Podcasts de historia

Invención de la obsolescencia planificada

Invención de la obsolescencia planificada


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Excluyendo la obsolescencia de estilo o cualquier tipo de publicidad, ¿cuándo fue la primera forma de obsolescencia programada relacionada con acortar la vida útil de un producto al hacer que se rompa antes o al obligar al consumidor a comprar un reemplazo antes debido al diseño del producto inventado y por quién?


Si prefieres tu Biblia en línea recta y ordenada, ese sería Tubal Cain, primer artífice de metales (Génesis 4:22); si lo prefiere con un grano de sal, elija entre Imhotep (c. 2250 a. C.), Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (nacido c. 80-70 a. C.) o muchos otros.

Merriam-Webster Online da la definición de Ingeniería como:

1: las actividades o función de un ingeniero
2
a :
la aplicación de la ciencia y las matemáticas mediante la cual las propiedades de la materia y las fuentes de energía en la naturaleza se vuelven útiles para las personas
B : el diseño y fabricación de productos complejos

3: manipulación o dirección calculada (a partir del comportamiento) - comparar la ingeniería genética

Nada une tanto a los discípulos de la ingeniería y la economía como el reconocimiento de que el principio más fundamental del diseño es el compromiso entre precio, calidad y vida útil del producto y la supervivencia del fabricante. Cada decisión de diseño que toma un ingeniero afecta el equilibrio entre estos cuatro atributos, y los ingenieros más capacitados diseñan productos que son asequibles, utilizables, duraderos y, sin embargo, se desgastan lo suficientemente rápido como para perpetuar la demanda del producto.

Cualquier producto que se desgasta (se vuelve obsoleto) mucho más rápido de lo que los consumidores consideran razonable por el precio pagado, pronto será expulsado del mercado por un producto competitivo con una vida útil más larga. Cualquier producto que dure mucho más también será expulsado, ya que el fabricante sacia el mercado y cierra el negocio.

Nadie inventado Estos hechos básicos, son consecuencias simples y obvias de la interacción entre la economía de mercado y la ingeniería. Las herramientas modernas y las técnicas de modelado permiten que las compensaciones de diseño se realicen de manera más rápida, más confiable y con mayor precisión, pero eso nuevamente es una consecuencia directa de los avances tecnológicos que han impulsado la innovación moderna de productos. En el nivel más fundamental, son una consecuencia de las Leyes de la Termodinámica, expresadas coloquialmente como:

  1. Se conserva la energía;
  2. La entropía no puede disminuir;
  3. No hay disipadores de calor en Absolute Zero.

O en la versión del jugador:

  1. Tú no puedes ganar;
  2. No se puede atar;
  3. Debes jugar el juego.

Thomas Midgley, el inventor más dañino de la historia

Hay innumerables inventos que han mejorado la vida de las personas y la civilización avanzada, pero también hay algunos que inicialmente fueron aclamados como grandes avances y luego resultaron tener un lado oscuro. El DDT, por ejemplo, es un insecticida milagroso que se descubrió que causa graves problemas ambientales, o envases de plástico, que está contaminando nuestro planeta desde las profundidades de los océanos hasta los picos más altos de las montañas. Sin embargo, es difícil superar la magnitud del daño causado (tanto a la salud humana como a la planetaria) por dos invenciones particulares: la gasolina con plomo y los clorofluorocarbonos (CFC). Curiosamente, ambos fueron creados por el mismo hombre, un ingeniero químico con gafas de Beaver Falls, Pensilvania llamado Thomas Midgley Jr.

La gasolina de principios del siglo XX era de mala calidad y causaba detonaciones en el motor, lo que reducía tanto la potencia como la eficiencia del combustible y provocaba averías. Entonces, en 1916, Charles Kettering, el inventor del motor de arranque eléctrico, le pidió a uno de sus empleados, Thomas Midgley, de 27 años (18 de mayo de 1889 y # 8211, 2 de noviembre de 1944), que buscara un aditivo de gasolina que hiciera funcionar más los motores de los automóviles. suavemente. Midgley se puso a trabajar probando cientos de sustancias diferentes y, finalmente, se le ocurrió el etanol (el mismo alcohol etílico que se encuentra en los vinos y licores). En febrero de 1920, Midgley presentó una solicitud de patente para una mezcla de alcohol y gasolina como combustible antidetonante.

Midgley y Kettering promoverían con entusiasmo el etanol como & # 8220combustible del futuro & # 8221, pero la producción de etanol en sí no podría patentarse y, por lo tanto, nunca podría generar muchas ganancias. Es más, los agricultores podían producir etanol fácilmente a partir de cereales, y con la Ley Seca ahora la ley en los EE. UU., Cada vez más personas destilaban su propio alcohol en casa. Y, por supuesto, dado que el etanol también era un combustible, las compañías petroleras lo odiaban, con quienes los incipientes fabricantes de automóviles estaban desarrollando una relación beneficiosa que no querían poner en peligro.


Obsolescencia programada

iMac G3. Imagen a través de Cult of Mac.

Si está leyendo este artículo en su teléfono o computadora (o incluso si es un psicópata y lo imprimió), está familiarizado hasta cierto punto con la obsolescencia programada. ¿Observa cómo sus dispositivos no retienen la carga como solían hacerlo? ¿O cómo los cartuchos de su impresora parecen quedarse sin tinta antes de lo debido? Esa es la obsolescencia programada, cariño.

La obsolescencia planificada o incorporada es la práctica controvertida de diseñar bienes de consumo con una vida útil determinada, normalmente para promover las ventas y evitar que los consumidores se aferren a un producto de forma indefinida. La obsolescencia tiene muchas facetas, algunas de las cuales son difíciles de controlar, a veces un producto se considera obsoleto porque se ha descompuesto y ya no funciona, pero otras veces, los consumidores pueden considerar un producto obsoleto porque ya no está de moda. En otros casos, a los fabricantes les gusta manzana, haga un producto que sea casi imposible de reparar, o haga reparaciones tan inconvenientes y costosas que se vea obligado a actualizar a un modelo más nuevo, incluso si su dispositivo anterior tenía mucha vida útil.


Obsolescencia programada

Filosofía Tiffany M. Rodgers 4. 26. 2012 Diseño condenado Aunque el revolucionario sistema de obsolescencia planificada está destinado a estimular la demanda y las ventas, sus resultados derrochadores de hoy en día dañan el progreso intelectual de la sociedad al engañar a los consumidores, manipulando la visión de la población de lo real. los avances modernos y la realidad del proceso de producción, permitiendo que los diseñadores industriales se vuelvan progresivamente improductivos y antieconómicos.

La obsolescencia planificada, presente en el diseño industrial, es una política de planificación y fabricación deliberada de un producto con una vida útil limitada para que después de un cierto período de tiempo o desgaste se vuelva obsoleto o no funcional.

Escribiremos un estudio de caso personalizado específicamente
¡Para ti por solo $ 13,90 / página!

La obsolescencia planificada se aplica globalmente en todas las áreas de diseño y producción. Es una herramienta que utilizan las empresas para cumplir objetivos y aumentar sus beneficios. Derivado de una economía estadounidense deprimida, la obsolescencia programada se ha convertido sin duda en la norma tradicional de la sociedad.

A lo largo del siglo XX, la obsolescencia programada se ha convertido en un factor esencial de producción. El diseño industrial como profesión comenzó en Estados Unidos durante la década de 1930, lo que se hizo posible como resultado del estilo aplicado y la obsolescencia programada. Asociado originalmente con la publicidad y el desarrollo de la cultura del consumidor en Estados Unidos, el propósito del movimiento estaba dirigido a que Estados Unidos comprara su propio camino para salir de una depresión cada vez más profunda.

La empresa automotriz General Motors abrió el camino al iniciar estilos de diseño anuales que incluían ligeras actualizaciones técnicas.

A medida que la tendencia se extendió a todos los medios de producción en la década de 1950, se conoció claramente el modo siempre presente de obsolescencia incorporada. Quizás reconocido en primer lugar por su etiqueta actual, una edición de Business Weekly de 1955 que hace referencia al movimiento como una edición permanente de la cultura estadounidense "la obsolescencia planificada está aquí para quedarse en la industria automotriz y se está moviendo hacia más y más campos" (Harmer). La moda, la música, la decoración, la arquitectura, las herramientas y técnicas educativas, el cine, las tecnologías emergentes e incluso la comida se convirtieron en productos de la obsolescencia programada. El concepto de tendencias estacionales es únicamente el resultado de esta transición. A medida que la presencia de obsolescencia programada se hizo abiertamente obvia junto con las tendencias psicológicas y culturales de la década de 1970, la conciencia brotó el comienzo de visiones generales negativas sobre el fenómeno.

