At work I use Ubuntu which comes with Firefox by default so yeah I use the default.
At home with arch I have to download one anyway ... so I use Firefox.
There has been only a brief period since I first started using Firefox that I used another browser as my main (chrome/chromium back when Netflix only worked on it properly) When Firefox rolled out "quantum" I jumped back never regretted it. Still one of the only remaining browsers.
So. I've seen the some more news video as well as the Technology Connections one. I have not see the Unlearning Economics one (but it's going on my docket for tomorrow).
Basically the Some more News video is just a simple overview on the concept of Planned Obsolescence i.e. the idea that some things are designed/engineered in a way so they will break easier/faster than they normally would or made in such a way that a repair is not economically viable so that instead of keeping/repairing a product a customer has to buy a new regularly.
One if the most famous and oldest examples is the lightbulb cartel where lightbulb manufacturer actually had a contract that limited how long a lightbulb would live to 1000h (including penalties if the manufacturers produced longer living bulbs). Iirc Cody mentioned that one in his video as well (I will watch all 3 vida back to back tomorrow just to straighten things out here).
Now this "Phoebus" cartel as it was called is exactly what the Technology Connections video is about. However Alecs point is a different one. He is basically saying that while it was true the cartel limited the Lifetime it also meant they were producing "better" bulbs. Namely ones that would burn brighter while using the same amount of power as ones that would last longer. His second point is that lightbulbs are more or less a "spare part" i.e. they are cheap and easy to replace (usually) so if one breaks you don't have to throw away your nightlamp or whatever it is attached to you simply replace the bulb with a cheap replacement and you're good.
So basically the Technology Connections Videos Thesis is the Phoebus Cartell wasn't actually planned obsolescence but a move to a better lightbulb and a bit more runtime (2.5x in his example) isn't worth the worse light output.
Nothing. Also everything.
You can probably do most of not all of the things I do on Linux on a regular basis on windows just as well. But at this point I feel like I have a reverse "Windows is the default" effect going on since for me Linux has been and is the default for over 10 years.
When I start work in the morning I turn on my Linux laptop to ssh into some Linux servers (and RDP to the occasional windows servers/desktops).
After work I play games on my Linux handheld or do some work on my Linux desktop. Maybe move some files on my Linux Nas.
Like I said I could probably do all of this on windows. It would be a major change and in would have to relearn some things in addition to figuring out how to do some stuff on windows that I just never do. But at this point why even bother. There are a lot of ideological reasons to move to Linux there might be some technical reasons on either side but I just don't have any pull to use windows unless I need to (some special program/firmware updater whatever) for which I do have an install hanging around, which I boot once in 6months or so
Ich seh Grad auf bundestag.de und bei kurzem Google nichts zu diesem "Arbeitslosengeld 1 abschaffen" hat wer ne Quelle um welchen Vorschlag es da ging?
So. To answer you "hypothetical" question if we ignore all the factors making it complicated (like 32bit compatibility, drivers, etc.)
Yes it is "feasible" to Install an OS using a modern System and just pull out the HDD and shove it into an old system. Especially since the way BIOS/MBR (aka "Legacy Boot") is the exact same on all systems you write the "what to start" code in the first few Bytes on the HDD (aka the MBR) and set a bootable flag on the device. Now you can pull it out and plug it into any other machine which will simply "look" for a bootable flag and then run the code in the MBR (usually a bootloader). This bootloader (usually grub for legacy systems) will then execute one of its boot entries and start a kernel. This is probably where a real world example fails because of the problems mentioned by everyone here.
So yeah. If I needed a 12 step process to update my system it would still run kernel 4 :D (I'm lying of course) but i really don't do as much as you and I don't do more than necessary manually. Basically I run 2 commands to update:
update which runs the update process more below.clean which removes orphans and cleans the cacheSo update is the alias where the magic happens and it does the following:
sudo pacman -Syu checking with the Informant hook if there are any unread news, if so it stops the update. Otherwise it just runs through it.pacdiff to check if any config files changed (I ran into an issue with that before where I didn't check properly and suddenly couldn't login anymore.So my only manual intervention is "accepting" the news if there are any. Accepting the updates. And (of necessary) merging the pacnews. This way I have kept a fresh and stable system for a couple of years now.
As a repairability and sustainability advocate ... This is good news.
As a Fairphone 4 owner ... This is bad news for my resolve 😅 when I got my Fairphone I decided that I want to use it for at least the 5 years they guarantee updates and replacement parts ... So I guess I'm stuck now ... Which isn't a bad place to be I love my Fairphone 4 it's great ... I just still have the "new shiny thing" mentality stuck somewhere
Honestly in wouldn't even be comfortable doing the "call taxi" one. Straight out is still to close :D
I haven't driven a whole lot of cars and none of them were old as dirt pickup trucks but I've seen enough where the idle gas was not enough to get the car rolling on an incline without stalling it. Sometimes you just need a good handbrake start
Mint. I just don't get it. It's Ubuntu but "different"? I heard a lot of people have issues with it. But also a lot of people love it and always recommend it.
To be fair I never used it and it's probably fine/great but I just have a weird unfounded hate for it
Smartphones have been "good enough" for a while now. Enough power and battery to do all the things needed for enough time before running out of battery.
IMHO there are 2 reasons we still regularly upgrade.
I've had a few phones over the years some of them I "legitimately" just broke (one had a cracked mb after a bike accident) I broke my second to last phone trying to replace the battery (thought I would be able to, broke the screen). The fact that everything is glued down and made to not be replaceable irked me so much that my current phone is a Fairphone. Replacing the battery takes 1 minute and requires no tools. Replacing the screen takes like 5 min and 8 screws. I plan on using this phone for at least 5 years more if possible. But I understand not everybody can shell out 600 dollars for an "OK" phone.