Are you sure environmental yeast didn’t make its way in there? I’d wager you’d have to bake in the laboratory to prevent other yeast from entering the dough. From the photos it’s on some gingham cloth in someone’s yeasty house.
I don’t think the point of contention is whether it’s recyclable. Primary issue is: what is the local environmental impact of MINING lithium?
For folks who don’t live in Maine it’s a no-brainer: sure, go for it! Bring the USA more domestically produced lithium.
But… mining fucks up entire ecosystems and pollutes water etc… and even if companies can “promise” the operation will be clean, come to implementation they likely walk back on that and the damage is done.
For what's it worth, I live in a area that has done extensive mining for over 1000 years with no big natural disaster caused by it. Today it is only operational by small scale in comparison, (and it never experienced the big chemical industious mining), but you absolutely can mine the earth without creating havoc.
It is just a lot more expensive then.
Which is why most mining is done in remote, or poor areas, with laughable regulations, where no one dares complain for the jobs.
For what it’s worth, people mined rocks to build the pyramids multiple thousands of years ago. They don’t mine using an army of slaves wielding chisels anymore.
Genuinely curious, what are the alternatives to the three?
1. Mine lithium
2. Drill oil
3. Do nothing
You have to store energy somehow, even if the entire world shifted to walking everywhere. Goods still need to traverse the world and thus far there hasn't been anything else with a high enough energy density to get close.
The argument being made is that if mining lithium becomes more popular, its likely to lead to advancements that do limit its ecological impact and provide a more sustainable method for storing energy...
If America is benefiting from the Lithium we should also be mining it at home. Let's not shift our negative cost externalities to a different nation but instead own them.
Let’s hope it stays that way. But $1.5B is not a tiny sum and I’m willing to bet the government will bend over backwards to bring a bunch of “jobs” to the area at the expense of all environmental concerns.
Greedy lobbyists in the state capital would object to this. Ecotourism is seen by voters as one of Maine’s largest industries. Much of its real estate industry and its most well-known brand (LL Bean) relies on it.
You have a delusional believe in the power of lobbying. Establishing a mine in the US is incredibly hard. Even in places with existing mining, establishing a new mine is a major undertaking.
Mines even in mining friendly places is very, very hard. Doing it mining unfriendly places where you have real popular opposition is bordering on impossible.
Getting fake or low quality garbage from Amazon has made me stop using their product most entirely. I have 0 faith in it and I will gladly pay the inconvenience of driving or 5-10% more for a retail store brand.
There's some percentage of people that always want to pay the lowest price and if the product turns out to be fake they return it. Say you order 100 things over a month and 5% turn out to be fake the only cost is time (Amazon pays for shipping if the product is fake I believe). That's compared to paying 10% more on every product plus the time it takes to go to the store.
Honestly if I can’t trust that a company is delivering a real product or not I’m OUT. That’s a violation of trust. And it’s happened to me multiple times on Amazon—nowhere else.
What is IPFS though if not a glimpse of the future? Distributed makes more sense to me and P2P concepts are being heavily researched with all the blockchain hoo-ha!
This is the standard way online banking has been operating in, I believe, much of Europe since practically forever (although it used to be physical lists before smartphones were popular).
By “conservative” do you mean: one book, one news channel, one social media platform?
I hate terms liberal and conservative they don’t mean anything anymore.
Stop identifying with some label and ask yourself: am I learned? Do I try to understand? Do I empathize? Do I sympathize? Do I produce? Do I consume? Do I consume more than I produce? Do I take action? Do I blame others? Do I litter in the park? Do I take care of myself and others?
If you think about it, communism is all about: one book, one news channel, one social media controlled by the government. How do these “conservatives” who pride themselves patriots think living in a moderated cesspool of misinformation is any better than a government controlled one?
I'm not sure they ever meant anything concrete. The editor of the local newspaper has been conservative longer than I've been alive, and still wrote opinion pieces arguing in favor of trans rights, BLM, marriage equality, and other modern "conservative" rage points from what he considered conservative first principles. His argument boiled down to: people who spent decades screaming about people coming for their rights can't turn around and deny rights to others.
Most conservatives I've met are not like that. What does the word mean when two people can have such contradictory understandings?
For example:
>> "If you think about it, communism is all about: one book, one news channel, one social media controlled by the government."
