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.
* 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.
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.
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.
If you know upfront that's what's going to happen, why wouldn't you have a degree of responsibility?
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
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.
(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.)
__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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.)
https://deathisbad.substack.com/p/does-the-omelas-kid-have-a...
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.
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.
probably you too. awesome people sometimes screw up, but that's OK. if you really still think that "everyone sucks" then maybe you are in the 5%
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.
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.
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?
Because computers are complex, and there are many computers with many different hardware configurations nobody can answer if it solves the issues for you.
I do think that power management isn't there yet though on the other hand.
Pick any model on this list that has all green boxes. There is no step 2. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Laptop/Lenovo
(Sent from my thinkpad with perfectly working sleep)
Supporting arbitrary hardware is hard for an open-source project.
Sticking to solid brands with well-tested models has other benefits.
??? I've had 3 laptops over the last decade+ and sleep/restore has worked on all of them. You using some weird distro or DE?
They make heroic efforts in supporting a variety of hardware but if you have the choice it's better to use hardware with better support.
There are vendors like System76 and Dell who offer Linux support
Ubuntu has a certified hardware list:
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.
(I think the design of the webcam is to blame)
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.
Some countries they don't export to.
Other countries the VAT + import tax just adds up.
This has not been true for over 20 years. You just need to buy known good hardware.
(Anyone know when exactly we first got reliable sleep on the early Thinkpads with APM?)
How will that help you install Linux.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Who am I kidding, progressive economic theory hasn't progressed passed "lets kill everyone who is better off than me"
mergy•2h ago
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.
disillusioned•1h ago
the_third_wave•1h ago
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:
pjerem•1h ago
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.