We used to have earbuds that don't need to be charged because they had a headphone jack, didn't get lost so easily because they had a cord attached to a headphone jack, never lost the bluetooth connection because they had a headphone jack, and they cost less because they had a headphone jack. https://bsky.app/profile/daisyfm.bsky.social/post/3l3mfjc6sn62k
The key difference is cars are a strictly superior version of horses. Horses do need fuel, they're slow, maintenance is time-intensive/expensive, can't take you as far...
Wireless earbuds' superiority is not so clear-cut. There are pros and cons for both, and I hate that some execs are trying to force me to buy their overpriced garbage.
I wouldn't mind wireless earbuds if it wasn't for the rare earth minerals they require for their battery, if planned obsolescence wasn't a core "feature", and if I had a choice to keep using the cheap wired headphones I've used for years before they started enshittifying phones.
Well, youre mostly right about cars, but mostly because we decided to ignore certain costs (climate change).
Assuming that they also scaled equally, horses have their own emissions which would cause just as many problems.
And not in the "fart smelly" way. Methane production from animal forms is a huge contributor to green house gasses. Now imagine every house has a horse.
But thats fine, because horses dont run on sequestered carbon.
I'm not saying I want us to switch to horses. I would rather we switch to bikes, but we really dont conceptualize the full cost of cars.
“because horses dont run on sequestered carbon”
Um. Yes they do.
Horses do not need carbon sources which have been out of circulation for millions of years.
Except mine. It drinks kerosene and is fed coal in the morning and peat in the evening.