you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -22 points 5 months ago (8 children)

I'm sure similar was said about computers vs typewriters, calculators, etc. You're not wrong, but the more expedient path tends to win out in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    Yes, but computers, typewriters, and calculators had the ability to produce useful and aesthetically pleasing things while not destroying the planet in the process. I know, people will use it for things like this regardless, but there is no good excuse for doing so due to the enormous downsides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    To a point, I don't disagree. Reality does reality things, however - whether people like it or not. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not disputing that they will do these things, I'm just stating very good reasons why they should not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago

    Yes, the energy needs currently are absurd, but I'm sure the earliest building & room-filling computers were the same — while we were far less conscious of the energy consumption at the time. Things improved eventually, and this likely will as well. I agree it shouldn't be used nearly as much as it is being pushed in its current form, but the reality is that it will still be used nonetheless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] -24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    You're just full of shit, aren't you? This is at least the third fourth fifth time under a single post you've responded to me with this same childishness. Grow up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments