Replacing the screen adhesive on an apple watch costs more than a new watch according to Apple!
Replacing the screen adhesive on an apple watch costs more than a new watch according to Apple!
Thankfully Jonathan was able to take it to an independent repair shop for a $75 CAD adhesive fix (and battery replacement?) despite Apple's restrictions against them.
You're viewing a single thread.
Honestly. At this point trying to save the environment is too late, but it would be nice now that some politics are finally heading in that direction, if this anti-repair bullshit would be legislated out of existence.
Add a cost on carbon emissions, and fine companies that manufacture things that aren’t designed to be repaired.
If I buy something, I ought own it and have the final say with who does what with my property. I don’t care if Samapplesoftabet decides that they don’t like it, if they want so much control over my thing they should buy it back from me.
It's not too late to save the environment. This is a defeatist attitude that has no place I'm the fight. If you don't try, then you can't save shit. We are by no means past the point of no return.
Exactly! Stages of climate change denial:
1 it doesn't exist
2 we aren't causing it
3 it isn't that bad
4 we can't solve it
5 it's too late now (so might as well go on consuming oil)
Ah, the Sir Humphrey method.
Oh no, I don’t deny climate change. Quite the opposite, I think we’ve done way too little way too late for it to truly matter.
I just think the collapse of society due to decades of unsustainable consumption and frankly ridiculous thinking is inevitable. Year on year companies strive for infinite growth and the majority economical system promotes it?
At this point I’m simply past caring. It’s incredibly sad that the people that will be hit first are those that already don’t have much, but there’s nothing I can do.
It’s fine though. I’m not planning to be around long enough to see things go to hell anyway.
But saying we can't do anything about it is still denial that we should. I think our action now and in the coming years determines if millions or billions of people die. So there's a lot riding on what action we take, even though it might seem hopeless.
Oh yeah. Absolutely. It’d be amazing if the powers that be got their arse in gear and actually did shit. I’ll keep walking everywhere, reusing plastic bags, and not travelling like I’ve always done, but it won’t save the planet.
We need extreme fees on carbon emissions, and all the nuclear, solar, hydroelectric, and wind power we can get, and we need them twenty-thirty years ago.
If you haven't noticed, these posts that steer the discussion in another direction are always attempt to defuse the blame. If you've ever been on reddit, you'll notice people trying really hard to shift blame, change goal posts, point fingers. And they're always highly upvoted.
It's social media PR management 101. You just need a bot farm and you can bet every marketing company does this for anyone that pays.
We don't actually know if this is the case or not.
The recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report states that there's high confidence that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (how much the temperature will rise long-term if a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide occurs) lies between 2.5-4C, with a best estimate being 3C. Several models predict a higher sensitivity than that, 4+, and have been disregarded for being too extreme and not aligning with historical data.
The major difference between these hotter models compared to the older ones is in the way they model cloud processes and their effect on the overall climate system. So, recent claims have been made that historical climate data is compatible with the hotter models (specifically an ECS of 4.8 ± 1.2C) when taking these new cloud models into account.
Which basically means that all our worst-case scenarios for climate change might actually be too optimistic, and we should be doing significantly more than we actively are right now.
The thing is, the things we need to do are costly, diminish quality of life, and won't be directly beneficial to the economy. We're going to have to sow proverbial trees whose shade we'll never sit under. Going by historical data, that won't happen. We've known that carbon dioxide affects the climate since the 1800s. We've known that humanity's extreme carbon emissions have an effect on the climate since the early-mid 1900s. We've done fuck all about it.
We might only have a couple of decades before the area around the equator becomes more or less uninhabitable. What do you think will happen when billions of climate refugees travel north in search of succor?
Now how can you dare go against the narrative ? That’s not going to get you any internet points or something…
And you’re right, complaining or doom complacency isn’t going to save anyone…
I don't care about internet points. I want to save our planet and stop the 6th mass extinction that's underway from including humans, and nearly everything on it.
It's not too late.
Well yes that’s my point but it seems my sarcasm flew above you…
I think though that the prevalent doom attitude -exhibited by the poster above- isn’t going to save anyone.
I used to work at a place that sold Fruit shit. I remember at the time how they all had raging boners about the environment, but everytime I needed to restock something like Earpods, they were individually wrapped in their own plastic bag so that dust may not besmirch the holy Fruit product. At the end of the day our rubbish bins were full of tiny little plastic bags.
Fucking hypocrites.
Ya but fooling you into thinking they are green makes them more money, so in the end they don’t care about being hypocrites since they got your money already
Yes! Or atleast if I buy a license to a product and you stop supporting it, remove it from my library, etc. Then you must return my money or provide the same product alternatively.