Las preocupaciones ambientales fueron temas de primera línea. La obsolescencia planificada persistió durante las décadas de 1980 y 1990 a medida que los avances tecnológicos popularizados y ampliamente disponibles continuaron por una ruta acelerada. Sin embargo, la crisis del petróleo de la OPEP mantuvo influyente el movimiento ambientalista. El conocimiento de mentalidad global llevó al examen del diseño y la producción industrial donde se encontró y se escudriñó la irresponsabilidad social y ambiental.

Victor Papanek escribió el libro 'Diseño para el mundo real' en 1985, el mismo año de la crisis del petróleo, en el que acusó a las industrias de “crear especies completamente nuevas de basura permanente para desordenar el paisaje, y de elegir materiales y procesos que contaminan el aire que respiramos y el agua que bebemos, los diseñadores se han convertido en una raza peligrosa ”(Harmer). Como diseñador él mismo criticó la disciplina en su conjunto “Cuando diseñamos y planificamos cosas para descartar, no ejercemos suficiente cuidado en el diseño, en considerar factores de seguridad o en pensar en la alienación trabajador / usuario de trivialidades efímeras.

(Harmer) La mayoría de los consumidores de hoy en día no han experimentado un mercado que no se vea afectado por la obsolescencia programada. Sin embargo, como resultado de una economía recesiva, los compradores se han vuelto más educados, conscientes y selectivos. El deseo de productos duraderos, seguros y saludables ha aumentado en un país desgarrado por un estancamiento financiero, ambiental y de guerra. Esta conciencia de conocimiento ha formado nuevas tendencias dentro de la producción. Revoluciones que aún implican obsolescencia programada pero cuyos propósitos se orientan, una vez más, a acelerar la economía teniendo en cuenta las necesidades reales de los consumidores.

Aunque esto parece ser una mejora, en realidad es simplemente otra forma de obsolescencia programada.

Hay varias formas de esta idea revolucionaria de obsolescencia planificada, obsolescencia técnica o funcional, obsolescencia propietaria, obsolescencia sistemática y obsolescencia de estilo (Slade). Un producto puede dejar de funcionar técnicamente después de una cantidad determinada de usos o después de un cierto período de tiempo. El propietario de un producto podría optar por descontinuar o crear una versión más nueva de algún bien o producto.

El software rentable, el entretenimiento, los programas y los sistemas educativos se modifican o actualizan sistemáticamente junto con el hardware que los alberga. Además, los sistemas de uso diario como baterías, bombillas, filtros de agua, sistemas de calefacción o refrigeración necesitan eventual y sistemáticamente reabastecimiento, reparación o reemplazo de manera moderna y “conveniente”, estos sistemas ahora notifican al usuario según las indicaciones o sugerencias. Finalmente, los estilos, colores, patrones y formas se ponen de moda popularmente, lo que permite a los productores crear constantemente nuevos productos estéticamente agradables (Slade).

Totalmente, el propósito de la obsolescencia es promover e instar a los compradores a recomprar.

Las empresas que inician esta estrategia calculan los costos adicionales de investigación y desarrollo y la rentabilidad del costo de oportunidad compensan el gasto de canibalización de la línea de productos existente. Estos tipos de obsolescencia son utilizados constante y conscientemente por todos los productores. Las últimas versiones de computadoras personales, portátiles y dispositivos móviles celulares se producen con una frecuencia alarmante. Sin embargo, la mayoría de estas actualizaciones son simples alteraciones en lugar de verdaderos avances tecnológicos prácticos, el principal ejemplo actual y quizás los más conocidos son los iPhones de Apple Inc.

La colección Macintosh de Apple Inc., que pronto será la empresa más grande del mundo, tiene un éxito indiscutible. Es ampliamente conocido que a través de un proceso de piratería conocido como "jailbreak", la tercera generación de iPhone puede permitir a los usuarios chatear por video en vivo y conectarse a Internet 3G mediante la sustitución del software de restricción de Apple con programas personalizables. Otras características, como una pantalla avanzada de alta calidad y fotografía con flash, son actualizaciones integradas que, si se fabrican, podrían haber estado disponibles en el momento del lanzamiento del 3GS.

Sin embargo, ninguno de los aspectos o características fueron respaldados o puestos a disposición hasta el lanzamiento del iPhone 4. una línea y un estilo completamente nuevos se vendieron a un precio significativamente más alto. Un artículo del New York Times que aborda las últimas tendencias tecnológicas obsolescentes planificadas `` En el mundo revuelto de las computadoras personales de hoy, la obsolescencia no solo se planifica, sino que los especialistas en marketing la ensalzan como la principal virtud de las máquinas diseñadas para ahorrar trabajo y entretener. Y hasta hace poco, los consumidores apenas hacían pío, que diligentemente se alineaban para comprar cada nueva generación de máquinas más rápidas y potentes, ansiosos por abrazar la promesa de vidas más simples, felices y productivas ”(Markoff).

Debido a que ha ayudado a apoyar y construir la economía durante una de las dificultades y momentos decisivos más devastadores de Estados Unidos (la Gran Depresión), la obsolescencia planificada y el materialismo se han abierto paso consecuentemente y sin problemas en la cultura estadounidense.

Los diseñadores se han vuelto innovadores y displicentes. Más que productos nuevos, prácticos y útiles, “en definitiva, lo que se vende es estilo e imagen, que es fugaz. Todo el mundo quiere proyectar la imagen correcta y esa imagen necesita una actualización constante ”(Irwin).

A nivel sociológico esta tendencia afecta negativamente el progreso intelectual y productivo. Los diseñadores industriales ya no dependen de inventos reales, perspicaces y rápidos.

Las formas de tecnología existente recientemente diseñadas y estéticamente atractivas se crean teniendo en cuenta las ganancias monetarias. Por lo tanto, el proceso de producción está hecho para producir de forma rápida y económica, lo que perjudica enormemente al medio ambiente. Victor Papanek aconseja a sus compañeros diseñadores “convertirse en una herramienta innovadora, altamente creativa e interdisciplinaria que responda a las verdaderas necesidades de los hombres.

Debe estar más orientado a la investigación, y debemos dejar de profanar la tierra misma con objetos y estructuras mal diseñados ”(Harmer). Aunque la obsolescencia planificada comenzó como un estimulador de la economía, los efectos frenarán los esfuerzos futuros.

Claramente, los recursos se desperdician a través del ciclo viciosamente rápido de producción hasta la obsolescencia. Además, no se están creando ni ensamblando formas sólidas y económicamente progresivas de fabricación debido a una cultura impulsada por la moda de ritmo rápido. Las tendencias impulsadas por la Obsolescencia planificada dan como resultado un gasto que disminuye el poder de ahorro de la economía.

El poder del ahorro y la inversión mejora absolutamente la situación económica. El desperdicio más grande son claramente los recursos naturales que se utilizan para fabricar productos que se fabrican y venden a bajo precio y luego se convierten rápidamente en basura. Una sociedad debe avanzar tecnológicamente con éxito en comparación con el resto del mundo para progresar globalmente.

Debido a que la obsolescencia programada bloquea la capacidad de pensar, diseñar y producir de manera innovadora a una escala intelectual, práctica y progresiva, si una sociedad desea el éxito a largo plazo, se debe hacer una transición para alejarse de esta vieja idea revolucionaria.

El asombroso impacto del diseño descuidado, que resulta en basura, montañas de vertederos de productos químicos y máquinas mal fabricadas que contaminan el aire, la tierra y el agua, daña todos los aspectos del mundo en el que vivimos. Según la creadora de la película "Story of Stuff" y la experta internacional en sostenibilidad Annie Leonard ", la cantidad de productos que permanecen en uso seis meses después de la compra es un lamentable uno por ciento" (Kettles). La obsolescencia planificada ciertamente ha llevado a un desprecio por los problemas ambientales que rodean el proceso de producción humano y los productos básicos que se producen. Las herramientas eléctricas son un buen ejemplo ", explica John Thackara.

