I don't know if your purposely misunderstanding me or if I'm not explaining myself well but give it one last time and then just agreed to disagree.
Fairphone a company I don't even particularly like uses less rare metals, in factories that ensure better standards of living for the people who work there.
Is it everything I want? No. Does it make a measurable impact? Yes.
Therefore it is not the same. they may be a capitalist company and they could change their motto tomorrow of course any company can choose to do terrible things and may throughout the course of their company's lifetime.
As of right now with the options we have they physically do less harm.
That's just it though. One does more damage than the other unless you alone are single-handedly going to overthrow capitalism within the next week (which you know more power to you) this is still harm reduction and I'm happy for it.
Otherwise you just bitching about best case scenarios and living in a world that exists only in your head
This is just false. Fairphone had audits that prove it's an improvement in both sustainability and worker conditions.
Of course consumerism always negatively impacts the environment but to make it all equivalent is to forsake all nuance. It's not at all to the same magnitude.
I don't believe capitalism is the answer to the world's problems but to not celebrate a positive initiative is throwing the baby out with bath water.
This is just the "both sides of the same" argument with different dressing.
It's as false here as it is there. So you're going to tell me a company like fairphone is as unethical as Apple or Samsung?
Yes of course they work with two completely different yields but that's really the point The only way you can get to that yield is to be unethical so choose smaller brands choose ones that make decisions you agree with and help them grow.
There is no completely ethical capitalism but there definitely are choices that get us somewhere better.
When I'm driving I need a tactile immediate response that is easy to understand without looking at it.
Touch screens are for controls that change so you can take advantage of the dynamic nature of a screen for the static needs of a car and the immediate feedback you need, make them the worst possible solution.
Night shifts are the only night owl specific concession and society as a whole of very much does not run like that. Flexible work schedules are the outlier by a wide margin.
I mean freshly baked bread that you put in a bag last week a week or so I know dough conditioners do extend the life but when I throw my bread out it's usually not because it's stale because it's moldy which conditioners don't really help
Adapting a system to suit more people when it exclusively suits you will always feel like oppression. In reality it is letting others enjoy the privilege that you already enjoy
I mean I'm somebody who used to ad block for a long time and then subscribed to premium for the music.
I get their point of view given the costs but it still really sucks. As someone who definitely couldn't have justified the cost of a different point in life this would have drastically reduced the quality on YouTube.
That's their right but I don't have to be happy about it
The drive to work more sounds like a good idea on its face however as someone who has tried that tactic I can tell you it will rapidly take an impact on your mental health. You will not be rewarded for your extra output but be reprimanded anytime the stress makes you perform subpar.
From my experience 32 hours is works best for me and will allow me to maintain my highest output. Additional hours after that will actually lower my output overall in the long run.
The other reason it's not a good idea is because when one person does it it becomes the expectation every time you give an employer free time you weaken the bargaining power of your peers and you may see it as rewards for your efforts but I guarantee that we all lose in the end, you will get paid less than what you deserve you will get less free time than you deserve for your efforts. Capitalism only rewards shareholders.
No, I was talking specifically about teaching the theory of evolution in Florida and the law they passed which prevents theories from being taught if a parent complains about them and what's the only theory that parents are going to complain about why the theory of evolution. In several republican-leaning states so many books have been banned with so much educational value that librarians have had death threats for for refusing to comply from right-wing voters.
And the party routinely proposes and passes laws that give tax breaks to corporations bailouts you name it. All while repeatedly curtailing efforts to have any sort of safety nets for workers like better minimum wages, better access to food, better access to housing and better access to health care.
And you can say it's all in the name of fiscal responsibility but it's not it's been proven in front of them with their own numbers that socializing or health care system would not only increase quality but decrease cost. You know why it doesn't get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.
I sure hope you're taking the piss because Republican governors have been banning all sorts of books that range from ones that teach about trans rights and climate change for some time.
I'm at work right now but if you want sources I can provide them it's just going to take a couple hours.
Moreover they've made it illegal to teach theories that the parents have an issue with obviously slanted towards stopping the education on evolution.
I understand that you may have your own values and that's fine but it doesn't change that the Republican party has been staunchly anti science and anti worker for the majority of recent history
Yeah the only people whose minds this will change are agnostic techies