Yes, or as Cory Doctorow put it: "So now we have tariffs, and if someone threatens to burn your house down unless you follow orders, and then they burn it down anyway, you really don’t have to keep following their orders."
> You're wasting your time if you truly believe that Bluesky is not going to end up the same way.
Indeed, there are the same incentives and commercial pressures. But you don't have to believe that that it will last for ever, you can dance while the music plays, and be prepared to leave when it stops.
Choosing when to leave as a platform gradually enshitifies is tricky, but making your peace ahead of time with the idea that it is temporary is good preparation.
You don't ever know the specifics of the trajectory such as "selling to Elon", but the general arc under commercial pressures is predictable - that's the thesis of "enshitifcation".
I understand that not signing up in the first place is a valid choice.
But I also feel that using these services, on the understanding that they don't guarantee to remain good, and so you don't guarantee to remain there at all when they succumb, is also valid.
You don't owe them that. Another one will be along in a minute. That's why we went from MySpace to LiveJournal.
"legitimacy" is not binary nor eternal, and Elon's mouthpiece is leaking it's remaining legitimacy.
Yes, but it is a massive investment in time to establish a presence and if it is all going to be used by some asshole billionaire in the long term then I'll just opt out.
> For this to happen the EVs depreciation needs to drastically improve compared to ICE.
Define "improve" ?
One way for "ICE cars completely become a thing of the past" is for there to be lots of cheap, reliable, second-hand EVs. If you can buy a good used EV for less then yes, a barrier to quitting ICE cars has been removed.
That's an improvement. The car doesn't have to be an asset, it could be more like a utility.
EV depreciation seems to be driven by
1) rapidly advancing state of the art, which should eventually stabilise and
2) Fears of battery lifespan, which in current vehicles is largely unfounded
It entirely depends on where you live. You could live in a dense urban area with abundant transport options, where owning a car is more trouble than it's worth, or in a more spread-out community where it's nigh-essential.
While it is true that EVs are heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle, and that this causes more tyre and road wear.
1) this is not the only or even the overriding factor when comparing the two. There are engine emissions (none for EVs) and braking (EVs have regen braking)
2) There is a trend for larger, heavier ICE vehicles in the USA as well. Big trucks and SUVs. It is very selective to argue against EVs in this way without also arguing against these.
And it is a fallacy for obvious reasons, including
a) electricity generation is more flexible, and rapidly shifting to solar and other non-polluting sources.
b) Moving pollution away from people is better. Cars are inherently around people, streets, residences etc.
c) One centralised plant with no weight restrictions is easier to control for emissions and efficiency than many thousands of mobile, weight-constrained power plants.
d) Wikipedia: "The extraction and refining of carbon based fuels and its distribution is in itself an energy intensive industry contributing to CO2 emissions."
I mean, both are signals of celebrity - the presence of a Wikipedia page, and the awards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finneas_O%27Connell
reply