If there was ever a good rebranding that stays true to history it's this one. A dead lion swarming with insects isn't the most appetizing thing. A lion with a bee reminds of the story in a tasteful way. They could have kept the biblical quote.
For me it completely loses what made the original special, specifically that it wasn't appetizing. The juxtaposition was delightful and I would often buy jars of it for a laugh. Now it"s just another sweet syrup among many.
Patreon knows that Patreon doesn't work - they don't fund themselves by donations on Patreon; instead they take a cut of other people's donations.
And the model where some patrons receive a reward encourages transactionalism and disappointed patrons when they don't get the reward they expected.
Liberapay's model seems much more sustainable - donations only, no rewards; Liberapay fund themselves via Liberapay because they actually believe their system works.
No need to guess: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/income/ . Most money goes to the creator of Liberapay, and I would not be surprised if it would mainly cover the costs of running the service.
Patreon also takes VC funding on a regular basis; if you ask Jack Conte what his plan is for when they come back around looking for profit he will just blow a bunch of sunshine up your ass about how all these investors are just totally great people who believe in supporting the arts.
> Patreon knows that Patreon doesn't work - they don't fund themselves by donations on Patreon; instead they take a cut of other people's donations.
Huh? So does Paypal by taking a cut of payments. It does not work by people donating to Paypal. Does that mean Paypal doesnt work? The proposition does not make sense...
> And the model where some patrons receive a reward encourages transactionalism and disappointed patrons when they don't get the reward they expected.
More than that, I don't think Patreons will ever be able to compete in a world where Netflix/Max/Disney exists just by making content.
For example, if you consider the $10 tier of The Command Zone[1], you'd have to weight that in against something like the Disney+ catalog, which I think is even cheaper and definitely has a lot more content?
Its OK to use fossil fuels as chemical feedstock in manufacturing. As long as we don't literally light it on fire for energy we can deal with the resulting reaction gasses.
In 500 years the idea that we ever burned our most valuable manufacturing chemical to keep warm is going to seem crazy. Petrochemicals are incredibly useful for making things.
Cement needs lots of heat to make it - from coal too. Also, cement is made from CaCO3 (limestone, the shell of ancient microorganisms). It releases the CO2 it contains when transformed into cement.
Carbon in form of coal is currently used for three purposes in steel production:
1) Heat up the ore to high temperatures
2) Reduce iron oxide to iron.
3) Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon.
Only for the third of these carbon is essential, and that requires some tens of kilos carbon per ton of steel as opposed to more than 2 tons carbon per ton of steel. The two first ones can be replaced by electrical heating and hydrogen respectively. There are currently being built some factories in northern Sweden for doing this, using hydrogen produced by hydropower. Without sufficient tax on carbon or customers willing to pay the extra for "green steel", it is not cost competitive for now.
The coal used for reduction of iron ore to iron can be replaced with hydrogen through direct reduction. See Hybrit which has working industrial scale demonstration plant today, though at reduced capacity. Full capacity plants are planned in multiple locations by 2036.
My guess is that the coal could come from wood? The heat could definitely come from nuclear power.
However, the processing of the limestone might be more difficult. But then again, that also seems like insignificant emissions when the other ones are taken out, no?
Making cement without baking the limestone, which itself releases carbon plus the burning of gas to make the heat, is possible and is being piloted now. We just lack the will to mandate these changes.
The scale is the whole system, so many different groups of people.
To take your restaurant comparison that'd be like saying McDonalds is an average sized restaurant, which might be true for each individual McDonalds, but not for the entire system of the McDonalds chain of restaurants.