“‘ La herramienta eléctrica de consumo promedio se usa durante 10 minutos en toda su vida útil, pero se necesita cientos de veces su propio peso para fabricar un objeto de este tipo ”(Hervidores). Se pueden iniciar métodos y mentalidades para prevenir tal despilfarro. Se deben tomar estrategias para mejorar los métodos de reciclaje, la eliminación de basura y la producción económica a fin de avanzar como sociedad. No es práctico detener la producción o prohibir ciertos productos porque, de hecho, ningún producto fabricado o transportado es verdaderamente "verde".

Michael Braungart aborda esto diciendo: “La noción de sostenibilidad es aburrida y sosa, se trata de un buen diseño, y el diseño no es bueno cuando es tóxico o apesta.

No existe el diseño ecológico, es bueno o malo ”(Kettles). Todo comienza con el diseño. Por lo tanto, es este paso inicial el que necesita un ajuste crítico que requiere una investigación y un desarrollo inteligentes y mentales. Planned Obsolesce ha revolucionado la cultura estadounidense e influye en todo el mundo. La obsolescencia de los productos incorporados inicialmente condujo a una economía estimulada, pero sus resultados a largo plazo afectan negativamente el medio ambiente y el pensamiento progresista.

La obsolescencia planificada comienza con el diseño, por lo tanto, “mediante la aplicación del llamado 'pensamiento de diseño', que, a diferencia del pensamiento crítico, proporciona un proceso para la 'resolución práctica y creativa de problemas o cuestiones', los diseñadores pueden ayudar a abordar desafíos estratégicos sociales y económicos, y no solo para el mundo desarrollado de consumidores adinerados ”(Kettles). El ingenio, el reciclaje y la conciencia global deben convertirse en prioridades dentro de la población de consumidores. La economía se beneficiará mientras se ahorran recursos orgánicos y gastos financieros.

La obsolescencia planificada se ha vuelto, en sí misma, obsoleta.

A. “RESIDUOS ORGANIZADOS: LA HISTORIA DE LA OBSOLESCENCIA PLANIFICADA DESDE LA DÉCADA DE 1930 HASTA LA ACTUALIDAD. ”Residuos: el contexto social (2005): pág. 257-60 Hervidores, Nick e Irwin Terry. “Diseñar para la destrucción. ”Ecologista 38.

6 (2008): 47-51. Slade, Giles. “Hecho para romper: tecnología y obsolescencia en Estados Unidos. ”Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2006): 336.

Markoff, Kohn. “Ideas y tendencias de ampamp ¿Es obsoleta la obsolescencia planificada? "New York Times (2010)


EL PARADIGMA DE LA FALSA ELECCIÓN: LA PUERTA NÚMERO TRES ES UN FRUTO PROHIBIDO EN EL REVISIONISMO DE LA REALIDAD

EL PARADIGMA DE LA FALSA ELECCIÓN ES UNA FORMA CUBIERTA (PSICOLOCIGAL) DE PENSAMIENTO

Cuando el imperio (en este caso el globalismo) se expande y comienza a subsumir todas las formas de medios, entretenimiento y educación, el resultado es una cámara de resonancia narrativa cuidadosamente administrada, que pronto tiene un público desprevenido que confunde la repetición con la realidad. No hay duda de que el mundo tiene algunos problemas serios, y como muchos mineros de realidad dedicados pueden decirle, aquellos que se exhiben como nuestros salvadores de esos problemas, a menudo, son todo lo contrario.

Esta locura circular estrictamente controlada está diseñada para prevenir (e incluso castigar o censurar) pensamientos e ideas que son heréticos para la agenda del imperio. Esto permite que el imperio refuerce constantemente líneas de pensamiento específicas que un análisis más crítico encontraría casi de inmediato que son absurdas. Se supone que no debe ver más allá de los problemas que ELLOS le han presentado, ni tampoco debe ver más allá de las soluciones que ELLOS están impulsando como respuesta a esos problemas.

PUERTA NUMERO TRES

En mi búsqueda de un modelo de realidad más preciso, generalmente prevalece un fenómeno interesante: la respuesta casi siempre está detrás de la puerta número tres, y la puerta número tres es a la vez la más prohibida para entrar y la más difícil de encontrar. La & # 8220tercera opción & # 8221 está casi siempre donde está & # 8217, y también es la antítesis de la trampa mental & # 8216Otros / O & # 8217 que nos están tendiendo constantemente. Un ejemplo perfecto de esto, en mi opinión, es la trampa mental que rodea al 11 de septiembre: it & # 8217s CUALQUIERA armas de energía dirigida O termita. Este autor tuvo la suerte de ser señalado a la puerta número tres en ese sentido, proporcionada con gran detalle por Dimitri Khalezov, e irónicamente (o no), ese material se llama literalmente La tercera verdad . Puedes aprender más sobre eso en una publicación anterior. AQUÍ , y animo a los mineros de la realidad a considerar el nivel de revisionismo de la realidad que rodea a ese evento, en la forma en que Dimitri lo señala especialmente, que incluye cambiar la definición de & # 8216ground zero & # 8217 en CADA diccionario después de que tuvo lugar ese evento & # 8212 anticuado. Rara vez el revisionismo de la realidad se vuelve más obvio que eso.

¿Realmente harían eso? Lo han hecho y lo son. Continuamente. Esto también se discutió durante la entrevista de FreemanTV de 2016 vinculada en la parte superior. Como ejemplo más reciente, debido a que estoy convencido de que se está mintiendo al público acerca de las verdaderas cifras de la población mundial (casi todas las proporciona ahora la ONU), mis intentos recientes de adquirir libros usados ​​de geografía de la escuela secundaria de la década de 1990 y # 8217 o antes, donde frustrante por decir lo menos. La tarea resultó imposible. Todos han sido retirados de circulación, y esto se hace porque son anclas de una versión revisada previamente de la realidad.

INGENIERÍA SOCIAL Y PSICOLOGÍA DE & # 8216 CHOICE OVERLOAD & # 8217

Si bien todos hemos estado viviendo en un episodio aparentemente interminable (y hasta ahora inadvertido) de & # 8220 ingeniería social enloquecida & # 8221, con la psicología cada vez más atrapada y corrompida por la agenda, el público fue finalmente bombardeado repetidamente con la extraña noción que la gente no puede & # 8217t hacer frente bien a más de dos opciones a la vez & # 8212simplemente se confunden demasiado.

Numerosos artículos de psicología, cuidadosamente y diligentemente reempaquetados y comercializados al público por los medios de comunicación, estaban llenos de frases como, & # 8220 tener demasiadas opciones puede causar comportamientos o resultados contradictorios & # 8221 o & # 8220 & # 8220 demasiadas opciones conduce a un aumento en lamenta, & # 8221 o & # 8220 ansiedad & # 8221 o & # 8220confusión de opciones& # 8220. Este es exactamente el tipo de retórica (por decirlo suavemente) que una sociedad debería esperar de un funcionario corrupto que trabaja horas extras para dirigir y gestionar cuidadosamente los procesos de pensamiento, manteniendo al público atrapado en cosas como izquierda / derecha y bucles de pensamiento. La gente no va a tomar decisiones que no sabe que tiene, que es el punto central del paradigma de las dos opciones falsas. Por supuesto, esta es también la razón por la que el establecimiento y sus medios de comunicación se burlarán, calumniarán y se negarán a dar tiempo al aire a los candidatos de terceros partidos en las elecciones presidenciales. La puerta número tres es verboten.

Nunca deja de sorprenderme cómo estos estudios de psicología social prácticamente siempre apoyan la agenda o narrativa globalista concurrente, haciendo afirmaciones ridículas como, & # 8220 comer sano es un trastorno mental , & # 8221 o & # 8220 negarse a usar una máscara puede ser un signo de un trastorno grave de la personalidad . En particular, en los años previos al impulso manifiesto hacia el comunismo, no es & # 8217t del todo sorprendente encontrar estos artículos & # 8216option confusion & # 8217 que comenzaron a desviarse en el espacio de los supermercados & # 8211demasiadas opciones en la tienda no son buenas. Es curioso que, considerando que fue precisamente ese escenario el que provocó que reconocidos funcionarios soviéticos abandonaran el comunismo & # 8212 cuando vieron cuántas opciones había en una tienda de comestibles estadounidense. Quizás The Handmaiden & # 8217s Tale and the Hunger Games no son & # 8217t las mejores bases para un & # 8220Great Reset & # 8221 después de todo:

El líder soviético abandonó el comunismo después de entrar en una tienda de comestibles de EE. UU.:

En 1989, el entonces miembro del Partido Comunista de la Unión Soviética, Boris Yeltsin, viajó a Estados Unidos para visitar el Centro Espacial Johnson en Texas, según el Houston Chronicle.

