they think that buying a product means you endorse every political opinion every person who made that product ever had.
I'm actually looking to buy a car soon, and I've considered this in regard to Tesla. Do I want to deal with having my car keyed or painted or set on fire because of what someone thinks about Elon? Do I want to potentially put myself or my family in danger because someone thinks that attacking a random Tesla consumer is the best way to effect change in the world? And, frankly, no, I don't. But that's what I'm talking about. If you find yourself attacking strangers or destroying their property because you disagree with the politics of some CEO the person you're attacking has never met, you are in fact the bad guy.
I agree with you, up until the point that CEO is a verified Nazi. If you see a man give multiple Nazi salutes behind the presidential seal, and your response to that is to hand over your money to him, are you a good or even neutral person? Not in my eyes, sorry. We have to have some standards in this society. Look around, fascism is flourishing. What you are doing now is what you would have been doing as a German in the 1930s.
The defining characteristic of Nazis is authoritarian megalomania, something Musk has in spades. The hand gesture is how they identified themselves and professed their allegiance to the cause, something Musk has adopted. He's telling us who he is, we should listen.
The gas chambers are their most horrific deed, but Nazis were still Nazis before they gassed anyone. Therefore gassing does not define them.
The key to stopping Nazis is to do so before they get the gas chamber stage. If you let it get that far, you're too late. So you have to rely on other clues.
Nazi salute are about as oblique as you can get. They should have been a wakeup call.
>If you determine a Tesla is the best car to fit your needs, there are far better ways to influence Elon's actions than depriving yourself of the best car for you.
As if "having the best car for you" is some sort of moral imperative or necessity, as if buying a less luxury vehicle is some sort of unthinkable option.
>You could write your Senator / Congressperson to support laws that would curtail Elon's actions.
Ah yes, tell the government that supports elon and that elon is part of to simply not do those things. Surely that is a workable option right now!
You can vote for a different government. You can even campaign for a different government, or run for office yourself. It's this whole system we created for the people to control the government directly instead of changing buying patterns and hoping 18 levels away someone figures out you're trying to tell them to change a policy.
I would buy a "tool" that solves a problem significantly better than its competitors, but I usually ditch options that are marginally better o cheaper if I feel a personal moral conflict.
Just to honour the Godwin law, take the Eduard Pernkopf anatomy manual as an example, a fascinating example of this discussion.
There is always a tipping point where practicality beats purity, and I think it's ok trying to stretch it, respecting other's choices in the way of course. No need to judge.
I think it's more rational to fuss about buying a Tesla than about buying a Windows license for a few reasons:
* It's a heck of a lot of money to send to any company, so it makes more sense to pause and consider what you're funding. I can't put that much effort into every <$100 purchase without going crazy.
* Tesla is far more about Musk than Microsoft is about... whoever runs Microsoft these days. There's a very specific person tied to it.
* Driving a Tesla is seen by the world as a statement of some kind in a way that running Windows simply isn't. It's worth considering if that's a statement you want to be making.
I would. With some modification. If it was cheapest vehicle on market that meets my needs I would probably buy it. But it is neither cheapest or gas...
This individualistic attitude is how we got to our current situation, and why we are perpetually stuck here. Everyone in any position of corporate power is a psychopath, because the system will replace them if they are not. Every purchase you make has the downstream effect of encouraging whoever you bought it from to continue doing what they are doing. And, what everyone is doing is "throwing everything possible (morally, ethically, and legally) under the bus to grow profits." Individuals don't get to dodge culpability just because we are only indirectly funding all this bad behavior.
Absent government will (which has been the reality for decades), we have no way of stopping this bad behavior than to stop funding it. But since nearly every company is engaging in bad behavior, "stop funding it" means becoming a hermit and not buying anything, which is also not feasible for enough people.
Becoming only consumers is how we got here. We are no longer citizens, no longer members of religion, no longer anything but consumers. Hiker/biker/crafter/music maker...so much around the scene is consumption. So all we see is consumption. To the point that making the tiniest movement in consumption is the only impact we can possibly imagine. Every good company sells out in the end. You aren't making a difference, you are building someones brand.
Don't play that game. You aren't a consumer you are a human being. Today you can impact for the positive. Choose your shopping based on savings/health, and invest that money into your local foodbank or helping someone at something like Kiva.org (I don't keep up, is Kiva bad now?) or other local charities where you can actually have an impact.
It's crazy how people have been convinced to give up and do the most barely needle moving things to feel moral.
There are these child-sized shopping carts at the grocery near me with a flag on them that says "customer in training", and it's one of the sickest most obscene thing I can think of. Because it's true, we train our children to be good consumers better than we train them to be good citizens. And it shows.
I feel the opposite. I feel I am responsible if I know the psychopath will use the money to buy a bullet and shoot someone.
I think what you're not realizing is that most people don't care. They don't care and they don't think about it. They just scaffold really weak logic to justify the whole thing and then go about their day. So when you ask them they have convoluted reasoning why they're ok with it. This blog post is that convoluted reason.
