thejevans

The main thing I have learned after switching to Linux full-time is that weird, proprietary hardware like this is almost never a good idea, for many reasons. It's very easy to make labels for keys if you really want to, and if you need more functionality, having more buttons instead of layers is always going to be faster to learn and use. Especially if you are trying to use this as a home automation interface, it's probably a better idea to have either a touch screen or a separate screen and keypad.

Sure, this thing looks nice, but in a couple years (at most) it will be e-waste.

They only list support for Windows and MacOS on their site. The answer is almost certainly no, it doesn't work with Linux. People may reverse engineer it like they did with the Stream Deck or GoXLR devices, but don't hold your breath. Your best alternative would be something like this: https://drop.com/buy/megalodon-doio-hot-swappable-rgb-30-keyboard?defaultSelectionIds=970727

EDIT: Or, you could build your own without the need of a raspberry pi using something like this: https://www.instructables.com/STREAM-DECK-KILLER-and-OpenSource/

Yeah, I think there is some confusion here. This isn't to protect a computer, it's to cycle all the air in a room in a few minutes and filter down to pm2.5. HVAC filters are a very different kind of product than what this company offers.

I'm talking about things like this: https://www.cleanairkits.com/products/luggables

These companies are getting this pressure because they are well known and because of coordinated collective action against them. By all means, avoid them. That said, there are tons of reasons that people still buy from these companies.

For 3M, they produce the most readily available and performant masks, respirators, air filters and adhesives, which are a necessity in a lot of situations. For instance, I build my own air purifiers using standard HVAC filters and PC fans for myself and friends/family (so that they have have repairable units that use standard parts), and often 3M filters are the only performant ones that I can buy while avoiding Amazon, another company worth boycotting. In addition to that, 3M products are used in sooo much stuff these days that it's very easy to support them without knowing about it.

For Starbucks, I know of quite a few towns where Starbucks is the only coffee shop (because they aggressively forced out the competitors), and there is no library or similar public space available. I'm sure as hell not going to tell the people of that town where Starbucks is the only quiet place that they can read or work or get a coffee that they are the problem here.

There are tons of other, similar situations that force or heavily influence people to buy from shitty companies.

On top of that, I'm positive that the vast majority of alternatives are similarly bad, and they just haven't been the target of collective action yet. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

This whole argument gives very "yet you participate in the system, how curious" energy, and is pretty divorced from reality.

Most poorer people straight up cannot afford the better option up front.

Lots of things are basic social requirements if you want to have access to lucrative careers. If you're not wearing the right clothes, good luck at job fairs, interviews, networking events, etc. Can't afford the pricey ones that will last? Your options are get the cheap ones or have a worse chance at income that you need to survive. This is, again, not a free choice.

On top of that, again, the distribution of climate impact is skewed heavily toward the rich. Without including that in these arguments and articles, and simply saying everyone needs to do these things, people are biasing the burden on poorer people.

Finding good secondhand options takes a lot of time. So much so that it is literally a job that people have. More often than not, the decision is frumpy clothes that will make you stand out in a bad way that can easily affect job prospects, self esteem, how your kids are treated at school, etc. or to buy the cheap stuff online.

Most of the time, the stuff at the thrift store isn't much cheaper than the cheap stuff online, and often it IS the cheap stuff that will break soon that people have discarded. Take a walk through your local thrift store and it's probably overflowing with clothes from Shien, halfway broken knockoff IKEA furniture, and cheap (probably broken) single-use kitchen gadgets.

None of this even touches on the carefully targeted advertising on social media that primes people to have the kind of consumption behavior that fuels these companies to begin with.

I agree to an extent. More often than not, the purchasing decisions of "consumers" are not free choices, and even if they want to do things that are more ethical, sometimes those ethics conflict.

Until recently, I didn't have the luxury of caring about the supply chain of most of my purchases because I didn't have enough money to buy anything but the cheapest version of what I needed.

I also try to buy or build repairable devices to reduce waste and make it so that I am buying fewer things in the long run. Unfortunately, primarily because of decisions made by large companies and investors, the components to do this can often only be found on AliExpress. There are no local options, and there are no options that have a transparent supply chain.

On top of that, the monopolistic companies and the politicians that support them have created a system with a lot of inertia that removes options for "consumers" by undercutting the market and buying out competitors until nothing but the monopoly remains. Lots of towns only have a Walmart and/or a Dollar Tree where they can purchase household items because those companies put all the local shops out of business. The people there are stuck at no fault of their own.

The people who do have the money to make better climate decisions with their spending are definitely in a better position to make more free decisions, but, again, companies have not designed products to have interchangeable parts or to be repairable at all. Often times alternatives just simply do not exist.

Cell phones, laptops, cars, etc. are all basically required for people in the US because of decisions that individuals have no control over.

And finally, the distribution of impact of an individual is heavily skewed toward the rich. The changes that poorer people can make do have some impact, and there are knock-on effects that make those impacts stronger, but to frame this as the fault of anyone outside of capitalists and their pet politicians is pretty disingenuous.

In short, people usually can't make free decisions about how they spend their money, and even if they could, they don't have all the information they need to make good decisions, and they are actively being fed mis/disinformation to further keep them in the dark. To blame them is probably wrong, and to think that individual action is worth putting effort into at the cost of collective and political action is a bad idea. It should really only be a supplement.

When I was in my early 20's and first on dating apps, ghosting was frustrating, but as I became more aware and empathetic, and learned that I am not entitled to the attention of others, that frustration became a lot less of an issue pretty quickly. This looks like it was developed by people who haven't realized that and it feels pretty cringe. I doubt this will go anywhere.

100%

Conclusion of the article sums it up best:

"Our true responsibility is to use our choices as political agents in the world to try to shift power, take power away from the people who are blocking the transition away from fossil fuels and give it to people who will lead into a livable future," [Genevieve Guenther, the author of “The Language of Climate Politics”] said.

Do what you can by yourself, sure, but only as a supplement to doing the hard work to solve the problem via collective and political action.

Yeah this seems a bit premature. I've been running it about as long, and every update I have to make sure there are no manual changes I have to do.

The fact that there is overlap has no bearing on whether your definition is common.