Hello, my name is Cris. :)

I like being nice to people on the internet and looking at cool art stuff

  • 1 Post
  • 188 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023




  • I mean, not even just that; companies don’t move manufacturing overseas to build a better product. There are plenty of product segments and individual products that demonstrate China and Taiwan are more than capable of producing high quality stuff with good QA, but no one moves manufacturing there to make high quality stuff, they do it because moving to a place with poor labor laws, cheap labor, with low expectations of health & saftey in the workplace, and weak environmental regulatory oversight is a unchecked-capitalism wet dream, and allows for more “competitive pricing” (a race to the bottom), and better profit margins.

    Companies don’t move or start manufacturing overseas because they wanna build a good product, they do it cause it’s cheap as shit, and that’s reflected in a lot of what we associate with things being made poorly made. The manufacturing groups set up in other contries are perfectly capable of hitting QC goals, but it’s not like the folks doing business with them are generally asking for much with respect to product quality standards.

    that’s a big part of how I look at it anyway




  • It seems disproportionately complicated relative to how basic the task is. I’ve definitely done more complicated stuff, despite being more of a graphical interface person, it just seems like such a basic (and common) thing a user might want, it seems like it should be as simple as sudo apt install <package name>. As long as I’m using apt and not snap, I expect it to install the .deb package. It feels user hostile :/












  • Same comment I left on the other thread for this article:

    The EPA had failed to note the sky-high cancer risk from the marine fuel additive in the agency’s document approving the chemical’s production. When ProPublica asked why, the EPA said it had “inadvertently” omitted it.

    Asked last week for an accurate estimate of the true risk posed by the chemicals, the EPA declined to respond, citing pending litigation. The EPA also did not respond when asked why it did not acknowledge that its approval may have been made in error during the months that ProPublica was asking about it.

    Uhhh Anyone know what the fuck is happening over at the EPA???

    Edit, also a worthwhile excerpt:

    As ProPublica and The Guardian noted last year, making fuel from plastic is in some ways worse for the climate than simply creating it directly from coal, oil or gas. That’s because nearly all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, and additional fossil fuels are used to generate the heat that turns discarded plastic into fuels.


  • This is kinda the first reply that really gave me a new angle to think about- multiple in fact. Both “vulnerability to fear tactics”, and “keeping people occupied” are a lot more immediate systemic impacts that can benefit maintaining the status quo than the things that had come to mind for me.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I wouldn’t have had the perspective to consider it from your angle and I appreciate it!

    Hope you have a good one :)