Mientras estaba en Houston para la visita, también se detuvo en una tienda de comestibles de Randall, donde `` deambuló por los pasillos de Randall asintiendo con la cabeza con asombro '', según un relato de la visita escrito por la entonces reportera del Chronicle Stefanie Asin.

Además, les dijo a sus compañeros camaradas que lo siguieron a Estados Unidos para la visita que si las filas de hombres, mujeres y niños hambrientos en Rusia vieran las condiciones de los supermercados estadounidenses, "habría una revolución".

En las fotos de la visita tomadas supuestamente por el Chronicle, se podía ver a Yeltsin “maravillado con la sección de productos, el mercado de pescado fresco y la caja registradora. Parecía especialmente emocionado por las paletas heladas de pudín ".

“Incluso el Politburó no tiene esta opción. Ni siquiera el señor Gorbachov ”, habría dicho él mismo, refiriéndose al entonces presidente de la Unión Soviética.

"¿Qué le han hecho a nuestra pobre gente?", Dijo después de un largo silencio. A su regreso a Moscú, Yeltsin confesaría el dolor que había sentido después de la excursión a Houston: el 'dolor por todos nosotros, por nuestro país tan rico, tan talentoso y tan agotado por los experimentos incesantes' ”.

Dos años más tarde, según los informes, dejó el Partido Comunista y "comenzó a hacer reformas para cambiar el rumbo económico en Rusia", según el Chronicle. & # 8217

AQUELLOS QUE TE PUEDEN HACER CREER EN ABSURDIDADES PUEDEN HACERTE COMETER ATROCIDADES

Cada vez que escribo sobre estos temas, siempre me viene flotando la misma cita de Voltaire, & # 8220quienes pueden hacerte creer en absurdos, pueden hacerte cometer atrocidades & # 8221, y creo que el siguiente ejemplo lo resume perfectamente. Hay pocos (si los hay) mineros de la realidad veteranos que no hayan visto a Bill Gates en la televisión, discutiendo tanto el uso de vacunas para reducir la población como los & # 8220 paneles de muerte & # 8221. Con respecto a este último, de manera típica, Gates estaba representando mal un problema aquí, con el único propósito de representar mal la solución, en este caso, la necesidad de matar a Granny porque era la única forma de evitar el despido de maestros debido a una especie de crisis financiera nebulosa sobre la que bailaba engañosamente al mismo tiempo. Gates también se aseguró de tirar emocionalmente de nuestras cuerdas del corazón coloreando el tema con un sentido de urgencia casi terrible, lo que preparó aún más a los oyentes para tomar su sugerencia de & # 8216death panel & # 8217 más en serio, en lugar de buscar otras soluciones menos genocidas. Para los eugenistas disfrazados de filántropos, el paradigma de la falsa elección que se presenta al público sobre temas como este es CUALQUIERA para destruir la clase media, O matar al segmento más sabio y quizás más alfabetizado de la realidad de nuestra población.

Esas serían la puerta número uno y la puerta número dos. Se supone que NINGUNAS OTRAS OPCIONES deben formar parte de esa conversación, por lo que no se introdujeron otras opciones durante la discusión. Es decir, para que quede claro, las soluciones que presentan, es el rumbo que ya han elegido. por la raza humana, y ahora estamos tratando de venderlo al resto de nosotros como la única respuesta viable. Pero, ¿qué pasa con la puerta número tres? Seguramente hay & # 8217s una mejor solución.

Es peligroso e ingenuo, en opinión de este autor, creer que en ningún momento Gates, sus patrocinadores, científicos, aduladores o grupos de expertos supieron & # 8212 o incluso consideraron & # 8212 que era una forma mucho mejor de conseguir dinero para más profesores. sería poner fin a la $ 500 MIL MILLONES DE DÓLARES AL AÑO COMERCIO DIFERIDO CON CHINA, o detener el $ 60 MIL MILLONES DE DÓLARES Industria del fraude de Medicare, o detener el $ 100 MIL MILLONES DE DÓLARES AL AÑO Industria de fraude contra Medicaid. Que el rostro de la filantropía en todas partes haya ido directamente al senocidio / gerocidio (genocidio de los ancianos) para solucionar el problema debería, como mínimo, hacer que el público se pregunte quién, realmente, en nuestra sociedad, tiene un problema genuino con & # 8220option confusion & # 8221.

Me siento obligado a recordar a los lectores que este autor ha estado escribiendo y hablando durante años sobre la realidad globalista. El revisionismo y # 8217 necesitan deshacerse de los ancianos, simplemente porque su propia existencia y base de conocimientos & # 8212 adquirió de décadas de haber visto, experimentado y vivido. una versión revisada de la realidad & # 8212 los convierte en anclas y recordatorios de una versión anterior de la realidad que el imperio quiere enterrar y olvidar. Una revisión exitosa de la realidad requiere la eliminación de todas las realidades en competencia, incluso si eso significa gente.

Los lectores ciertamente pueden imaginar mi desdén entonces, por los alcaldes globalistas como Andrew Cuomo (Nueva York), a quien observé con disgusto cómo llevaban a cabo el senocidio / gerocidio en sus estados al empujar a las personas infectadas por el covid a hogares de ancianos (matando a miles de ancianos), en lugar de enviarlos al dos grandes buques de guerra & # 8216Comfort & # 8217 y & # 8216Mercy & # 8217 Dijo el presidente Trump. Además, en lo que parece un protocolo globalista estándar para recompensar a los leales, Fauci salió a la televisión y elogió a Cuomo por sus esfuerzos. afirmando & # 8216 lo hizo bien & # 8217, que fue seguido por Cuomo siendo recompensado con un Emmy por su & # 8220COVID-19 pandemia & # 8216 liderazgo & # 8221 y un contrato de libros de cinco millones de dólares & # 8220para escribir sobre Covid-19, liderazgo. & # 8221 Y no olvidemos, El asistente del secretario del HHS de Biden, elegido, trasladó a la madre del asilo de ancianos después de ordenarles que aceptaran pacientes con COVID . Nunca ha sido más obvio que el único interés que tienen los globalistas en & # 8216 misericordia y comodidad & # 8217, es aplicarlo a ellos mismos y a sus propias familias.

Los oyentes familiarizados con el episodio de FreemanTV de 2016, en el que también se discutió la vestatio, pueden haber hecho una conexión interesante en términos de líderes de la ciudad que demuestran su lealtad a entidades y causas nefastas, al destruir sus propias ciudades y ciudadanos. Hemos visto matices más oscuros y predominantes de esto en estados y ciudades con liderazgo leal al globalismo, como California, Portland y Chicago, pero esta es la primera vez que he visto a uno de ellos ser recompensado de manera tan rica y pública por esa lealtad. .


Se podrían obtener mayores sumas de dinero, pensaron las empresas, haciendo que las bombillas fueran desechables.

Sin embargo, el modelo de negocio cambió a medida que la base de clientes de bombillas creció más en el mercado masivo. Se podrían obtener mayores sumas de dinero, pensaron las empresas, haciendo que las bombillas fueran desechables y aplicando los costos de reemplazo a los clientes. Así nació el infame "cartel de Phoebus" en la década de 1920, en el que representantes de los principales fabricantes de bombillas de todo el mundo, como Osram de Alemania, Associated Electrical Industries del Reino Unido y General Electric (GE) en los Estados Unidos (a través de una subsidiaria británica) , coludido para reducir artificialmente la vida útil de las bombillas a 1.000 horas. Los detalles de la estafa surgieron décadas después en investigaciones gubernamentales y periodísticas.

"Este cartel es el ejemplo más obvio" de los orígenes de la obsolescencia programada "porque se han encontrado esos papeles", dice Giles Slade, autor del libro Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, una historia de la estrategia y sus consecuencias.

La práctica también surgió en todo tipo de otras industrias. Por ejemplo, la competencia entre General Motors y Ford en el incipiente mercado automotriz de la década de 1920 llevó a la primera a introducir los ahora familiares cambios de año modelo en sus vehículos. GM había sido pionera en una forma de atraer a los clientes para que se derrocharan en el último y mejor automóvil, para satisfacerse e impresionar a los de sus círculos sociales. “Fue un modelo para toda la industria”, dice Slade.

Aunque el término "obsolescencia programada" no entró en uso común hasta la década de 1950, la estrategia ya había penetrado en las sociedades consumistas.

