> I can not believe "educated" people would not come with this solution, and instead have to invent this spiritual stuff.
Why would you think the Ice Age world would be less spiritual than today? Seems in our modern, "educated" world there's plenty of people believing in some form of god.
They don't care. You don't think Apple with their trillions of dollars maybe could make a version of the iPhone version that's upgradable? The worst thing is the industry follows their lead so everything they don't do, the industry does as well.
Apple comes out with 4 versions of the iPhone every year right? How about a fifth version that is 2mm thicker with the ability to upgrade. This is the wealthiest company on the planet in history and they are doing almost nothing.
> Personally I think it’s better to do some good for the environment than no good for the environment. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. They should absolutely let us repair every device, but I’m glad they make the environmental efforts they currently do as well.
>> Personally I think it’s better to do some good for the environment than no good for the environment.
"Some good for the environment" is 0.1% better in some marginal areas (packaging , recycled X material, bundled cables, the stickers in the box it announced it will stop this year, and so on) combined with 20% worse in other areas (tens of millions of devices) for a net 19.9% worse.
And, yes, 19.9% worse is technically better than 20% worse.
Like "technically" removing a bucket of water from a flooding river is less flood than leaving it all.
Practically it's worse. It does nothing to stop the catastrophe, and even worse, this greenwashing is giving false assurances, which help maintain and compound the 19.9% worse year over year (as opposed to people demanding they do something real).
And of the course the hypocrisy, encouraged this way, doesn't stop with Apple.
They're clearly meant to be illustrative, not specific... except if you thought the argument was that Apple's damage to the environment is precisely 19.9% of some yet unspecified unit
I bought a braided solo loop of theirs and it became stretched out within 5 months. I didn't do anything but take it off my hand each night to charge it. If that's the norm, and the Apple store employee made it seem that way, they shouldn't even sell them.
Add some probiotics, call it keto, give it a more modern packaging and palette, advertise on the L train, charge $6 a pack, give it a person's name like "Greta".
Google just had an income of $23B in the last three months (7.6B a month). Whether their results are good or bad, this is their goal. Whatever billions OpenAI makes they are from paying customers and I would guess it's revenue and not income. Google is making $23B off of mainly FREE products.
There is a very long road to Google losing dominance. It will happen because everything dies but I would bet that's a long way away.
I have a special interest in the post-mortem story of tech companies from the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's. The HP, DEC, IBM, WordStar, RIM. I love the stories and the patterns they provide.
Most companies reach a size and tenure where they are still trying to grow by a certain percentage every year. They had grown year after year, but as they saturate the market or the market starts to shift they can't grow at the same rate they once did. As they turn into a stable dividend type company ideally growth should more match general market growth, but still growing.
Google makes a lot of its money from showing ads to those using search. They are facing your classic innovator's dilemma. The upstart that can't do 1/100th of what you can, but that one thing it can do it does so much better and they start taking customers and they start climbing that classic S curve of growth. Many of these companies built themselves internally for growth, not for sustainability. Internal incentives cause them to bleed the smartest and brightest & outsource whole departments rather than simplifying. Layers of bureaucracy slow down everything further letting those scrappy startups go after opportunities that the old guard couldn't.
No one thinks Google will go from 23B to 0 by next quarter, no the thing they are talking about is when companies like this don't go from 23B to 25B, but instead to 22.9B.
Y Combinator teaches startups all about the beginning of the diffusion of innovation because that is what is most important. I could probably give a little class on the other side of it, call it the missing lesson or something fun. The value isn't in learning how to not get into the same trap, but to understand your competition better and how to learn what is most likely going on internally and how to exploit it.
> The value isn't in learning how to not get into the same trap, but to understand your competition better and how to learn what is most likely going on internally and how to exploit it.
I've been a builder for a lot of my life but the last 10 years I've worked as an optimizer. The interesting thing about that is the work and playbook I used in the past is more of just a standard industry practice now. I used to do an audit and find a ton of low-hanging fruit and go from there. Nowadays, there's a lot less to correct and I have to think in different ways to provide true value.
reply