In praise of Chromebooks

In a recent blog post, tech guru MIguel Guhlin reflects on how much he likes using a Chromebook. He writes:

Enter the Acer C740 Chromebook, one of the best devices I've owned in my life. That Chromebook has seen me through many a conference, countless blog entries, and projects. When you spend as much time as I have writing on different devices, you realize that each device tickles your brain in a different way. For some people, it's paper and pencil. You need this pen or pencil, that piece of paper or notebook. I found it a better, more enduring purchase than an iPad 3rd generation. Given the difference in price, that's saying a lot.

Like Miguel, I am a Chromebook fan. When my much loved Macbook Air died a few years ago, I picked up a cheap ($200) Chromebook at the local Target store. I was familiar with the Chrome operating system since my school district’s 1:1 program used Chromebooks and we also supplied them to most of our teachers. 

I actually now have four Chromebooks - one my 89-year-old mother uses, one I keep by the side of my recliner in my living room, one that stays at a friend’s house where I regularly spend my weekends, and one that sits in a drawer in my upstairs office that I take on trips. I believe the most I paid for any of them was $300.

Despite having worked in technology most of my career, I admittedly am not a “power user.” I don’t play interactive games that need graphic strength; I don’t edit movies or photographs; I don’t do fancy spreadsheets or databases; my slideshows are fairly simple. GoogleDocs are my go-to production tools and GoogleDrive works just fine for most of my storage needs. Nearly every application and tool I need is in the cloud - banking, shopping, communicating, games, and accounts of every color and shape. My single frustration with the Chromebooks I own is that I think they could use a little more RAM since my Squarespace editing tool refuses to sometimes open until I restart my machine. A small price to pay for a machine that is a quarter of the cost of a new Macbook.

Despite being an Apple user since 1980 (my first home computer was an Apple IIe purchased in 1983), when my iPhone and iPad give up the ghost, I may see what my Chrome options are for both replacements. If the simplicity and automatic updates are built into the mobile devices using ChromeOS, I’m in.

Yeah, Google knows when I’ve been sleeping, knows when I’m awake, knows when I’ve been bad or good (so I’m good for Google’s sake). I’ve pretty much given up all hopes that anything I do online is private and the best I can do is keep my financial passwords safe, dodge any scams that pour into my inbox or voicemail, and resist targeted marketing efforts for crap I don’t need. I still wonder how Google manages to stay awake while watching me. I’m pretty darned boring.

Last post I ruminated a bit on buying better, not more. Perhaps one should also think about buying what is right for the job. How big a car/truck do you really need? How large a refrigerator? How many bedrooms? How powerful an electric drill? How fancy a vacation? For me, a Chromebook is just enough without being too much. 

Thanks, Miguel, for the reminder of why I love my Chromebooks. 

Better - not more

The average U.S. home was 1,700 square feet in 1980, by 2015 it was 2,000 square feet, even though the number of people in the average household shrank. In 1980, 15% of households didn’t have a TV, now only about 3% don’t. In 2015, 40% of American households had three or more TVs, including 30% of households earning less than $40,000 a year! In 1980, only 13% of households had 2 or more refrigerators, in 2015 30% did — including many low-earning households. Clothing purchases have increased five-fold since 1980 and the average garment will only be worn seven times before it's disposed of. Schrager, Allison. Americans need to learn to live more like Europeans. Bloomberg Opinion, November 12, 2021

As I read and listen to the progress (or lack thereof) being made by global leaders at COP26 about reducing emissions that lead to climate change, I find little discussion regarding reducing the size of the human population - anticipated to grow to 10.9 billion by 2100. Fewer people mean fewer cars, less need for transported goods, less electricity use, fewer acres dedicated to food production, etc. Logically, if we didn’t simply slow the rate of human population growth as we are doing now, but actually decreased the total world population, factors contributing to global warming would also decrease.

Yet the cities in which I’ve lived over the past 30 years are hell-bent on growing their populations. I suspect this “bigger is better” mindset is based primarily on economics. The more people, the more Big Macs sold. The more people, the more homes needed (and more property taxes collected). The more people, the bigger the schools, the bigger the YMCAs, the larger the church congregations. More is seen as better if you want to generate dollars.