Ultimately the real reason is that we just don't care.
Most people think the comparison to an actual killer is hyperbole. These institutions are flawed, not evil.
(And if you’re going to jump in the comments about them being evil, check your privilege. None of these tech companies operate literal death squads as several non-tech companies did as recent as a few decades ago, and probably still now.)
Hmm, this doesn't track with history. Boycotts, and more generally collective economic action (strikes, etc), are an incredibly powerful form of protest. People have shaped the world through refusing to buy from oppressive forces - case in point, the boycotts of South Africa during apartheid successfully pressured South Africa out of apartheid. We got our collective rights as workers (40 hour work days, etc) through strikes, boycotts, and more.
It's not easy, but if you're serious about it is best done in community, with support and strategy. So, the opposite of main character syndrome, I would say.
It's also very odd that you take an analysis that is fundamentally systemic and translate it into purchasing from an individual psychopath - under what assumptions is that a valid comparison, one with any merit? It's not like corporations exist in a vacuum, only to emerge from the void to casually sell a single pen, the money with which they use to buy a single bullet. We as individuals, as communities, exist in feedback with the systems that we are a part of, including (surprise) corporations. So, yes, we have power to shape them, though (again) not easily.
Boycotts are a different thing. A successful boycott targets a specific company about a specific issue that that company has the ability to change. When the company changes the thing, the boycott ends.
The bus boycotts in the US Civil Rights movement are a good example. "Hey bus company, we're going to stop riding your buses until you end your racist seating policies". It's clear what they wanted to happen, and it was in the power of the boycotted company to make that happen.
This new thing is something else. Just a general "don't buy from this company because ... uh ... vague noises about evil". Like, what is it exactly you want this company to do? How will you not buying from them force them to do that? Do they even know what you're asking for?
This is not about trying to effect any sort of change. It is just plain virtue signalling so you can appear righteous to others. There is zero chance of anything happening in the world because of this.
Sounds cynical. Sure, people are not organized. They lack strategy and insight. It takes time to get there.
Sure, there is definitely a performative thing out there, and maybe this is that.
My point is this - now is a time when we need more collective action, not less. So, rather than taking up space putting down someone who may simply not know what the next step is, why not give the world the energy that it so desperately needs? Now is a time to encourage people. What you (yes, you) put out in the world matters.
The specific boycott is against Tesla, and the specific issue is Elon Musk's wealth. The objective is to bankrupt him by bankrupting Tesla until Musk is gone. The only acceptable future Tesla has is a future without any financial ties to Musk.
> There is zero chance of anything happening in the world because of this.
So far we've accomplished a 71% drop in profits, and we aren't letting up. This has caused him to turn tail from DOGE and to cry on his earnings call about it. We are having an impact, and it is impacting Musk's and Tesla's behavior.
Sure, I am responsible for my own actions, and buying something is an action I (can) make. Therefore I bear responsibility for the side effects of my buying actions. Not the same kind of direct responsibility of those that directly make bad actions, and I don't think I should become insane over evaluating the impact of every single thing I buy, but there's a middle ground between that and ignoring the side effect of anything you buy.
There's a better viewpoint on that, though: ignore moral responsibility, think in terms of agency. Choosing from whom you buy is one of the few ways you (as an ordinary citizen) have to make the world a little steer towards a better form of itself. My own choice alone won't change much (which is correct, otherwise we'd be in an economic dictatorship), but if many people consistently care about that capitalism will work its magic and make wonders happen.
Alternate frames of reference aren't inherently misanthropy or make people lesser. And the "if you disagree, you're proving me right" style dig at the parent poster is toxic positivity.
If someone's frame of reference is that most people are awful, I think that is the definition of misanthropy.
I think what started as edgy realism and critical analysis shot well past its utility and has become toxic and destructive.
Skeptical counternarratives are useful as a counterpoint to keep people honest and realistic. When they become the dominant narrative, they are destructive and self fulfilling. People are awful, they deserve to suffer. The deck is stacked, don't try. Life is pointless, why bother. Good deeds don't matter because they are insignificant at global scale.
A society or individual that hates itself will not fulfill any of the virtues it holds dear.
Articles like these always lack perspective despite desperately trying to seem woke. These "awful people" are the people that stepped up in the system and were forced to make the hard decisions. You can either be the guy paying strike breakers to kill your striking workers or the guy whose business failed. Do you really think you are any less awful for deciding to minimize your participation?
Who am I kidding, progressive economic theory hasn't progressed passed "lets kill everyone who is better off than me"
The genius of capitalism is in its unique ability to harness the energy of sociopaths* to produce valuable products and services**.
If there was no freedom to amass fortunes, these people would still exist, and they would do even more damage in whatever theoretical social structure we would have.
* And to a lesser degree, the self-interest everybody naturally possesses.
** Minimizing negative externalities is the responsibility of government accountable to the people.
How will that help you install Linux.
reply