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.

https://thelounge.chat/

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

Correct me if i'm wrong, it's been a while since i watched this grid engineer's explanation, but my understanding was it has nothing to do with PV itself, it began with IBR misconfiguration which under "unusual circumstances" cascaded due to further grid mismanagement.

yes the misconfigured IBR were at a PV plant, but thats where i think the media runs with the story without really communicating clearly to the public. IBR misconfiguration, even at a PV plant, is not a technical failure of PV technology itself, at all. IBR misconfiguration also effects turbine outputs with HVDC feed for example.

where i think the story gets further jumbled is alot of the "unusual circumstances" involved issues which were traceable (under current implementations) to a renewables dominant grid state. so the news story seems to become "PV/renewables trouble", whereas afaict in reality it's more like "renewables dominating to unexpected levels + misconfiguration/mismanagement".

imo the distinction is important, it's not a PROBLEM with PV, it's a problem with previous assumptions about renewables capacity & grid state no longer being true, and the ways bureaucracies & their infrastructure decisions can lag behind that change.

Ah gotcha, yeh afaik that was definitely a grid failure rather than renewables failure in any form.

forced vs post scarcity

tbh i'm happy whenever someone at least acknowledges the tension between these two facets.

anyway my actual point, imo the "too many humans" propaganda is part of the forced scarcity lobby. there's perhaps too many humans to live as wastefully as we are, so why wouldn't reducing waste be our #1-3 top priorities?

but waste is more 'profitable' (in short term), so we go all in - while pretending Us Living & Others Not-Living is a moral obligation on our part wtflol