On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 05:58:43PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 10:02:26AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 10:55:07PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Clearly, there's a limit beyond which it doesn't make any sense any
> more, but it usually makes sense to keep operating old electronic
> devices as long as they can do their job. That usually means at least
> 10 years.
>
> No need for any hypothetical world. As a first approximation, every
> machine you don't buy is another machine which is not produced.
> Regardless if that machine you don't buy is new or used.
In a world where most old electronics are sent to the dump, this is entirely
false. As a first approximation. You simply replace the newer machine going
to the dump with an older machine going to the dump. This isn't a spherical
cow.
?
The embedded cost in older machines has amortised over a longer
period.
What are you even talking about?
I don't follow your logic, sorry.
This is simple: if you have a 7 year old machine, find someone throwing
out a 4 year old machine, take it, and throw out the 7 year old machine
instead. Refusing to take the newer machine does not affect demand for
new machines *at all*. You don't get a carbon credit by obstinately
holding on to an old machine, especially since the new machine is likely
more efficient. The issue isn't finding the availability of potentially
useful machines that get trashed, the issue is that there isn't an
efficient market for getting those machines to people who can use them.
