Some say Hemmingway killed himself over his dispair for introducting the world to the running of the bulls festival. It seemed idyllic, and amazing in his book - Went there in 2014, and it's a bunch of tourist getting absolutely shit faced, and trying to mess with the bulls.
The solution is clear; ban lobbying. Why are you allowed to fund individuals running for office? That's called bribing, and it's illegal. BigCompanyX literally gives these people money in expectation of regulatory loopholes, and favoritism. Make a date prior to the election cycle where you have to register to run for office. From that date forward, allow no 'donations' or whatever they call it to come from individuals or corporations. Allow these people to run based on merits, not capital. Why are some of the great minds of our days not running for office?
The OP has obviously never used Instagram, which for my generation is much more popular than Facebook. Almost every reason listed for Google+'s failure, is a feature of instagrams massive success.
I mean, thats essentially the apple app store right? Just with torrents and documents instead of apps? So like a freely distributed google docs, but for everything. That movie you downloaded a week ago got a better version, the sci-hub article you downloaded last week has commentary from the author or has been disputed, That microsoft office (excel, word, onenote) you've been working on with a group has a long revision history and automatic version control. You could even download the 'latest version' at 'run-time'; when you double click to open the document. There's a company, or atleast the very start of one in these ideas.
There seems to be alot of hate here that blue orgin is not 'shooting high enough'. This will get 'America' back to the moon and this is a great thing! Congrats to Blue Orgin team, and I wish them all the luck.
Thats capitalism... And due to capitalism Amazon has launched on of the most efficient infrastructures in the world. Their warehouses and logistics systems are state of the art. Launching a Space Company is a GREAT THING. It puts pressure on SpaceX, as competition has proven over the years to be the father of invention and innovation. Of course with growth comes externalities such as a increase global footprint. However, these things are judged in a silo. Without Amazon, there would not only most likely be another "Amazon", but in the unlikely scenario that it is not aggregated long term with one centralized company, a vast meriad of mom and pop shops would have a much larger footprint and be much less efficient. I hate all the anti-corporate tendencies that have been prevailing on hacker news lately.
I'm confused on why people actually care about global warming. That planet is in whats called a 'glacial age' on the historic time table of the earth. Yeah, we are rapidly depleting the ice caps (So what?) Yeah, we are slowly warming the earth. (So what?) yeah places like south florida are going to be underwater, and will potentially cost hundreds of billions (So what?). The point is, growth sacraficed now will have tremendous impacts on the future, as the law of compounding returns rings true here. It's pretty obvious that electric cars are much better than internal combustion, oil is a finite resource with tremendous political turmoil and complications sourounding it, and not to mention the costs of logistics while renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient by the year. People in the future will laugh at what we debated as a non-issue. Also, to be honest who cares about all the other animals? The same people who complain about climate change killing the polar bears are the same people who eat other animals. It's all rather laughable.
Life will survive, but we will not if we destroy the ecosystem that supports us. What will you eat when the soil produces no crops? What will you drink when the water is toxic? What will you breath when the air is no longer suited for your lungs?
The only reason people pay their mortgages to earn you compound interest is because they have hope for their future and their children's future. The future does not invent itself. We do that, one day at a time.
> That planet is in whats called a 'glacial age' on the historic time table of the earth.
The planet has been in an ice age the entire time humans have existed on it.
It's probably good for humans for this to continue.
> Yeah, we are rapidly depleting the ice caps (So what?)
The ice caps reduce the degree to which incoming solar energy heats the earth; depleting them accelerates the warming due to greenhouse gas increases. While sufficient warming will reduce the rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by killing lots of people, that's not only a suboptimal method of arresting warming if it would work, it doesn't necessarily work to stop warming—you actually need to reduce, not merely stop increasing, greenhouse gas levels to do that. Now, there are some natural processes that do provide some negative feedback, but it's not clear what their limits are even without new human emissions. And we have a dramatic demonstration in the planet whose orbit is nearest to ours of what a runaway greenhouse effect does to a planet that at one point had a climate that would be tolerable.
This reads like the most uneducated comment I could ever conceive. Do you honestly believe anything you just said? One simple google search will invalidate everything you say.
I’m not sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate, but I’ll provide you with an earnest answer.
On the face of it, your logic holds. However, the reality is that we don’t really know how complex social/ environmental /financial systems will react in the face of climate change so your predictions, and your examples: Florida, polar bears are a very limited subset of possibilities.
As just one clusterfuck example with which I am familiar, but which is not much considered:
1. Increasing crop production volatility...
2. Leads to banks pulling credit lines to farmers
3. Which leads to 75% decline in crop production
4. Which leads to massive displacement of people
5. Which leads to...(something outside of my field of expertise but probably not good).
I’d prefer to avoid the above scenario, even though I’m not sure it’s possible.
Within our complex global system which is growth dependent for social stability, I wonder if applying the breaks will lead to devastating social breakdown.
Doomed if we do, doomed if we don’t.
This talk at Cambridge helped me think a little more about the issue:
> I'm confused on why people actually care about global warming.
If you accept the premise that biodiversity on Earth is intrinsically valuable, then one ought to care about global warming.
> Also, to be honest who cares about all the other animals? The same people who complain about climate change killing the polar bears are the same people who eat other animals.
If someone eats, for example, farm-raised chicken, it does not logically follow that they ought not to care for the well-being and survival of other animals.
Hmm, why is it always the finance guys who proselytize about "but tech innovations will save us, don't worry", and never the scientists and engineers who will deliver those innovations? I can promise you, we don't share your optimism, and I can fairly confidently say that any "Law" based on a brief survey of social/financial science is uniquely made to be broken.
This was an amazing read. Not only do you sell onions on the internet but you are an amazing writer! I had to stop and comment before I dived into what else you've written.
I copied the quote “take the path to Nothing, and go Nowhere until you reach it.” and got it turned into a canvas to hang above my desk.
This is exactly what they are attempting to do with solid-state batteries. Again, the whole point of the article is that Lithium Ion batteries will continue to improve and with the vast economy of scale, will continue to be a cost effective option
