I’m in that fifth house that no-one ever seems to talk about: BOSCH.
J/K, I’m mostly Bosch, but I look towards whichever manufacturer makes the best version of a tool I currently need. For example, my chainsaws and yard/orchard power tools are Stihl, my lawnmower is Husqvarna, my circular saw, worm drive saw and abrasion/steel cutoff saw are all Skilsaw (not Skil!), and my oscillating multi tool is Fein.
Plus, many of the domestics are vintage, from before production was outsourced out of America, which makes them much more reliable and robust than modern tools. Even some of the other tools are vintage – my Stihl 076 Super can cut through a 60cm log like a hot knife through butter. And I have both 36″ and 72″ bars to go with it.
Any exchange of labour for money under an indentured system where you are under constant violent threat of homelessness, destitution, starvation, and even death if you don’t work, is a certain type of prostitution born of desperation.
TL;DR: most of us whose paycheques are signed by someone else are labour prostitutes.
Corded can be great! I have corded Bosch for anything in my workshop - why would I need batteries for a location with dozens of sockets? - and use batteries mainly in the field or where cords would start to get impractical. Plus, where the manufacturer only makes a battery version of the tool. The Bosch PROFACTOR GDS18V-740N, for example, only comes in a battery version. No corded version exists.
Even within a brand, you usually contend with at least two different battery packs - 12v and higher - and even more if you keep your tools in good condition and their connection types are obsoleted before you buy more tools.
Confronted with the likelihood that we cannot achieve climate goals, confront socioeconomic inequality, and ultimately build a better world without significant personal sacrifice: How much are you personally capable and willing to lose? I mean this in the most earnest way possible. Acknowledging the likely possibility of working...
I highly doubt there will ever be a better world, our current “business as usual” course will doom humanity to extinction within the next two centuries, and have a non-trivial probability of initiating a Venus Scenario due to the inertia present in human-made climate change.
Our only hope of avoiding that future is bringing out the guillotines and removing pretty much the entire Parasite Class from existence, implementing a true separation of capitalism and state, and instituting punitive laws that control and limit the worst depredations of capitalism (far more than what currently exist). While it wouldn’t be true socialism, it would bring us much closer to democracy that is free of capitalistic cronyism and corruption, allowing society as a whole to save itself without being handcuffed and bound to a profit-at-all-costs path by our corporate masters.
Consumer luxuries don’t actually make for a better life.
The fundamental luxuries do.
Humans spend a third of their life asleep. A good mattress makes a big difference in the quality of sleep, but it being a Cali King sure isn’t going to change much.
Modern life requires a high degree of physical mobility. Public transportation (Europe, etc) and cars allow us to cover distances in hours that would have taken days even a century and a half ago. A decent-quality vehicle can make a big difference in the reliability of said transportation and our ability to get around, but it being a Mercedes or a Bentley sure isn’t going to change much.
And the list could easily run to hundreds of examples, if not thousands.
We live in a world where most any first-world consumer item is a luxury compared to the global poor, or pretty much anything comparable from a century and a half ago.
What doesn’t have much of a positive impact, however, is the delta between an affordable item and a high-end item that costs many multiples more. People can and should aim for those “luxuries” that don’t yet tip over into deminishing returns, as opposed to those luxuries that are excessive purely for the purpose of producing excessive displays of wealth.
Like vehicles - both of mine (sedan, utility pickup) are approaching a quarter century of age. Could I afford brand-new vehicles? Sure. But why would I waste my money and planetary resources like that? The ones I have still work just fine with only basic maintenance, and are perfectly adequate in getting me (and cargo) from point A to point B. I have absolutely no ego that demands newer or fancier.
The CO2 impact of one member of the Parasite Class is usually in excess of 100,000 working-class people, and if a personal jets and yachts are involved, can exceed the impact of 1,000,000 working-class people.
So yes, violently denuding the Parasite Class (which can also be done via effective taxation; just saying) is an effective way to combat climate change, provided the outcome doesn’t involve the working class adopting more excessive lifestyles due to more a equitable distribution of wealth.
The four houses dads belong to. (lemmy.world)
Honestly - How much will you sacrifice for a better world?
Confronted with the likelihood that we cannot achieve climate goals, confront socioeconomic inequality, and ultimately build a better world without significant personal sacrifice: How much are you personally capable and willing to lose? I mean this in the most earnest way possible. Acknowledging the likely possibility of working...
Programmer tries to explain binary search to the police (startrek.website)