Vivo y bien

In various forms, from subtle to unsubtle, planned obsolescence still very much exists nowadays. From so-called contrived durability, where brittle parts give out, to having repairs cost more than replacement products, to aesthetic upgrades that frame older product versions as less stylish – goods makers have no shortage of ruses to keep opening customers’ wallets.

Smartphones need replacing every couple of years, as battery life fades and software updates change (Credit: iStock)

For a fully modern example, consider smartphones. These handsets often get discarded after a mere couple years’ use. Screens or buttons break, batteries die, or their operating systems, apps, and so on can suddenly no longer be upgraded. Yet a solution is always near at hand: brand new handset models, pumped out every year or so, and touted as “the best ever”.

As another example of seemingly blatant planned obsolescence, Slade mentions printer cartridges. Microchips, light sensors or batteries can disable a cartridge well before all its ink is actually used up, forcing owners to go buy entirely new, not-at-all-cheap units. “There’s no real reason for that,” Slade says. “I don’t know why you can’t just go get a bottle of cyan or black [ink] and, you know, squirt it into a reservoir.”

Taken this way, planned obsolescence looks wasteful. According to Cartridge World, a company that recycles printer cartridges and offers cheaper replacements, in North America alone, 350 million (not even empty) cartridges end up in landfills annually. Beyond waste, all that extra manufacturing can degrade the environment too.

A nuanced view

Though some of these examples of planned obsolescence are egregious, it’s overly simplistic to condemn the practice as wrong. On a macroeconomic scale, the rapid turnover of goods powers growth and creates reams of jobs – just think of the money people earn by manufacturing and selling, for instance, millions of smartphone cases. Furthermore, the continuous introduction of new widgets to earn (or re-earn) new and old customers’ dough alike will tend to promote innovation and improve the quality of products.

As a result of this vicious, yet virtuous cycle, industry has made countless goods cheap and thus available to nearly anyone in wealthy Western countries, the Far East, and increasingly so in the developed world. Many of us indulge in creature comforts unimaginable a century ago.

Cars now have a longer lifespan than they did decades ago (Credit: iStock)

“There’s no doubt about it,” says Slade, “more people have had a better quality of life as a result of our consumer model than at any other time in history. Unfortunately, it’s also responsible for global warming and toxic waste.”


Written by Glenn Meyers

is a writer, producer, and director. Meyers is editor and site director of Green Building Elements, a contributor to CleanTechnica, and founder of Green Streets MediaTrain, a communications connection and eLearning hub. As an independent producer, he's been involved in the development, production and distribution of television and distance learning programs for both the education industry and corporate sector. He also is an avid gardener and loves sustainable innovation.


Unplanned Obsolescence

“I BELIEVE THAT I HAVE solved the problem of cheap as well as simple automobile construction. … The general public is interested only in the knowledge that a serviceable machine can be constructed at a price within the reach of many.” With these words Henry Ford boasted to reporters about his new design triumph. It was January 4, 1906, and the car in question was not the legendary Model T but its predecessor, the Model N.

The N was a sensation from its introduction at the automo—I bile shows in 1906. Earlier low-priced cars had been underpowered motorized horse buggies equipped with one-cylinder engines under the seat or in back, such as the 1901-6 curveddash Oldsmobile. Multicylinder cars with frontmounted engines could cost as much as ten times the annual income of a middle-class family. From the outset of his automotive career a decade before, Ford had been committed to developing a light car powerful for its weight. But despite mechanical excellence and a low price, the Model N had a grave shortcoming as a family car: It was a two-passenger runabout with a boattail rear deck ill suited to the addition of a tonneau to accommodate two more passengers. It was a reliable, affordable car for a country doctor making his rounds, but it was not the “farmer’s car” that Henry Ford envisioned building for a nation of farm families.

So even while he was deluged with orders for the N, Ford planned to replace it with an even better, more versatile “car for the great multitude,” the Model T. Then, once he had that legendary car, he remained intransigently committed to it—long after it started faltering in sales. On the eve of instituting its mass production at his Highland Park plant, in a January 27, 1913, interview with the Detroit Free Press , Ford called the T “the acme of motor car perfection.” He stubbornly clung to that belief until the late 1920s.

Ford’s inspiration for both the N and the T came after he learned about the possibilities of vanadium steel. The cornerstone of both the N’s and the T’s designs became the extensive use of vanadium steel in three tensile strengths, as necessitated by various components. It resisted shock and fatigue far better than the nickel steel it replaced and was easier to machine. Ford spokesmen claimed that “only vanadium steel was able to withstand the strain imposed by bad American roads.” And while increasing strength, it reduced weight.

THE MODEL T WAS FIRST made available to Ford dealers on October 1, 1908, and it was an immediate hit. No other car of its day offered so many advanced features. Among these were a novel three-point suspension of the engine, improved arc springs, an enclosed power plant and transmission, and a detachable cylinder head. New methods of casting parts, especially block casting of the engine, kept the price of the T below $1,000, well within the reach of middle-class purchasers. Ford’s advertising boast was essentially correct: “No car under $2,000 offers more, and no car over $2,000 offers more except in trimmings.” Yet the T already was no longer state-of-the-art by the time it went into mass production in 1913-14, and many of the changes that were made over time in the supposedly changeless car were not improvements.

Compared with its predecessor, the sportylooking Model N, the T appeared ungainly. The 100-inch-wheelbase automobile had a 56-inch front and a 60-inch rear tread (the distance between tires) and stood about seven feet tall with its top up. Its chassis was built high to clear the inevitable ruts and stumps of the rural roads of the day.

Not all T’s looked alike. Unlike the N, which came only as a runabout, the T was the “Universal Car,” by which Ford meant that a number of body types could be fitted to its chassis. Initially it was offered in a two-passenger runabout, a five-passenger touring car, a two-passenger closed coupe, and a seven-passenger semiclosed town car and landaulet, with prices ranging from $825 to $1,000. From 1910 through 1912 a Torpedo Roadster was available with slightly lower lines, achieved by changing the gas tank from a flat one under the driver’s seat to a circular one behind it. In 1915 a sedan was introduced, with two central doors that gave easy access to both the front and rear seats, and from 1915 through 1918 a two-passenger convertible coupelet was offered. In 1923 four-passenger two-door and four-door sedans—called Tudor and Fordor by Ford—replaced the central-doored sedan. And from 1910 on, customers whose needs were not met by the available production bodies could buy a bare Model T chassis, or after 1917 a Model TT truck chassis, and add a custom body of their own. This adaptability was a major source of the T’s universal appeal.

Nor did all T’s perform alike. In horsepower-to-weight ratio, the original T was no better than the N, and the T’s performance got worse into the 1920s. The N engine generated 15 brake horsepower (bhp) to drive an 800-pound two-passenger runabout the initial T engine put out 22 bhp for a 1,200-pound, five-passenger touring car. The T’s power-to-weight ratio deteriorated over time as the engine was modified and the weight of the car increased. The chassis alone grew from 900 pounds in 1909 to 1,272 pounds by the time the T was withdrawn from the market in 1927. This was mostly due to the use of heavier steels. And the initial T’s compression ratio, high for its day, at about 4.5 to 1, was decreased in 1917 to 3.98 to 1, bringing the horsepower down to 20 bhp because of a lowering of gasoline quality.

Furthermore, after mid-April 1909 the centrifugal water pump and fan of the original T were abandoned for far less efficient “thermosyphon” cooling. This led to a shorter engine block and crankshaft and a lower cylinder head. Les Henry, a Model T authority, points out that Ford himself said the initial Model T lasted only into 1909 because so many later changes were deleterious, the 1910 Torpedo Roadster “had undoubtedly the best performance and greatest speed of all Model T Fords ever produced.”

In contrast with the overall excellence and several advanced features of the Model T design, the car’s electrical system, planetary transmission, and braking were obsolete or soon to be obsolete even at its introduction. Yet Ford stuck with them while instituting the mass-production techniques at his Highland Park plant in 1913 and 1914 that made fundamental design changes extremely difficult. Thus these antiquated features were frozen into the T’s design for the life of the model’s nineteen-year production run.

LIKE MANY OTHER AMERICAN CARS IN 1908, THE Model T depended on a magneto ignition, and like all cars of the time, it had to be hand-cranked to start. Its standard lighting equipment was three oil lamps—one at the tail and two on the sides. Headlights powered by Prestolite tanks on the running boards were an option before 1910, as were the windshield, horn, and folding top. None of this was unusual on cars of the century’s first decade.

