I mostly agree - however there are physical/mechanical reasons behind the use of some of those. For example, Phillips head screws will ‘cam out’ (driver will slip out of the screw head) rather than get over-torqued, which is useful in various situations - although TIL this was not actually an intentional design feature!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_out

Hex keys are better than a Robertson (square head) in tight spaces with something like an Allan key, and, in my experience anyway, Robertson can take a fair bit of torque, so they’re great for sinking into softwood - and also for getting out again, even when they’ve been painted over.

Flathead screws, on the other hand, should launched into the sun

Unfortunately, Meta is listed as one of their partners

Would be very interested to know if Meta (listed as a “partner” organization) is providing financial support, like how fellow partner the Ford Foundation lists a $50k grant[1] in February 2024 to the Exchange Point Institute, which is the “fiscal sponsor” of the Social Web Foundation[2]

[1] https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/our-grants/awarded-grants/grants-database/exchange-point-institute-149412/

[2] https://socialwebfoundation.org/donate/

Not to mention that their napkin math is wrong by a factor of 12

You may want to double-check that math ;)

Did no one in the replies happen to notice that this is a loan

Corporations and surveillance?

Yep absolutely, and even those numbers likely represent raw emissions figures vastly lower than the true impact these data centres are having on global emissions.

For example, that Google report talks about EACs - here’s a great podcast episode that explains why these kinds of accounting methods are a complete disaster:

Reveal: It’s Not Easy Going Green

https://revealnews.org/podcast/its-not-easy-going-green-update-2023/

I would like to hear you say it

What’s strange about defending people’s freedom to be themselves?

Why not do both?

What’s the problem with drag queens reading to kids, exactly?

With energy companies, you mean? Like, we’ve seen federal governments of various countries cancel (or re-approve) pipelines all the time - Keystone XL comes to mind, for instance

The people stalking our neighbourhoods preying on people’s success

Interesting phrase there. Whole piece was definitely overblown, but this kinda gives away the game.

I’ll be honest, I have zero sympathy for any landlord here. Rent control is necessary to (hopefully) make sure there is housing that people can afford to live in - and acts as a kind of limit to the extraction of an ever-increasing portion of the paychecks of the working class by the landlord class.

If the renter loses the ability to pay for a home, they become homeless. If a landlord loses the ability to pay for a property, they become a renter. Economic conditions changed? How about this: these landlords should sell, and make property prices drop a little, instead of having renters getting kicked onto the street.

Thanks, yeah admittedly I hadn’t read the entire article before posting - and quickly realized the answer to my question when I did! I should really know better than to do that :)

Anyway, maybe the question I should have asked is more like, “why the heck did they give arbitrators so much latitude” - which it sounds like we agree on!

How on earth is it possible for an arbitrator to just override legislation like this?

Ok yeah that’s super interesting, and maybe kinda sums up the whole thing: the devs make tech that reduces the opportunity for thought and engagement, and that frictionless experience results in worse outcomes for users, but better outcomes for profits.

And yet, paradoxically, there are probably plenty more folks like yourself that would prefer to use a different kind of app!

I mean, I was lucky to find a life-partner before dating apps were the default, so I’m going to be speaking a little out of turn here.

But I’d imagine that if those apps were a little more friction-y - like, if people weren’t using an almost literally frictionless swipe left and right, but instead were encouraged by the interface to learn something about a person first, or, say, had to click reasons why they were swiping left or right - that it would be easier to make meaningful connections. You’d be designing in self-reflection and curiosity.

And sure, you might turn away some users by doing that - but what if that’s actually a good thing?

I think there’s a bit of irony in that the most ‘frictionless’ (and dehumanizing) way to interact on Lemmy might be to hit the downvote button. It’s the thing that rewards the knee-jerk, un-considered reaction.

In a way, the downvote button is the thing that perfectly expresses the demand that one’s experience confirm to pre-conceived notions of comfort - without having to face a response from the person being downvoted - and denies the downvoter the potential for growth.

I like this essay too :)