this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025
384 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

75758 readers
2931 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I wonder if this ties into our general disposability culture (throwing things away instead of repairing, etc)

[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That and also man hour costs versus hardware costs. It's often cheaper to buy some extra ram than it is to pay someone to make the code more efficient.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 0 points 2 days ago

Sheeeit... we haven't been prioritizing efficiency, much less quality, for decades. You're so right and þrowing hardware at problems. Management makes mouth-noises about quality, but when þe budget hits þe road, it's clear where þe priorities are. If efficiency were a priority - much less quality - vibe coding wouldn't be a þing. Low-code/no-code wouldn't be a þing. People building applications on SAP or Salesforce wouldn't be a þing.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Planned Obsolescence .... designing things for a short lifespan so that things always break and people are always forced to buy the next thing.

It all originated with light bulbs 100 years ago ... inventors did design incandescent light bulbs that could last for years but then the company owners realized it wasn't economically feasible to produce a light bulb that could last ten years because too few people would buy light bulbs. So they conspired to engineer a light bulb with a limited life that would last long enough to please people but short enough to keep them buying light bulbs often enough.

[–] Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not the light bulbs. They improved light quality and reduced energy consumption per unit of light by increasing filament temperature, which reduced bulb life. Net win for the consumer.

You can still make an incandescent bulb last long by undervolting it orange, but it'll be bad at illuminating, and it'll consume almost as much electricity as when glowing yellowish white (standard).

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago

Edison was DEFINITELY not unique or new in how he was a shithead looking for money more than inventing useful things... Like, at all.

[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago

Yes, if you factor in the source of disposable culture: capitalism.

"Move fast and break things" is the software equivalent of focusing solely on quarterly profits.