That’s a great recommendation, thanks! The pay per use model seems very fair and I like their approach to sustainability matters very much.

Thanks! Will have a look

The article is unfortunately a stub. The original insight stems from the peer reviewed report of Tannu and Nair (2022) and is based on a meta analysis of several life cycle analyses. It’s actually cited and linked in the Seagate brochure:

https://hotcarbon.org/assets/2022/pdf/hotcarbon22-tannu.pdf

Long story short: The reason a combination of the higher production related CO2e emissions and the higher power consumption given the current power mix.

So and so. The projects I like a lot and heavily use I give 5€ a month, but there are very few. That would also be the usual member fee for instance for the Wikimedia foundation. Beyond that, it’s usually between a coffee and 20€, depending on how much potential I see, how much it has helped me, and how much the project needs the money. Maybe needless to say: Bug reports help a lot so I place them where I find one. Finally, when it comes to code contributions I find it hard. Usually that requires a lot of preparation and time to get into the depth of the project beyond the API/fronted. And that is, more often than not, a road block for me.

I think though, that the amount given is not a good measure on its own. It depends a lot on what one has and is able to give. There are so many people out there who earn way more than they need (including me, although I am nowhere rich). They could easily give a lot more and cover for a general user base. And the latter, making the project more popular and maybe contributing some bug reports is just as essential.

Adding an aspect: Removing bonds, like hydrogen bonds, takes energy. So if that energy was provided to release the bonds in the first place, the local reaction of atoms in the molecular gas into a multitude of molecules would release quite a bit of heat.