In the 2010s, my neighbor asked me to fix their iPad because i was technically literate. I noticed it had a EoL date and it was fast approaching. I realized that iPads were just bigger iPhones. And Chromebooks were also getting popular.
I then realized we were all fucked.
We have all this “disposable” tech that only have a window of about 3-4 years before it breaks down. Even with open-source and boot loading, there’s just so much garbage and it’ll only continue to grow.
They should really mandate open firmware and bootloaders, and even spec sheets, etc. for deprecated hardware.
Just another byproduct of enshittification. Novadays, a top-end Garmin watch lasts about as long as a Chinese watch of a brand with random characters you buy off Amazon. Google is introducing planned obsolesence in Fitbit. Banking apps are beginning to require phones that are no more than 4 years old. TVs get bricked with firmware upgrades. So, consumers are trained to buy cheapest, least reliable electronics, because over time they’ll provide more value than top-end items which used to last much longer. (This was written on a 13 years old phone. I may not have access to my banking app anymore, but otherwise it works for everything I need, and I haven’t contributed to e-waste in this regard. Not that the pollution angle was my reason to keep the phone, but it’s a nice extra bonus.)
Google is introducing planned obsolesence in Fitbit
Have they? In what way?
They’ve done good work for Android and Pixel, promising 7 years of updates for the latest Pixels. Samsung has also gotten much better about this with their recent phones. That’s going to put a huge dent in the e-waste as Android phones have surely been heavy contributors (certainly much higher than fitbit).
TVs get bricked with firmware upgrades.
What TVs? Vizio, Hisense, the Chinese junk budget brands?
Very sympathetic to your e-waste concerns; I think the source of the problem is actually getting better not worse though. In general, the mobile tech sector is “growing up” and supporting products longer.
Have they? In what way?
This is speculation by Ars Technica. Essentially, a recent firmware upgrade seems to have drastically lowered the battery life of some models. In addition, they are removing all third-party apps in the EU in response to the DMA.
What TVs? Vizio, Hisense, the Chinese junk budget brands?
Most recently Roku. But I used a TV only as an example. A year ago, an OTA upgrade bricked microwave ovens. Google’s history of bricking its smart home products goes back to at least 2016, companies like Wink threaten to brick your devices unless you suddenly start paying a monthly fee on top of your purchase price “for life”, there were reports of smart bulbs or thermostats ceasing working as well.
The following is pure speculation on my part: I think we’re at the beginning of a huge wave of planned obsolescence. Everyone and their mother are now training AI’s, and they want their customers to replace older products, which don’t support AI integration, with new ones. They’ll soon stop supporting the older devices or outright bricking them, to force people to buy the new ones.
“Come on guys, solar panels don’t make that much waste. Besides, it’s renewable!”
“Nuclear Fission is dangerous, we shouldn’t make more power plants, invest in things like solar!”
Don’t mind me, just waving my tiny “I was right” flag as we drown in our own hubris.
How are we even supposed to know what’s right anymore? Am I supposed to vote for the solar or the nuclear fanatics? I just wanna save the fucking climate, what should I do?
Edit: I’m sorry if this isn’t phrased clearly, but what I mean to say is “solar fanatics or nuclear fanatics”, implying that I feel right in the middle between the to and just want to make the right choice. People are arguing loudly from both sides.
Nuclear, preferably fusion works out and energy becomes a non-issue. But nothing else we have can beat the reliability, energy density and power-to-emissions ratio of nuclear.
I’m very sick of hearing about nuclear from Reddit/lemmy. If it was a realistic, affordable solution we’d be doing it. But it’s not. It just seems like it is to the layman.
There’s a reason the market and governments went all in on renewables and it isn’t just paranoia about nuclear accidents. Building a nuclear plant takes ten years minimum and it’s incredibly expensive, and has a lower margin for profit. In that amount of time governments/companies can build tens of thousands of renewable energy stations.
The issue of waste from solar is real, but the fact is even with that waste it’s done far more to reduce emissions than nuclear ever has or ever could.
If it was a realistic, affordable solution we’d be doing it.
No, if it wasn’t lobbied against and fearmongered by oil and coal, public sentiment would support it and funding would go along with it. If you think it’s cheaper to throw massive solar panels into every open field and that we’d get anywhere approaching the energy a nuclear power plant could produce then you’ve lost the plot.
it isn’t just paranoia about nuclear accidents.
Yes it is.
Building a nuclear plant takes ten years minimum and it’s incredibly expensive,
The energy output offsets the cost faster than alternatives and if we started ten years ago we’d have them by now. Not starting right now because you think it’s too late is the reason they weren’t built a decade ago. Some kind of fuckin reverse sunk cost fallacy with you people. Also, ten years minimum? Some have been built in three years.
The issue of waste from solar is real, but the fact is even with that waste it’s done far more to reduce emissions than nuclear ever has or ever could.
Dumbest shit you’ve said in this post so I’m glad you left it till last. Since 1971 Nuclear Power is estimated to have prevented 64 trillion gigatons of carbon emissions. To put it into perspective, that’s the amount the United States would generate if we powered ourselves completely with coal for 35 years. The positive climate impact of nuclear is so incomprehensibly superior to renewables that your stance against it isn’t just stupid - it’s costing lives.
It’s hilarious how utterly delusional you are lol. Yeah you go ahead and keep telling yourself that an oil industry conspiracy is pushing renewables over nuclear and not the fundamental economics of the situation. Nuclear isn’t and never will be a realistic solution to climate change.
Also— your own article states that the fastest nuclear reactors were built in Japan. Well guess what, that’s bizarr because Japan skirted all kinds of safety practices to build their reactors and that’s how you get garbage plants like Fukushima. All of the new reactors getting built now are planned for ten years or more, which your article also confirms.
And no, you are blatantly wrong that only paranoia is getting in the way of nuclear. Countries aren’t building nuclear because it makes no fucking sense when you can generate the same amount of power for far cheaper with renewables. Renewables are also serving as the baseline power source all around the world and they do the job just fine. Nuclear isn’t needed.
It’s obvious you’re just another rude, know-it-all douchebag who is actually far more ignorant on this topic than you realize. Straight to my blocked list.
