ganymede

yep i completely agree. even just considering warranties & right to repair stuff alone accounts for absurdly unnecessary ecological impact. when we consider the direct environmental harm + total carbon footprint of mining something out of the ground, transporting, refining - AT THE SAME TIME AS THROWING IT OUT IN THE TRASH - due to planned obsolescence, anti-repair strategies or just terrible waste recovery programs.

it's also insane seeing the attempts at green-washing greedy decisions (eg. apple making customers pay extra for a charger, apparently as a green initiative) meanwhile they're deliberately impeding device repair efforts, again purely for commercial greed, and this time very blatantly harmful for the environment.

many electronic devices used to come with repair manuals for the customer to read. now it's the opposite, companies going out of their way to pressure chip makers TO NOT EVEN SELL CHIPS TO ANYONE FOR REPAIR PURPOSES. apart from antithetical to the apparent principles of free market, it's just ridiculously unnecessarily harmful to the environment.

(they also love to suggest modern electronics are to small/complex/whatever to repair these days. and in absolute extreme cases that's fairly true, but in alot of cases it absolutely is NOT impossible. specialised repair equipment used to be crazy expensive, and you can get started easier than ever. but still, it's becoming a niche, and sometimes illegal [DMCA], it whereas it used to be the norm)

there are too many people, to live the way we are. and the way we are living is shameful. what insanity would prioritise Many Not Existing so A Few can keep living a shameful life?

population distribution is anti-correlated with carbon footprint: "Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%"

it's not about population, it's so A HANDFUL of overly-privileged people can continue to waste energy on eg. nice frosty transparent dialog boxes serving them slop advertising on their smartphone as they sit on the toilet - so that MANY MANY other people end up either not existing or starving just so they can enjoy the privilege

Although it is necessary to reduce population in general

is it?

there's perhaps too many people to live as wastefully as we do, oughtn't we reduce the waste then?

which is why i'd say clearly identify the source so people can discern.

afaict if you want to fairly criticise kagi its for not moving fast enough on adding clear source referencing & adding methods for users to filter out source types.

is there something i'm missing? are there other reasons to suspect bad faith on kagi's part?

any nation's major search engine is going to be turning up propaganda.

imo it's better to include it & state where it came from so people can discern.

personally i don't believe the entire population of any country are all bad people and increasingly siloing global citizens from eachother is only going to increase the kinds of toxic nationalism which dangerous regimes use as fuel

the experimental phase of plebs having computing autonomy is winding down. alas, this is one of the many signs

but how do you know whether to trust that information

test it, break it, see what happens.

and the translation will get progressively shitter the further into the story you go cos the compute resources start getting rate limited lol

afaik it was originally about freedom from oppression. as with so many things, it has been hijacked by bigots and they've twisted it to now mean their freedom to oppress others.

• Mitch Hedberg
• Wanda Sykes

corporate koolaid frequently masquerades as 'knowledge', and is parroted rather than built up from first principles.

compared to reddit, an average lemmy user would tend more towards the latter than the former.

be on the lookout for the cognitive dissonance which can precede the realisation you've been parroting corporate propaganda. it's ok, it happens to all of us, but the sooner we realise the better for everyone.