On the other hand, Charles Kettering’s total electrical system for starting, ignition, and lighting was introduced in the 1912 Cadillac, and by 1916 it was a feature on almost all American cars, the Model T being the notable exception. By 1915 electric headlamps were standard on the T, but because of the variable voltage generated by the magneto, they were dim at low speeds and so bright they burned out at high speeds. An electric horn powered by the magneto became standard in 1917, but electric self-starting did not become available even as an option until 1919 and was not standard on all Model T’s until 1926.

Model T’s were initially equipped with two pedals and two hand levers on the driver’s left side to operate the transmission and the brakes. (The throttle was operated with a small lever on the steering column.) The left-hand pedal was the clutch it put the car into low speed when depressed, into neutral when halfway depressed, and into high when released. The other pedal operated a contractingband brake on the drive shaft. One lever put the car into reverse the other lever operated internal expanding emergency drum brakes on the rear wheels. The reverse lever was abandoned for a third pedal, between the clutch and the brake, after the first 800 units.

After 1910, as speeds over 20 miles per hour became common, most American cars switched to a pedal to operate mechanical brakes on the rear wheels and a lever to operate a contracting-band brake on the drive shaft, reversing the Model T’s arrangement. Then in 1918 Malcolm Loughead (who later changed his name to Lockheed and became famous in aviation) introduced four-wheel hydraulic brakes, a revolutionary improvement first used on the 1920 Duesenberg. Ford saw no need for them on the T.

BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF SYNCHROMESH IN the 1929 Cadillac, shifting without clashing gears on a sliding-gear transmission required learning the fine art of double declutching, which was quite difficult for the average driver. In contrast, the T’s planetary transmission simply required the driver to depress and release the clutch pedal. But the planetary was more complex and expensive to build than the sliding gear, and it was limited to two gears at the time, which meant that the engine had to be geared down so that moderate grades could be negotiated on the higher gear. Consequently, as Philip G. Gott reports in his study of the automotive transmission, “in 1909, 24 automobile models of the 292 made that year used a planetary gearing system. By 1913, Ford stood alone.”

Still another design anomaly was that until 1925 T’s were equipped with slightly different-size front and rear wheels and tires: 30” x 3½” on the front and 30” x 33½” on the rear. This served no purpose except to make motorists carry two different sets of spares, in a day when tires had to be changed quite often. In the 1925 model year 30” x 33½” tires became standard equipment all around (they had been available as an option since 1919). In the American automobile industry as a whole, Model T-style clincher rims were quickly displaced after 1919 by straight-side rims the 1927 Model T was the last new car to be equipped with clincher rims.

On the other hand, Ford was the first large auto manufacturer to place an order for the low-pressure “balloon” tires developed by Firestone in 1922. Balloon tires had thinner walls than earlier ones, a lower, fatter profile, and lower pressure, and they made possible more sensitive steering. Late in the 1925 model year, balloon tires on demountable-rim wooden wheels were offered as an option for the T, and by early 1926 they were standard on all T body types. Unaccountably, however, especially given Ford’s obsessions with simplicity in design and reducing production costs, the functionally superior and much cheaper stamped-out steel disc wheels developed by the Budd Manufacturing Company as early as 1913 were never adopted.

Ford was devoted to vanadium steel as the material for his chassis, yet the bodies of the early T’s were made of wood paneling over wood framing, with steel used only for the flat-topped fenders. This weakness was corrected by 1911, when sheet-steel panels over a wood frame became standard for T bodies. A few aluminum-paneled T’s were also produced over the years, and in 1924 the doors on the closed cars came to be fabricated entirely of steel. But even before the Model T went into mass production, the all-steel open car body had been developed by the Budd Manufacturing Company and had made an appearance in the 1912 Oakland and Hupmobile.

Les Henry gives the best brief account of “the seeming paradox of change in the changeless Model T.” He observes that “no generalization concerning the Model T is ever safe too many minute changes were constantly being worked upon it for the purposes of speeding production, cutting costs, or—to a very limited degree—customer appeal. … Actually, Model T cars [even] during a given production year did vary in many points and were not so much alike as ‘peas in a pod’ as legend would have us believe.” Some of the variation resulted simply from Ford’s dependence until the 1920s on outside suppliers for certain parts. Model T’s were still further individualized by their owners, as businesses producing some 5,000 accessories to upgrade the T mushroomed with the car’s popularity.

Although the T’s fenders were, as legend states, always finished in black, initially the runabout came primarily in pearl gray, the touring car in red, and the town car and landaulet in green. In 1910 dark green became standard for all body types it was followed by dark blue from 1911 through 1913. Black was not even listed as an option until it became the standard color for all T’s in 1914. The reason was that only black japanned enamel dried fast enough for the newly instituted system of mass production. Mass-produced cars of all hues and shades of the rainbow became possible only with the development of Duco lacquer, which debuted in the “True Blue” of the 1924 Oakland. In 1926 the standard Model T colors became dark green for the Tudor and dark maroon for the Fordor.

Through 1912 the Model T’s upholstery was all leather, and extensive use was made of brass brightwork—all-brass side and head lamps, a brass radiator shell, a brass bulb horn, and a brassbound windshield with brass braces. The leather and brass trim became casualties of mass production. Beginning in 1913, the side and head lamps were made of steel painted black, brass was removed from the bulb horn and windshield, and artificial leather was used in the door panels and seat backs. The small brass radiator was replaced by a larger black-painted steel one in 1917 as part of a distinctive “new look” in T styling.

The 1914 model year was the last in which the Ford really looked antique. The 1909 T’s low, aluminum-covered, box-like hood butted abruptly against its high vertical windshield and cherrywood dash. It had no front doors. Its seats were perched far above the line of the hood and the straight belt line of the body, which ran from the back of the front seat to the severe inwardtapering line of the rear end of the car. In 1913 the bodies became smooth-sided, and front doors were added—with the “door” on the driver’s side unaccountably a dummy panel.

The “modernization” of the T in 1917, after transitional changes in 1915 and 1916, meant a much higher pressedsteel radiator and rounded pressed-steel hood, contoured up to join the windshield with a metal cowl replacing the flat wood dash. The fenders were now contoured and crowned as well, and nickel plating replaced what little brass trim was left. Further modernization followed in the 1920s, when the radiator was raised and bodies were lowered to their practical limits. In 1926 the T chassis was lowered, the fenders enlarged, and the radiator shell nickel-plated. The Model T was essentially a different-looking car after 1917 and then again by the end of its production a decade later.

THE FORD MODEL T WAS THE ARCHETYPICAL AMER ican car made for American conditions. It was designed to be easy to drive and repair, high enough to clear wretched rural roads, and powerful enough to pull itself out of the mud and serve as a workhorse around the farm. Its tough large-bore, shortstroke engine stood in contrast with the small-bore, longstroke British engine, designed for fuel economy. Europe’s low-priced, light cars were underpowered bantams the T could carry a farm family to town on Saturday with several crates of poultry or produce lashed to its sides. No wonder the T sold well all over the world, especially in countries of the British Empire, where driving conditions were like those in the United States. By the time it ceased production, on May 27, 1927, more than fifteen million had been built, a record surpassed only by the Volkswagen Beetle in a much larger post-World War II market.

This phenomenal success was due less to the excellence of the T’s design than to the progressive lowering of its price, from an initial $825 to a mere $260 in 1927 for the runabout, made possible by the moving assembly line. Indeed, price alone accounted for the T’s continuing domination of the low-priced-auto market into the 1920s. For as we have seen, the car was already technologically obsolete by the time its creator introduced modern mass production.


Innovation Versus Preservation

Escrito por Ernie Smith on Sep 03, 2019

Today in Tedium: The world of technology has a problem, and it’s not something that we’re talking about nearly enough. That problem? We keep making old stuff significantly less useful in the modern day, sometimes by force. We cite problems such as security, maintenance, and a devotion to constant evolution as reasons for allowing this to happen. But the net effect is that we are making it impossible to continue using otherwise useful things after even a medium amount of time. I’m not even exclusively talking about things that are decades old. Sometimes, just a few years does the trick. Today’s Tedium ponders planned obsolescence and how it theatens preservation. — Ernie @ Tedium

Today’s Tedium is sponsored by Numlock News. More from them in a sec.

“P.S.A. To all vintage computer Tweeps: Go through your collections and GET THE DAMN BATTERIES OUT! Now! Don’t wait! Seriously, put down the phone, go to your collection and take out all the batteries. Right now! Even if they look ‘okay’ they are NOT SAFE after this much time.”

