3 ms·

It's different because they are recognizing that the issue isn't binary. It' not "bad for the environment" vs "good for the environment". It's recognizing there

It's different because they are recognizing that the issue isn't binary. It' not "bad for the environment" vs "good for the environment". It's recognizing there is a gradient of solutions ranging from "slowly increasing car efficiencies over time to allow for change" and "outright banning fossil fuels starting tomorrow". It's recognizing that "repairability" isn't the only thing to be optimized for.

saurik 5y ago
...but the other thing being optimized for is "thinness"? As a society, you are saying sometimes we should just accept that things will be bad for the environment, maybe even horribly so and at a massive scale... because, otherwise, they can't be thin enough?
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  Reducing size is always good. It's just one of many metrics of efficiency and greater efficiency is always good. If a new part is smaller than an old part, the new part probably uses less materials. Less heavy metals in the solder and component body etc, less weight for shipping which burns all kinds of fuels, etc etc. Saying "thinness" is kind of stupid, because making the full outside shape of something too tiny to even use, is the stupidest way to use a decrease in the size of all the parts inside. The gains could just as well be taken advantage of by filling the same space with other stuff like more battery or even empty air. Taking the idea to an unlikely extreme just to illustrate: A phone that was the exact same size as my current one, and performed the same jobs no better or worse than my cirrent one, but which was mostly a hollow shell just to give my hand something to hold and screen to see, and all the eletronics were in a little glass thumbnail would be perfectly great on several fronts. Reduced component size has made an infinity of things either more efficient, or made them possible at all instead of impossible. There is no such thing as "small enough already". That's identical to saying "efficient enough already".
- hervature 5y ago
  I believe that's a thinly veiled criticism directed at Apple. Even Apple tries to optimize for cost and what I would label aesthetic. You'd have to convince me that thinness is worse for the environment than having a repairable product that has the extra packaging and delivery wastage of something that is 2x the bulk and weight so that we can make it last a few more years potentially. Again, this isn't a binary problem. Even if we had an "eco-friendly" computer, it doesn't teleport to its destination. Your argument is equivalent to banning all cars because human death is unacceptable. Cars give more than they take, that's why we tolerate the death statistics.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Apple has claimed that it can install higher capacity batteries because they're not consumer-replaceable, giving devices a longer life before the battery has to be replaced. You can buy that explanation or assume it was solely to make more money, but design tradeoffs are a thing.

saurik 5y ago

...but the other thing being optimized for is "thinness"? As a society, you are saying sometimes we should just accept that things will be bad for the environment, maybe even horribly so and at a massive scale... because, otherwise, they can't be thin enough?

Brian_K_White 5y ago
Reducing size is always good. It's just one of many metrics of efficiency and greater efficiency is always good. If a new part is smaller than an old part, the new part probably uses less materials. Less heavy metals in the solder and component body etc, less weight for shipping which burns all kinds of fuels, etc etc. Saying "thinness" is kind of stupid, because making the full outside shape of something too tiny to even use, is the stupidest way to use a decrease in the size of all the parts inside. The gains could just as well be taken advantage of by filling the same space with other stuff like more battery or even empty air. Taking the idea to an unlikely extreme just to illustrate: A phone that was the exact same size as my current one, and performed the same jobs no better or worse than my cirrent one, but which was mostly a hollow shell just to give my hand something to hold and screen to see, and all the eletronics were in a little glass thumbnail would be perfectly great on several fronts. Reduced component size has made an infinity of things either more efficient, or made them possible at all instead of impossible. There is no such thing as "small enough already". That's identical to saying "efficient enough already".
hervature 5y ago
I believe that's a thinly veiled criticism directed at Apple. Even Apple tries to optimize for cost and what I would label aesthetic. You'd have to convince me that thinness is worse for the environment than having a repairable product that has the extra packaging and delivery wastage of something that is 2x the bulk and weight so that we can make it last a few more years potentially. Again, this isn't a binary problem. Even if we had an "eco-friendly" computer, it doesn't teleport to its destination. Your argument is equivalent to banning all cars because human death is unacceptable. Cars give more than they take, that's why we tolerate the death statistics.
dehrmann 5y ago
Apple has claimed that it can install higher capacity batteries because they're not consumer-replaceable, giving devices a longer life before the battery has to be replaced. You can buy that explanation or assume it was solely to make more money, but design tradeoffs are a thing.