I think you are forgetting about time. If the rate of stuff needing to get recycle is lower, then there is more time to recycle. If there the rate is too high then the facilities are overwhelmed and resort to less optimal strategies.

This is why reduce and reuse are important.

It's misleading because it focuses on actions that are clearly not working. People on the average are increasing their consumption, not reducing it. That means the actual problem — the waste at the end of the pipeline — is growing every year.

Waste management is the actual problem that needs to be solved. "Reduce and reuse" can be a part of the solution, but people are not doing enough voluntarily to make it a major part.

I'm genuinely curious about your position, it's interesting.

But I can't figure it out what it'd look like in practice, might be hangover, might be I need more caffeine, whatever it is, it's on me. Don't read following as "you're saying X and thats silly!"

(A) Are consumption rates in general unsustainable?

(B) If (A) is no, are consumption rates of specific items unsustainable? For example, is the legislation you're thinking of like the deprecation of plastic bags for paper? Or something that covers a much wider amount of consumption?

(C) If (A) is "yes" or (B) is "more global", at huge scales like an economy, legislating quotas or rationing or anything at all, in practice pushes activity onto black markets.

If the concern is changing individual behavior, and individual behavior isn't changing on it's own sufficiently, what sort of legislation would change it?

> It's misleading because it focuses on actions that are clearly not working

Of course it is not working. The bloat and planned obsolescence of "modern software" is legendary. I had to replace the hard drive on an older computer becsuse Win 10 is slow as a dog on it, even with LTSC version and even with most of the crap disabled. And making things require the incompatible latest and greatest instead of fixing things (hello Google) , does not help either.

Maybe it's because people spread FUD about the effectiveness of "reduce and reuse" instead of convincing others that "reduce and reuse" has value as a concept.

He just supported the status quo. Look how much money he lost during the 2008 crisis.

Summers is just weather vane for current economic thinking. He's not a particularly brilliant at anything.

As someone who voted for Bill Clinton. If Bill Clinton is implicated, then he needs to suffer for it.

I think the real question is why didn't the Biden administration release the files. How many very powerful people left and right are in there?

> I think the real question is why didn't the Biden administration release the files. How many very powerful people left and right are in there?

If I had to guess it's because there's nothing incriminating about Trump in them. Otherwise we all know they would have been leaked a long time ago.

tl;dr: Because there were ongoing investigations (which was true) and it's generally considered bad to release your evidence before trial, or something like that, IANAL.

This will also be Trump's (false) reason for not releasing them.

Why was t true before but false now?

I suspect it's been the false reason the whole time.

No one is investigating anything, only wiping hard drives and tying up loose ends

IMO the most egregious reason is the July 2025 memo from DOJ/FBI saying there was nobody else to investigate, after months of public interest and official statements they were working on it. If they now flop back to claiming they can’t release because of investigations, then that’s unequivocally a false reason.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well in text. Please, elaborate.

Matt Levine has a common refrain which is that basically everything is securities fraud. If you were an investor who invested on the premise that Meta was good at AI and Zuck knowingly put out a bad model, is that securities fraud? Matt Levine will probably argue that it could be in a future edition of Money Stuff (his very good newsletter).

The "everything is securities fraud" meme is really unfortunate, not quite as bad as the "fiduciary duty means execs have to chase short-term profit" myth, but still harmful.

It's only because lying ("puffery") about everything has become the norm in corporate America that indeed, almost all listed companies commit securities fraud. If they'd go back to being honest businessmen, no more securities fraud. Just stop claiming things that aren't true. This is a very real option they could take. If they don't, then they're willingly and knowingly commiting securities fraud. But the meme makes it sound to people as if it's unavoidable, when it's anything but.

is it securities fraud? sort of.

If Mark, both through Meta and through his own resources, has the capital to hire and retain the best AI researchers / teams, and claims he's doing so, but puts out a model that sucks, he's liable. It's probably not directly fraud, but if he claims he's trying to compete with Google or Microsoft or Apple or whoever, yet doesn't adequately deploy a comparable amount of resources, capital, people, whatever, and doesn't explain why, it could (stretch) be securities fraud....I think.

And the fine for that? Probably 0.001% of revenue. If that.

Free speech is terrorism now?

As a student in my forties I have been appalled at the price and quality of many of my textbooks. The $300 dollars worth of textbooks in one class could have done with a few youtube videos. The publishers know this cash cow is coming to an end due to piracy and online textbook rentals. Now, they are charging less for textbook but gouging students on the mandatory online components.