• WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

        • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          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.

      • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        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.

        • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          5 days ago

          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.

            • WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              5 days 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.