It started a line of thoughts in me. What if the backend keeps the videos around for a longer period of time, and:
* regularly checks youtube, and whenever one archived video gets deleted from youtube, it advertises the video ID on a specific set of Nostr relays
* have a different browser extension for yt viewers that activates when the user hits a deleted video.
* the backend can stream the video for continuous Bitcoin lightning payment until the stream is kept alive.
Does my computer get involved when person A sends something illicit to person B? As a normal user on the internet, no. That's between them, and the law only deals with them. With certain decentralised anonymous systems, the answer is different. Now there are legal liability issues, at least.
The biggest reason I've never run a Tor exit node, either back when I was running a hosting company or now that I have unmetered gigabit (with 10 gig available) is that I don't want the feds to come knocking about CP and the like activity on my IP.
Great thing about wood is you can build almost-permanent structures with it?
And the remaining biomass (leaves, bark, etc.) is fine to compost and re-enter the carbon cycle.
Also it's clearly not an open cycle, not in temperate climates. The accumulation of carbon in top soils etc. is one of the things that kept CO2 in balance for millions of years prior to us pulling it out of the ground. Peat bogs being another key one.
Yes, it can't keep up with us. But it's not an open cycle. (It is in the tropics, though)
Best thing we can do is stop pulling it out of the ground. Best way we can do that is to build out renewables. Best way to do that is to create a profit incentive for an oversupply of power that sucks up carbon.
It's crazy how fast poplars grow in temperate climates. And absorb excess nutrients and contaminants.
Would love to see huge fields of them grown, then harvested, and the product turned to lumber and other longer-term carbon storage. Even composted or biocharred and the carbon amended into top soils (yes it won't stay there forever, but...) Assuming the process can be done without emitting more CO2 than is captured.
Until you do the math, then you see how bad a solution trees are.
It's the same reason biofuels cannot be a general replacement for fossil fuels.
Growing trees is nice for other reasons, of course, and some limited CO2 capture would come along for the ride. This would not eliminate the desirability of other kinds of CO2 capture.
I harp on this. Unless I biffed my calcs a solar farm produces 25-50 times as much energy per acre as corn. That alone tells you biofuels is a dead technology.
A solar farm doesn't need to be weeded, ploughed, planted, weeded again, topped, and harvested every year like corn does. You also don't need to ferment it to ethanol then burn it at a 70% loss to power a set of wheels.
Possible also that the vegetation growing between and under the panels sequesters carbon.
And the solar farm doesn't transpire quite the enormous quantities of water a field of corn does. So much water goes into the air from a corn field it affects the weather.
I wouldn't say biofuels are a dead technology, but they are niche. They may be useful in a post-fossil fuel age for things that are very difficult to electrify, like long distance air travel and production of organic chemical feedstocks.
I disagree completely, although degrowth may end up happening eventually due to low birth rates.
If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed.
The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.
Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner.
> would not avoid eventual massive global warming
Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways
Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers
People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired
I find the microplastics bit has all the odor of an unhinged panic. There seems to be quite a lot of dubious science being done. For example, a few years ago there was a study that said we eat up to 5g of microplastics a week. This figure was widely quoted in the press, with images of a credit card (about 5g) held in chopsticks as an illustration. But critical examination of the paper and the methodology concluded it overestimated the rate of ingestion by as much as a factor of a million.
Underlying all this is the moral approach being taken. It is not enough that environmental problems (perceived or otherwise) be solved; humanity must be punished. Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone.
We find microplastics in foetus brains, if your immediate thought is "meh ok it's probably fine" you're already beyond saving, all of that for what ? Cheap gadgets, some convenience and comfort
> humanity must be punished
We're punishing ourselves right now... look at our food, 75% obese/overweight in the west, 15% of US population on antidepressant, life expectancy going down, testosterone levels dropping 1% per year from the 80s if not before, massive wildlife collapse, nutrients in veggies/fruits massively dropped since the 50s, increasing floods/hurricanes/&c.
> Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone
If you're about to get lung cancer because your smoke 1 pack a day you can always tell your doctor you started drinking green tea to get extra antioxidants, as long as you smoke 1 pack a day you're doomed.
I imagine if you cherry pick everything that goes your way and trash the rest it makes a very nice little fairy tale in which we can continue on our merry way without ever facing any kind of consequences
Hard pass. Why would I ever want my wallet to be social? What does a social network have to do with Bitcoin? This sounds like social media for insufferable crypto bros.
Every time I throw away a piece of plastic in the communal bin I think about that it should have never been manifactured from plastic, but from some plant / glass / etc.
So you can make some money on free disk space.