I think it’s obviously a mix, however, an algorithm that maximizes purely for attention or time on site causes a lot of issues.

Sometimes people are seeking something that is beneficial, and maximizing that is fine. Lots more times, people are mostly responding to angry posts, or falling down a conspiracy rabbit hole that they cannot critically think their way out of. Maximizing the attention of those people is clearly negative.

So does society share some blame? Sure. Does an algorithm that maximizes some people into very bad places share some blame? Absolutely.

I think the main problem of all these “alternative” sites is that there really are just a fuckton of shitty people waiting to go in at the very beginning. So even if people have legitimate concerns and the desire to build fresh, they are quickly pushed out by real cesspool denizens.

Gee, it's almost as if moderation is necessary for communities to thrive! Imagine that.

I'm wondering what it says about us humans that the only way to maintain even a modicum of civility is heavy censorship.

Also, don't these folks realize that Jesus was Jewish... like, what kind of brain worms crawling in their heads that they can in one breath proclaim faith to an Abrahamic religion, hate for people from that part of the world, and how morality comes from a society following their preferred religion.

Feels pretty hopeless.

Moderation isn't censorship, and moderating out 5% of a userbase that makes 95% of the noise doesn't really say anything about society. I don't expect this comment to get much love in a thread linking to patriots.win, a clone of one of the most heavily moderated and hateful subs in Reddit history.

When you agree with it, it's moderation; when you don't, it's censorship.

The problem is we incorrectly assume that if we build something other cultures will just use it. Really we would need to build a good waste system in a really fucked area, then use that system to clean the area up over 2-5 years. Let the example show a better or improved way.

This example stage is something we often fail at when attempting to export solutions.

At most stores each individual piece of produce has a scannable sticker on it.

Re-using glass containers is actually an extremely low chance of contamination. We have had easy glass sterilization techniques for a long time (most dishwashers have a sanitization cycle). Further, your shelf life won’t be significantly reduced, unless you just don’t clean your containers.

The underlying argument you were responding to wasn’t really greenhouse gas focused. The discussion was mostly about plastic waste in the oceans and our environment. While it is possible the greenhouse gas budget is better with plastic, this doesn’t address the problem of accumulating forever waste within our environment.

It's an interesting idea, let supermarkets do customer's sterilization and void closure of glass container after refilling, that sounds good +1.

---

The graph I linked to was encompassing a wide variety of environmental impact https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...

If you just want greenhouse gas emission, this is the one https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-comparisons-g... which interestingly show worse impact for single-use plastic bags

It isn’t exactly victim blaming when the HOA wouldn’t authorize the repairs (several articles looked into this). You can’t just go do the repairs without approval in these buildings.

Right somebody has to approve to pay the bills

They also do it via loans, so instead of paying aide every year, they just hold loans over their heads to get those countries to fall in line.

I think a lot of people are doing this same thing (I know several personally). Getting 2 hrs back a day is amazing, and after having it for a year it is really hard to give up.

> I don't mind meeting up with other employees on the occasional fun team-building outing, but I really don't want to work in an office again.

I think this is probably where a lot of companies will settle out; wfh, but with monthly or quarterly workshops/meetups for teams.

The problem is that the req to live within 100mi doesn’t allow workers to fully engage in location arbitrage in the way the workers would like.

I think most people want a better work/life balance, which is what all this ultimately represents. I imagine the eventual long term settle is somewhere more in the “wfh, but with team gatherings for a few days once a month” in a lot of industries.

I think you nailed it, but an added wrinkle is that I’ve seen a lot of people (myself included) have worse work/life balance with wfh. When there’s no separation between you and “the office” it’s very easy to just never stop working. The number of night time emails and after hours meetings I’ve gotten skyrocketed after everyone started working from home, and it’s a similar situation across my broader friends & coworkers cohort.

That's a personal problem for you to solve by setting boundaries, honestly. I doubt those late emails will ever not be a thing, I've worked at a lot of places in things other than software and it never ends, regardless of working from home or office.

There is one exception to your location arbitrage: those who want a hobby farm. if you need to go to the office every day your hobby farm will be close to the city. If you only go in once a week a 1.5 hour drive doesn't sound so bad and you can move farther out meaning more land for the same number of people who want a horse or whatever.

This is only a tiny subset of people though, and is more the exception that proves the rule.

If you're in a major metro like the bay area, 1.5 hours still doesn't get you far enough to afford anything like enough land for a hobby farm on anything short of a FANNG salary.

You need a FANNG salary to afford most hobby farms even if the land was free. It is possible to make a good living farming a hobby farm sized lot, but most hobby farms are not managed to do that (most are about horses which are a large money sink)

Sure it does. 1.5 hours gets you to Stockton or Gilroy or Modesto of Fairfield and lots of other more open places where you can get a few acres at a decent price.

Based on a quick look at Zillow, 5 acres (undeveloped, no house) goes for nearly a million dollars. We have fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes a "decent price" if that qualifies for you. I'm 6 hours drive from the my office in Mountain View now, and I'm looking at a similarly undeveloped plot that's 250 acres and worth somewhere between $200k and $300k.

A house can be built on that lot for $150k (though most will probably spend more like 200k), a barn for another 100k. Still cheaper than a similar house right in SF.

There are cities other than than the west coast as well. 5 acres 1.5 hours from Minneapolis will be 300k with a house.

I think it’s tough to assign value like this. People argued that the internet had no real value for basically all of the late 90s.

My accountant was saying in 1998 he never bought stock but this eternal new money machine he could not miss out on. I made a shitload those days because I invest but am a huge stoploss fan; I did not advise him anything but he lost a few 100k and only recently recovered. The internet was a good idea though (he sold the shares though at about the lowest point so recovered is not from shares). As were tulip bulbs were but just not at that price. So who knows this will stabilize at $2/btc in 20 years and it will be normal. In the meanwhile, I buy and set stoploss and invest long sure bets, like msft in, well msft and such. But those have stoploss as well as this will all crash. The real question is: which assets will crash to $0 and which don't. As the latter you can just hold and you get your money back eventually. I had oracle (forgive me) and msft as cases of the latter in the 2000 crash and Borland/inprise as cases of the former. I had stoploss high on inprise and low on the others and made bizarre profits on inprise and higher but more long term profits on the others. If you ask me, these 'look over periods of 20-30 years' are smart with some assets and basically, imho, insane with others and I believe inprise and btc belong in the latter category. Stoploss (and you just adjust it UP over time) will save your hide. Noone listens though as it is not 'what real traders do'. Good luck with that.

People keep repeating this but bitcoin is well over a decade old now. And it still has no value other than, well, "value". That first day you got internet in, say, 1997, you were in touch with people far away and could look all kinds of shit up and make webpages and pull godwins on usenet and download winzip from tucows and it was amazing.

I think your only argument holds, slightly, if by "real value" you mean "money".