— Josh Malone, a vintage computer enthusiast, making the argument that old computers must have their batteries removed, in part because of how easily they get corroded and damaged, thereby further damaging the components inside of the machine. Even with changes in technology, with batteries more deeply embedded in the phones and laptops we buy, it‘s inevitable that this problem will only worsen over time.

We create devices that have batteries built to die

I have a lot of old gadgets floating around my house these days, partly out of personal interest in testing things out, out of hope of writing stories about the things that I find. Some of this stuff is on loan and requires extra research that simply takes time due to the huge amount of complexity involved. Other times, it’s just an artifact that I think allows for telling an interesting story. I still make my weekly trips to Goodwill hoping to find the next interesting story in a random piece of what some might call junk.

But one issue keeps cropping up that I think is going to become even more prevalent in the years to come: Non-functional batteries.

Battery technology and the circuitry that connects to it varies wildly, and it creates issues that prevent gadgets from living their best lives, in a huge part due to the slow decay of lithium-ion batteries.

A prominent example of this, of course, are AirPods, highly attractive and functional tools that will slowly become less useful over time as their batteries go through hundreds of cycles and start to lose steam. But at the same time, AirPods are just a prominent example of what is destined to happen to basically every set of Bluetooth headphones over time: The lithium-ion batteries driving them will slowly decay and turn a once-useful product into an object that must be continually replaced because a single part, the battery, cannot be replaced.

Older devices I’ve been testing out have batteries so old that I cannot find replacements for them. (You’ve not lived until you’ve typed in a serial code for an old battery and found out that the only search result for that serial code goes to a museum’s website.) But newer batteries, despite being reliant on basically the same technology year after year, can’t be easily replaced, leading these old batteries to decay with little room for user recourse.

One example I’d like to bring to light in this context is the HP TouchPad, the WebOS-based tablet the company briefly sold during a period that it cared about the fate of WebOS. It’s an interesting story, full of intrigue and even present-day Android updates, that I plan to tell in full soon, but I just want to highlight a problem that runs rampant with these devices, which in the grand scheme of things aren’t that old.

Simply put: Many of them will not charge up after being set aside for a while. Including mine. I knew this going in, but I thought it would be fun to see if I could pull off a desperate challenge.

But even though the device can be detected by another computer—plugging it into a Linux machine and running a few Terminal commands makes it clear that the device is not only detected, but capable of being reimaged—HP made some mistakes with its design of the battery on the TouchPad, and now if a device has been left uncharged for even a modestly extended period, the odds are good that the device is probably dead. Even when the device was relatively new charging issues were common.

The TouchPad is only eight years old, a historic novelty due to only being sold for a total of 49 days and with an OS that had a cult following. But design flaws mean that it’s somewhat rare to find a working device in the wild, and revival is often a confusing mess of old pages in the Internet Archive and obscure Linux scripts that, in the right context, might just work.

This script works … until it doesn’t.

I haven’t given up on mine, but I’ve read forum posts where some users have taken to putting their old TouchPads inside of an electric blanket, all for the cause of “heating up” the battery for just long enough that they can run the Linux reimaging script and get the machine to boot and charge.

Putting a heating pad around a dead HP TouchPad reeks of desperation, but considering it’s a nice if unloved tablet, desperate times call for weird tactics.

But it’s not the only somewhat recent device I’ve tried that seems to have odd battery-charging habits. I recently revived an old iPhone 6 Plus basically to keep a backup of my iOS data, and I find that the battery drains on its own even when I’m not using it, and a cheap Nuvision tablet designed for Windows 10 that I got for a steal has a tendency of being finicky about the kind of power outlets it likes and how long it will keep a charge.

The connecting thread of these devices is that they’re not designed to be cracked open or repaired by users. But if we plan to keep them around into the present day, they have to be. Otherwise we’re dealing with millions of functional bricks.

You love awesome newsletters, that’s obvious. Check out Numlock.

Start your day right with Numlock News, a totally-free morning newsletter that will make you laugh out loud on your commute.

This irreverent news brief covers the kind of amazing stories that get drowned out by the noise of the day, which is one reason thousands of people wake up to Numlock every single morning. It’s ad-free, subscriber-supported and totally independent. You deserve to wake up to a lighthearted news brief chock full of great stories that will make you glad when your train is delayed.

Sign up to read Numlock now, and start getting the highlight of your morning right away.

The number of years that Google offers “Auto Update” support to its different ChromeOS platforms, which means that, after that expiration date, the platform will stop receiving updates even if the hardware is generally still viable years after the fact. There are some workarounds, including Linux distributions made specifically for Chromebooks, but the result is that computers that would still be completely usable with other operating systems are going to be pushed off the internet onramp in a few years’ time.

The Mac Mini that showed me there was going to be no way to relive mid-2000s internet.

We make no effort to allow vintage computers to live on the modern internet

A decade ago, the biggest problem facing the internet was the large number of compatibility issues baked into Internet Explorer, a web browser that infamously stopped evolving for about half a decade, creating major issues that took years to sort out.

We’re long past that point, but I’d like to argue that, in many ways, we’ve created the opposite problem.

Now, our browsers are more standards-compliant than ever. But this has created an entire class of software, built on old operating systems, to have a degraded experience.

The problem comes down to security standards such as Transport Layer Security and the older Secure Sockets Layer, network protocols that were designed to help secure traffic. During the heyday of the early internet, https was used on only a few sites where secure use cases were recommended.

But since then, opinions in the security community have shifted on the use of https, for reasons of privacy and secure data. Google, in particular, forced the issue of dropping http, dangling the threat of a dropping search-engine position. Last year, Google Chrome took the step of marking http sites as “not secure,” effectively shaming websites that ignore digital security standards.

At the same time, old security protocols such as SSL and TLS 1.0 have been discontinued in modern browsers, and many newer browsers require stronger types of encryption, such as SHA-2, which means that there are strong deterrents for running a web browser that is too old.

So now all these sites that didn’t have to use https in the past are now using https because if they don’t, it will hurt their traffic and their business. We’ve forced security on millions of websites this way, and the broader internet has benefited greatly from this. It improves digital security in nearly all cases.

But for purposes of preservation, we’ve put in additional layers that prevent correct use of old computers. From a research standpoint, this prevents an easy look at websites in their original context as we’ve forced upgrades to support modern computers while actively discouraging efforts to support older ones.

This leads to situations where the only way to make an old internet-enabled computer even reasonably functional online is to use hacks that allow for a browser with modern security standards … or to switch to an alternate operating system. This is something I ran into earlier this year when I started using a 2005 Mac Mini as part of an experiment. But I’ve also run into it within controlled environments like virtualization, and it made using the operating system unnecessarily hard, as I was unable to easily download things like drivers necessary for my use case.

There are a few die-hards out there that have not given into the https drumbeat. When I load up an old computer or an old browser, the first site I try is Jason Scott’s textfiles.com, because it’s the only one I know I can get to work without any problem. His decision to drop https for that site led him to run into a whole lot of debates online, but it may have been the best thing he could have done for collectors, historians, and preservationists—now we have a place we KNOW will work when we’re just trying to test an old piece of hardware or software, with no bullshit.

WRP, the web-rendering proxy for retro browsers. (via Github)

What I would like to see are more attempts to push the new into the old on its own terms, with a great example coming from Google programmer Antoni Sawicki, who built a web-rendering proxy that effectively allows modern websites to run on outdated browsers. It effectively turns the modern website into a giant GIF that then can be used through a proxy layer.

We need more of this. At some point, we’re going to want to collectively come back to these old tools to understand them, but we seem to be doing everything in our power to prevent them from getting online. There needs to be a balance.

The number of apps Apple specifically lists as being incompatible with the latest version of MacOS, Catalina, in a file located in the upcoming version of the operating system. Many of the listed apps are productivity tools, some of which haven’t been updated in a number of years, but more concerning for many Apple fans are the games, which tend to have a longer shelf life. Apple hasn’t produced purely 32-bit machines in many years, but many apps that are still being updated are being produced for 32-bit systems with the goal of maximum compatibility in mind.

Sorry, your app is built for a 32-bit architecture.

We’re starting to close off support for older generations of apps in mainstream software

The most problematic issue that I see is one that’s likely to become more of an issue in the coming years.

And we’re about to get our first real taste of it in a mainstream desktop operating system.

