I wouldn't even say a common goal. There's plenty of opinions on what the ideal Earth's climate would be like. Some people strive for what they view as "natural", vs other people who aim to reduce natural disasters, and yet even more who just think we should be reducing our impact in general.
You're right to an extent, but personal use electric vehicles are still a step in the right direction. Even if all the power generated for them comes from coal, which is another argument people make against them. I would wager that EV buyers are more willing to look at smaller electric vehicles like ebikes and scooters as compared to the average person.
If all our vehicles were electric, it would be much simpler to transition to greener methods of electricity production. ICE vehicles don't have this kind of flexibility.
I understand that there is an entire culture surrounding these machines and that people enjoy collecting and restoring them. Hell, I would even like to build a cabinet myself one day.
But there's a reason they are disappearing. They're old and obsolete. While they may have value to a niche group, they are overall viewed as mostly worthless.
Secondly, there's a very simple solution to disliking what someone else does with their own property. Purchase it before they do whatever you dislike. Either from them or by beating them to the punch and buying it from the previous owner before they do.
> Secondly, there's a very simple solution to disliking what someone else does with their own property. Purchase it before they do whatever you dislike. Either from them or by beating them to the punch and buying it from the previous owner before they do
I think this kind of sums up why it was a bad ad.
"Don't be mad, you could have just outbid me" isn't a great thing to have to be saying at the same time you're asking the same person to get hyped about a new product.
The Gutenberg bible is also old and obsolete. The pyramids at Giza are old and obsolete. Stonehenge is old and obsolete. Ancient cave paintings are old and obsolete. The Wright brothers' flyer is old and obsolete.
Most of the reason that collectors have to spend a lot of money on arcade cabinets, though, is not that they have high market resale value; but rather that the machines they can manage to acquire are usually in terrible condition, requiring large amounts of conservation work to get working and presentable again. And they’re so broken down, because everyone but these few collectors have valued — and continue to value — these machines so little that they’ve allowed them to rot in warehouses for decades. Many arcade cabinets are recovered from e-waste recycling centers, or even landfill.
If they truly had market value, then people other than the collectors themselves would be making a business out of finding and restoring these cabinets, in order to sell them to the collectors. But no such business exists — because there just isn’t the demand to sustain it.
I’m reminded of a recent YouTube video about MadCatz gaming peripherals. The video’s author had to spend thousands of dollars buying the few remaining controllers on the used market to use as examples. Why so much? Not because of high demand. Because of limited supply — they were so valueless (mainly due to just being awful products even when new) that every owner of one had long thrown in away; no gaming store wanted to buy any used (being seen selling such brands was a mark against the quality of a store!); and even thrift stores had long dumped them for lack of interest. These gamepads and flight-sticks had value to this one guy making this one video — but literally nobody else.
A one-time purchase, does not a market-clearing price make. The market is still just as illiquid after such a purchase as before it.
> Why so much? Not because of high demand. Because of limited supply
Eh, "high demand" is meaningless on its own in this case. There's high demand relative to the supply.
And not everyone recognizes value in an old cabinet and throw theirs out (further reducing supply), but that just means the market isn't efficient, but that's true of the market for most things.
Your "solution" is so unrealistic for all but the very wealthiest people that it's on the verge of seeming disingenuous. My bank account would have to be quite a few orders of magnitude larger for me to be able to purchase even a fraction of all the things in the world I would like to preserve.
I was so angered by your opinion on relics being worthless that I checked your comments and you seem alright in other respects. I do like HN for this reason. So yeah I disagree with you this time but I’m not going to be rude
It's interesting how advocating for backdoors into consumer products (like the US wanted DJI to do) suddenly makes you uneasy that there are other backdoors into those products.
I don't like Apple, but this was exactly their argument against putting in backdoors to unlock people's devices, and I support them in that.
Replace "novel" with "nude pictures" and the moral side of this becomes much more obvious.
It doesn't matter if he had dementia. It doesn't matter if people appreciate the novel or if his kids feel that "it's important to release it". The novel was his creation and he specifically did not want it released.
Unsurprisingly though, money outweighs his requests.
I think it would be much better if people focused downvoting on comments that go against HN guidelines rather than questions or comments they disagree with.
How would you propose a method of limiting the downvoting of comments that are salient and relevant but otherwise elicit a knee-jerk emotionally disagreeable response? Or do you consider that ability a feature? It seems to me to erode curious debate.
The question relates to how can you create a system that helps align peoples incentives with the goal of the forum.
Imagine if you could allow users to delete comments they don’t agree with. That would create the antithesis of a curious discussion, so that feature isn’t available. So, yes, a good system can constrain what users are allowed to do with intelligent guardrails.
I don't mean to kill the joke further but I think Hitler was already a dead man walking before Hitler killed Hitler, so I think his enemies (Allied Forces plus Russians) deserve most of the credit.
I don't mean to kill the joke but I think Hitler was already dead before Hitler killed Hitler, so I think his enemies (Allied Forces plus Russians) deserve most of the credit.
Since the US has been voting on the first Tuesday in November without a federal holiday longer than Blacks and Women could legally vote, I do not understand why you would think this
It's a quibble - the base position here in common law is that the people of this state have a right to weapons .. much later the people of this state first agreed that the body they employ to debate common rules would be allowed to argue the regulation of firearms and delegate enforcement of any agreeed regulations to those tasked with the enforcement of policy - the Act grants that right to our employees, the politicians and the police.
After Regulations were agreed upon, these were codified.
The base right as that citizens of the state can have weapons, the agreed regulations (that can be overturned) are citizens with violent criminal records, domestic assault allegations, unqualified in handling, not willing|able to safely store cannot have weapons - these are our background conditions.
The US also has background checks for sale and possesion - they're just weak on enforcement.
The US is an oddity is they felt after the fact of constitution that they had to whack on an ammendment to spell out common law for firearms - but not for explosives, poisons, motor vehicles, etc.
And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.
You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform.
- The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we come to take them" - some right you have there!
- If you cannot own remotely the same articles that your police do, you do not have a right to bear arms. You have a privilege to own a limited set of items under a limited set of circumstances - all of which would be useless for mounting violent resistance.
> And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.
This is repeated a lot and shows that at bottom, gun ownership ideologues are violent thugs, they all promote using violence to impose their political views dressed up as a fight for "rights".
Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense.
> Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
"We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction."
You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" to go around disarm people who possess them - this in Australia is the threat of prison time.
This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.
You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
> the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.
The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle.
> You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
Where did I "justify violence?" The Second Amendment is quite clear and contains its own justification.
Again, you need violence to disarm people - so you're really not "against violence" - you're just against those using it that you don't agree with.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense, but I can see you were desperate to say that, ie "I'm armed, there's nothing you can do!"
But the idiocy of the armed is the delusion that they are safe. A person can kill another person at a safe distance, at their convenience. Having a gun doesn't help you at all.
Maybe one day you'll start thinking for yourself and come to your senses.
