Changing old cars or motorcycles to electric is the right way. To make old usable instead of making new all the time. The workd gets filled with unneccessary waste. An industry which would focus on sustainability, repair parts, fixindustry, would also give jobs and there would be money on it.
Changing old cars or motorcycles to electric is the right way. To make old usable instead of making new all the time.
See my previous post, Maemish. I agree with you, but ask yourself, the right way for whom? It is not in the car makers' interest to refurbish old cars. They want to make and sell new ones. Disposing of the old ones is someone else's problem.
Unless - and that may be a solution - the society makes it their problem. But that would require legislation. Legislation would require voting for politicians who are willing to champion such changes. How likely is that, in the current "every man for himself, screw everyone else" atmosphere?
This is why I would like to see people to put effort on assembly language coding cause it would make old computers more usable and no need to upgrade hardware side all the time.
Not really. A well written compiler can optimize code better than what I could do if I wrote the bloody piece all the way by hand.
The only place where it really makes sense to do some manual optimizing is checking how the machine code looks when profiling a hotspot. And even then it usually turns out the compiler did the best job it can in that situation and the correct way to optimize is to refactor the c source
It might well be that I'm just so bad at this and your mileage might vary but this is what I have learned working almost 30 years writing device drivers...
The trouble is, it is always someone else's loss. Even if "someone else" is "me next year". That's how capitalism works. Local and short term always beats global or long term.
So, in the end, the problem really is capitalism itself. Constant growth market.
Unless - and that may be a solution - the society makes it their problem. But that would require legislation. Legislation would require voting for politicians who are willing to champion such changes. How likely is that, in the current "every man for himself, screw everyone else" atmosphere?
I disagree with the last sentence and pose the answer "it's getting more likely every day, and voting trends prove it".
For example only, who would've thought 35 years ago the Green parties would become part of most countries' parliaments?
Yes, the Green parties aren't what they were 35 years ago.
But it is happening. Just too slow.
I heard somewhere on the mainstream news that "there are indicators that human civilisation impact might have been responsible for Covid 19". Unfortunately it did not go into detail after that.
Does anybody have an idea what that could've meant?
Just the spread of Covid 19, or its existence?
I wish I could share your optimism, nonsuch. I agree that there was a period of an increased care for the environment, international cooperation and other "liberal lefty snowflake" ideas. But the powers that be pushed hard in the opposite direction and mostly succeeded: the past few years have seen that trend reversed. (Or maybe it is just in the UK and US, I might be too myopic to see beyond that.)
Regarding Covid 19, I assume they meant the spread. Mutations happen all the time, but a human encroachment on nature means a cross-species transmission is more likely. Similar flare ups may have been common in the hunter-gatherer society, but a deadly outbreak would have wiped out one tribe and then die out. Nowadays, "one tribe" means the entire globe.
(Or maybe it is just in the UK and US, I might be too myopic to see beyond that.)
That's the "every man for himself, screw everyone else" you're bemoaning.
I agree, that currently is a problem in many countries.
I blame populism, that doesn't want to confuse potential voters with complex situations beyond their immediate experience, and doesn't want to admit that real politics is a slow, complicated and boring process of negotiations with various parties.
I think the days of polulism are numbered though, just like the days of unfettered (hate-)mongering on social media are numbered.
Originally Posted by
Regarding Covid 19, I assume they meant the spread. Mutations happen all the time, but a human encroachment on nature means a cross-species transmission is more likely. Similar flare ups may have been common in the hunter-gatherer society, but a deadly outbreak would have wiped out one tribe and then die out. Nowadays, "one tribe" means the entire globe.
Yes, I think so too.
It's true; things were different when the black plague was around, but even back then colonialisation & ships played a large role.
That's the "every man for himself, screw everyone else" you're bemoaning.
Sorry, I am not sure if I understand you right. If you are accusing me of being selfish (the very thing I was indeed bemoaning) then... you may well be right, but that's not what I meant.
It's like you were saying that there are millions of friendly people in the streets singing happy songs and giving flowers to strngers. I say, that may be so, but all I can see in my street are rowdy drunks shouting abuse. Their noise drowns out any sound of singing from other streets.
(Yes, I know. A simple solution: move house. Trust me, I would if my family agreed.)