What if we changed this mindset to making our communities better, of higher quality, rather than simply bigger? 

When I downsized my home a few years ago, I ramped up my “better, not more” philosophy. Going from three garage stalls to a single car garage, made me rethink just how many tools and how much lawn stuff I needed. Going from a 3000 sq ft house to a 850 sq ft townhouse, required me to consider how many rarely, if ever, used things I could store. And downsizing my closet space made me weed out a lot of clothes and shoes I really didn’t wear. 

More even than weeding stuff out, downsizing asked me to think hard about any new purchases I might make. Like most people, I get sort of a buzz when I buy a new shirt or pair of socks. But now rather than adding to my wardrobe, I work to improve its quality - wool shirts instead of cotton; name brand hiking socks instead of those on sale at Walmart. You get the drift. I probably spend as much on discretionary items as most people, but I buy better, not just more.

Suppose communities started working toward having not just more residents, but a more affluent, more educated population? Luring businesses that pay higher salaries would be a start. As the current lack of workers proves, economic principles apply to human capital as well - scarcity drives up prices (fewer workers, higher wages). Automation can and should replace low-skill jobs. Developing amenities like parks and bike trails that may attract those with leisure time. Encouraging entrepreneurs to open good quality restaurants rather than giving tax breaks to fast food chains. Figuring out how to make education and training available to all residents so the income level of families would increase each generation. The economy would be stimulated because better steaks at higher prices would be sold instead of more hamburgers at lower prices. Nicer homes, not necessarily more or bigger houses. People might spend $20 for a good pair of socks instead of six bucks for a 3-pack at Walmart.

Can the planet work toward better, not more as well? The population growth rate is slowing, especially in developed countries. But can (or should) we try to not just slow growth, but work toward a smaller population? Economic development may well encourage this. Children in developed countries are financial liabilities, rather than assets. You just don’t need that many farm hands. Better education for all people will lead to better health care and availability of birth control. You just don’t need a lot of extra children when the mortality rate of kids is low. Dollars spent on K-12 education can be diverted to post secondary education. 

I would like to see the day (or more practically, I would like my grandsons to see the day), where old houses are torn down and replaced with parks. Camping spaces would no longer be at a premium. Bike trails would be less crowded. Rush hour traffic would decrease. Low-paid workers around the world would earn enough to provide a good home for their (smaller) families and put their kids in educational programs that would result in jobs that called for creativity and problem-solving rather than strong backs.

Yeah, let’s reduce carbon and methane and expand solar and wind and hydro power. But let’s also reduce the number of human beings that need this stuff.

Photo source

The moderate's solution to daylight savings time

Push back against Daylight Savings Time seems to be especially strong this year. Or perhaps the press is just getting used to stoking any discontent available.

I have to say that I find DST somewhat annoying, but nothing that rises to the level of writing my congressional representative or local newspaper editor. Yeah, it’s sort of a pain to change the clocks (those geriatric models that still don’t update themselves) and adjusting one’s sleep cycle to going to bed and getting up a little later (or vice versa). One a scale of one to ten, my discontent is about two.

So why even write about this topic? To me this is the perfect problem that calls for a solution from the radical center - one that is sure to make people angry on both sides of an argument.

From what I read, just about everyone wants to do away with this time shift. The controversy seems to be about whether the permanent shift gives us the extra daylight in the morning (standard time) or in the evening (DST).  I personally like the sun coming up a little earlier, but I can also understand why golfers might like the extra light in the afternoon.  Both sides seem to be able to make a case that the health and safety of people improves with either earlier or later sunlight  - melatonin, traffic accidents, etc. 

So here’s my modest centerist proposal - let’s reset all of our clocks just 30 minutes forward next spring - and leave them there forever. Neither the early birds nor the night owls will get everything they want, but everyone gets a little.

I really don’t understand why I’ve not read this solution before. It’s brilliant, if I do say so myself.