I've never met a communist who would agree with this, but I'm sure they exist. The communists I know are more about forming communities and cultures of mutual support by mutual consent, and they read lots of books.
It seems you haven't run the process you used to reach your feelings on liberal and conservative on other terms. This word is just as hard to pin down.
Well, there again a dangerous label. Communist and “communism” are two different things. Modern communist nations and “The Communist Manifesto” are not the same.
What I was referring to is modern communist nations and their blanket surveillance and content-enforcement of journalism and social networks. One singular content moderation network above all social networks and news organizations.
So, I didn’t literally mean: one book, one news, one social media platform. But if modern communist nations have their fingers all up in every media organization, saying what can and cannot be published, does this not equate to one voice above all else?
A conservative focuses social network is nothing but a singular voice with a political agenda. Able to amplify nonsense at their discretion.
Yes they are. They are disadvantaged in hiring because FAANG want to fulfil diversity quotas. I don't know how their internal promotions work, could have the same issues.
When you are hired against all odds, grievance activists can get you fired at any moment because they feel offended by your behavior. They can demand humiliating rituals from you (like attending diversity workshops where you are being taught that you are the source of all evil, or being asked to deny your own perception of reality and pretend to believe in their interpretation, for example when it comes to gender as a "social construct").
I stopped being interested in being hired with Google the exact moment when they fired James Damore. And I read the article he wrote, so don't tell me he deserved it.
Apple fired the Chaos Monkeys guy (Antonio Garcia Martinez) because some grievance activists within the company chose to interpret a passage in his books in a way they deemed offensive.
Edit: as for weighting difficulties against difficulties of other groups, there is a difference between discriminatory policies and alleged discrimination in daily conduct. The base assumption should be that everybody is treated with equal rights as an individual human beings. Even if non-policy discrimination would happen, it would be nonsensical to answer that with group based policies. An individual belonging to some arbitrary group (like grouping by skin color) is not responsible for actions of other members of the same group, and hence should also not be punished for them.
Honestly my suggestion is to get rid of all social media. How many hours to master a new skill are wasted away with pointless debates and conversations?
I have been off of social media for years now and I couldn’t go back.
Really, ask yourself if your conversations on social media are yielding something productive to society or if it’s just wasting time.
If you want social, get a group together and meet in person. Go do something.
Alongside this, maybe set yourself up on calendly.com with some open time slots and tell people:
"I'm taking a break from social media. If you'd like to get in touch with me, email foo@bar.com or click on [my calendar link](https://calendly.com/) and pick a time for a phone call"
Will some people think you're odd for doing this? Yes. But it is better to miss out on 10 shallow connections and gain 1 deep one. Face the FOMO.
> productive to society
A better question: Are you really deeply connecting with the people you talk to or are you just wandering?
Thank you for informing hacker news that companies want to make a profit. Now. Do you have some evidence that intel is harming people? The water is almost completely recycled
Pretty much any facility capable of manufacturing semiconductor components has been very busy for the past few years -- Intel even had to resurrect 22nm chips at some time. Why do you assume that this will "go out of fashion in 5 years"? Historically this seems extremely unlikely. If anything, tens of millions of people going out of poverty every year are going to be consuming even more chips.
And every year 80+ million people come of age such that they become electronics consumers, buying smartphones, laptops and so on. A billion new electronics consumers every ~12 years. The world is going to need a lot more chip manufacturing capacity over the next few decades.
Just now in a place/form (underground or in the sky, and if underground usually contaminated) that makes it economically far less valuable - maybe even useless.
If the economics of water didn't matter, we'd be happy to build nuke power plants and run condensers all day to get it, but the reality is the marginal cost of water determines the feasibility of vast sections of economic activity, and that determines the fortunes (or not) of people and their leaders in concrete ways.
This is also true of other natural resources of course - oil, iron, coal, uranium, etc.
They don’t do that for a large portion of the water - they dance around that with weasel words (like ‘return to the environment’), aka evaporate. You can see they are constantly weaseling out of giving anything concrete that someone could accuse them of lying, or could use to point out the actual impacts, and stating ‘a lot’ can be reclaimed from evaporation for instance in the building - while ignoring cooling, which is evaporative at these scales [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/06/04/why...]
It’s pretty typical corporate green washing of a real problem that other folks will end up having in diffuse, hard to pin on them ways, that with some nudging on the right officials will never be pinned on them. In my experience, anyway.
