msftgreed

The human tradition is storytelling. The idea that storytelling was something a company could own and other's weren't allowed to tell is very, very new in our history.

People write without any profit motive today. It's weird of the OP to think of writing in such a narrow space as commercialization.

As someone who was around during Reagan, you are correct. The turn happened in the 80s, and then rapidly accelerated in the 90s and 2000s, then rapidly accelerated again in the past 10 years.

I think a lot of folks are stuck on the idea that it's been a singular bad actor -- a Trump, or a McConnell or something. This "Great Man Theory" is almost certainly a very naive read of the systems that are leading to this moment.

You say this like it's related to the parent quote. We could absolutely compensate people and not charge for information. It's not that hard to imagine that we could feed, house, care for, and provide a small stipend to authors, artists, etc. and also make their work output free to everyone who wants it.

Does that require changing some other things? Absolutely. Would it be hard to convince people to try? Probably (I'm guessing HN crowd won't like this comment, considering it unreasonable.) Has it been a suggested way to organize society for almost 200 years with a long and well argued set of principles behind it? Sure enough!

50 tons per acre, over 35 years (to grow the trees to a harvestable age) with an expectation that you can capture ~25-40% of that in long term storage via pyrolizing it.

The US alone has ~1 billion acres of forest land and could produce a lot more if needed. Over 35 years, we could remove 50 billion tons * 25-40%. Basically enough to offset a years worth of emissions during those years.

It's not enough, but it would be a significant amount of carbon removed. Combined with other efforts, we could put a lot of carbon back in the soil.

Forests do net sequester carbon. But if you want to really sock away the carbon you harvest the trees and pyrolize it. It will give you energy (heat) you can use and elemental carbon (biochar). You could bury that a few feet under or innoculate it with microorganisms and work it into fields. Carbon in that form will sit in the soil for hundreds of years. Thousands or millions if you bury it.

So a state (or municipality or anyone capable of making laws) has the ability to say, "You don't meet our local laws, take down your URL" now?

This is going to be a real problem when states start nuking whole parts of the internet from orbit. A state has a law against conversion therapy and starts to remove sites with that? A state has a law against trans people? Or abortion? Or medical misinformation? Suddenly we just start purging sites back and forth?

Battlegrounds end up as torn up, muddy, desolate places. Turning the domain registry into a battleground is a bad idea. Over the long term, no one wins if we choose to fight there.

Well, really, pick your poison I suppose.

We have wide belts of forests in the north that are warming and are potentially at risk for massive fires, which would make the problem significantly worse. So, before the taiga burns.

Or, before species reduction causes ecosystems to collapse, reducing biodiversity and ability to support humans.

Or before temperatures rise high enough that wet bulb temperatures in the summer are fatal to humans, causing parts of the globe to become inhabitable, creating refugee crises and conflict (and presumably mass starvation and death.)

Or before permafrost gets warm enough to start emitting methane, pushing our atmosphere past the point of it's ability to maintain homeostasis, putting us on a path to a Venusian atmosphere.

Or before we lose the beautiful parts of the world to decay due to increased pest pressure, decreased ability for plants and animals to survive, and general reduction in system health.

Or before we lose our ability to have wonderful winter sports in the parts of the world where skiing and snowboarding are popular.

Or before we damage the oceanic currents enough to fundamentally destroy the climate in regions like Europe and England.

Or before raising temperatures cause seafood stocks to plummet, reducing the amount of food we can harvest from the oceans (or leading us to depleting critical stocks entirely), reducing our capacity to feed ourselves as a species.

Or before fresh water becomes scarce enough that wars are fought over it, and people die unnecessarily.

I dunno. Before one of those. Or any of the other easily predictable, innumerable steps along the way to those.

Maybe we should be doing something dramatic about this global warming thing before it's too late, yeah?

> CD sales surged 16% to 16.3 million units, soundly outpacing vinyl’s comparatively modest 2.4% growth.

Ok, but the lack of a unit on vinyl makes it very hard to have an apples to apples comparison here. If cds are selling 1000 units and vinyl is selling 1,000,000 units, those 16% and 2.4% numbers are pretty wildly different things.

Also, the huge increase is primarily driven by KPOP (in particular, BTS). CD sales growth was like 6% without them.

I don't know that we can draw a conclusion from that 16% except BTS can move physical media.

You can name the brand... Häagen‑Dazs? Graeters?

In any case, why would you melt and drain it? That makes zero sense. You don't have friends who would take it? Or a food bank? Or a local Food Not Bombs?

It's totally fine to not like a brand, zero objections there, but like, why waste it?

I work in accessibility, yes.

And yet, if someone cannot meaningfully participate in society without their glasses, then yes, they have a disability. Polio paralysis and vision loss are both examples of disability. They do have differences in all those things you mentioned, and yet, are both disability.

I work in big tech in accessibility. I guarantee you that you are incorrect.

You've got it. Who makes the decisions? Primarily the folks with the most property.