• WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    3 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
        3 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
      3 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
        ·
        3 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
            ·
            3 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.