In the coming weeks, Apple is likely to release Catalina, the latest version of macOS, which is going to drop support for all 32-bit apps, meaning that literally decades of work developed for prior versions of MacOS will become unusable.

It’s not the first time Apple has done this—the 2009 release of Mac OS X 10.6, Snow Leopard, formally pulled off the band aid of Power PC support—but the decision to drop support for 32-bit apps is likely going to cut off a lot of tools that are intended to work on as many platforms as possible.

“The technologies that define today’s Mac experience—such as Metal graphics acceleration—work only with 64-bit apps,” Apple explains of its decision on its website. “To ensure that the apps you purchase are as advanced as the Mac you run them on, all future Mac software will eventually be required to be 64-bit.”

Now, this is great if your goal is to always be on the latest software, but many people run older software, for a variety of reasons. Some of the biggest? The software isn’t being actively developed anymore, you prefer the older version for design and aesthetic reasons, or because it’s something that isn’t developed on a continuous release cycle, like a game.

A PC running Ubuntu, the source of a major controversy earlier this summer. (Gareth Halfacree/Flickr)

Now, if this debate was limited to Apple, that would be one thing, but the truth is, they’re just an early adopter. Earlier this summer, Canonical, the company that develops Ubuntu, greatly upset a good portion of their user base after announcing that they were removing support for 32-bit applications, which would have basically made the Linux distribution useless for many games, harming a community that was just starting to warm to Linux. Eventually, Canonical backed down, after it became clear that the developer community was not the same as the user community.

“We do think it’s reasonable to expect the community to participate and to find the right balance between enabling the next wave of capabilities and maintaining the long tail,” Canonical said in a statement.

Now, there are always solutions that would allow the use of vintage or even obsolete software in modern contexts. Virtualization and emulation software like VirtualBox and QEMU create ways to recreate an experience. But these tools are often more technical and less seamless than native platforms they replace, and I worry that nobody is thinking of ways to make them easier for the average person to use.

And, to be fair, there are definitely reasons to discourage the use of 32-bit software. Como How-To Geek notes, most Windows applications are made as 32-bit apps, in part because those have broader support over 64-bit apps, which are more future-proofed. That means a lot of developers aren’t taking advantage of the latest technologies, despite clear advantages.

But as architectures change and technology evolves, I’m convinced that there will be a time that old software loses the battle, all because we chose not to prioritize its long-term value.

We may be nostalgic, but the companies that make our devices quite often are not.

Why make such a big fuss about all this? After all, we know that planned obsolescence has long been a part of our digital lives, and that the cloud is less a permanent state, and more an evolving beast.

But that beast will be hard to document, and ultimately, its story needs to be preserved and interpreted, hopefully in the same context in which it was created. The technology we use today, however, does not allow for that to the degree in which it’s needed. It highlights a dichotomy between the digital information that will be somewhat easy to protect and the physical portals to that data that have been built that will be harder to document because their basic function is tethered to the internet, and that tethering, for one reason or another, will inevitably break.

I’ve touched on this in the past, but I think the problem is actually more serious than I’ve laid out, because we’re barreling away from permanence and towards constant chaos.

A perfectly functional Chromebook that will eventually stop working. (Jian ossian/Flickr)

In two decades, I can see this scenario playing out: A thirtysomething adult is going to think back one day to his or her days in middle school, and wax nostalgic for that old laptop they used back then. It’s an old Chromebook their parents bought for them, covered in stickers like a Trapper Keeper circa 1984, and it holds memories of a specific time in their lives.

Inevitably, they’ll open it up, and try to turn it on … and honestly, it’s not clear what might happen. Perhaps the machine won’t turn on at all, due to issues with the design of the power supply that require some sort of charge in the battery to function. Maybe they’ll get lucky, and it’ll turn on after they plug it in, even if the battery won’t hold a charge. But then they try to log in … and they find that they can’t log in due to a security protocol change Google strong-armed onto the internet a decade ago. Maybe we won’t use passwords at all anymore, meaning there’s no easy way to log in. Maybe they’ll figure out a way to get around the error screen, only to load up a website, and find that it won’t load, due to the fact that it uses a web standard that wasn’t even invented back then.

Unlike early computers that still make their pleasures functionally accessible with the flip of a switch (and admittedly a recapping and possibly a little retrobrite), this machine, an artifact of someone’s past, could likely become functionally useless.

All because Google decided to stop supporting the machines, despite the fact that they were still perfectly functional, due to some structured plan for obsolescence.

Now apply that thought process to every device you currently own—or owned just a few years ago—and you can see where this is going.

We’re allowing the present to conspire against the past in the name of the future.

We’re endangering nostalgia, something important to the way we see the world even as it’s frequently imperfect, due to technology that at one point was seen as a boon for progress.

We’re making it much harder to objectively document the information in its original context. And the same companies that are forcing us into this brave new world where we’re deleting history as fast as we’re creating it should help us fix it.

Because it will be way too late to do so later.

Find this one an interesting read? Share it with a pal! And thanks to Numlock News for the support!

Your time was just wasted by Ernie Smith

Ernie Smith is the editor of Tedium, and an active internet snarker. Between his many internet side projects, he finds time to hang out with his wife Cat, who's funnier than he is.


Planned and Dynamic obsolescence

There are many ambiguous things in business — like Dark Patterns, Monopolism and others. They help promote businesses, but in a way they trick consumers into buying more. One of such things is called the tactic of Planned obsolescence — deliberately reducing the life of devices in order to sell more and earn more.

They say that everlasting light bulbs were invented a long time ago, at the beginning of the XX century. But the big manufacturing companies conspired and stopped producing them since their business will go bankrupt if everyone buys such light bulbs.

This a ctually happened. In the beginning of the XX century, the lifespan of light bulbs had reached up to 2,500 hours. It presented a big threat to the monopolists of the market. So in 1924, in Geneva a secret meeting of the top executives from the world’s leading light bulb companies was held. Phillips, International General Electrics, Tokyo Electric, OSRAM and AEI founded the Phoebus Cartel and agreed to control the world supply of light bulbs. They reduced the lifespan of their lamps to 1,000 hours and imposed fines for exceeding this limit. And although the production costs were reduced, the Cartel did not change their prices and thus earned even more.

It was the Phoebus Cartel who introduced a tactic called Planned obsolescence — intentionally shortening the lifespan of their products. In the 1930s, the Cartel collapsed but the tactic is still used by modern businesses, including Apple.

In 2003, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple as it was proven that the non-replaceable battery on the iPod only works for 18 months from the purchase. Apple settled the suit out of court. But in 2017, another similar lawsuit was filed against them. One of the iOS updates caused the applications to load longer on older iPhones and even turn off altogether. Apple said that they did this intentionally to extend the life of the battery and protect it. But there wouldn’t be a need for that if the batteries were replaceable. The company bought off again and paid hundreds of millions of dollars. Still, they earned way more by selling devices with an irreplaceable battery.

The tactic of planned obsolescence harms users and makes them spend money, buy new things and throw out old ones all the time. It’s bad for the budget and it’s very bad for the environment. But if the eternal light bulbs and phones appear after all, not only business will suffer losses. Many people will be left without jobs and means of sustenance.

Plus, the consumers themselves support the tactics by constant purchases and updates. When in 1908 Ford Company had produced an almost indestructible car in a single black color, the buyers were delighted at first. In a couple of years, General Motors started producing similar cars, but in different colors. By the 1950s half of the vehicles purchased in the US were made by General Motors.

This tactic has received a new name — a Dynamic obsolescence. Apple uses it too — every year they produce a slightly different product, changing colors, style, and upgrading the technology a bit. But we fall for it and continue to buy iPhones every year, because now it’s more than a phone — it conveys a specific image of us to other people.

But all of that can change shortly. The European Union countries and 25 US States are on a verge of passing a law that will force manufacturers to disclose the data of their inventions so that they can be repaired locally, rather than buying slightly modified copies of the same product.


Ver el vídeo: Obsolescencia Programada resumen (Julio 2022).


Comentarios:

  1. Bothain

    Creo que no tienes razón. Vamos a discutir.Escríbeme en PM, nos comunicaremos.

  2. Koen

    Estas equivocado. Estoy seguro. Propongo discutirlo. Envíame un correo electrónico a PM, hablaremos.

  3. Kajishura

    Perdón por interferir ... Estoy familiarizado con esta situación. Vamos a discutir. Escribe aquí o en PM.

  4. Enoch

    Estas equivocado. Envíeme un correo electrónico a PM, hablaremos.



Escribe un mensaje