Hacker News Reader

Comment by pandasun | Hacker News Reader

Why does this need a solution? There's nothing wrong with mining.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

Sorry that they are unsubstantive to you, would have expected more from an admin than a comment like that.

Edit: your comment got me thinking, what is substantive to you? Is it just the general hivemind of HN that's only allowed here?

The hivemind doesn't agree with itself on anything, so that can't be it.

A comment is unsubstantive if it doesn't include any more information than 'boo' or 'yay'. (Although polite empty comments like congratulating someone are just fine.) On HN we want discussions where readers can learn a bit more than that someone likes mining.

Edit: another unsubstantive comment you posted was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17672125, which was worse because it invokes the uncivil why-dont-you-move-to-another-country-then internet trope. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules more carefully here?

Thanks for getting back to me. I have to disagree with your first point. There is very much a hivemind on HN, and any comment that doesn't fit in there gets downvoted. I find myself scrolling all the way down every thread to get different points of view, by the time I get to the interesting comments I can barely read them because you made the CSS make "unpopular" comments barely visible.

>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17672125

Fair enough.

> https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Why is this selectively enforced? "Assume good faith." for example? I haven't seen anyone do that on here.

Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17681471

This was a genuine question of mine, it's currently -2.

I wasn't the first one with this thought: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a19666/we-cant-just-t...

Hey dang, haven't heard back from you. Was just wondering on your opinion on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17700387

I'm currently negative 3 points for trying to start a conversation about the topic at hand. How is this not a hivemind? I followed your instructions and yet this still happens.

Look forward to your response.

I wonder what the chances are that you believe in man made climate change?

IDK, I see a bit of an issue turning energy into heat so people can get play a commodity game, most of whom don’t understand at all.

> I wonder what the chances are that you believe in man made climate change?

Is that a question? Or a statement?

>IDK, I see a bit of an issue turning energy into heat so people can get play a commodity game, most of whom don’t understand at all.

Is it any better than spending money to dig up yellow rocks or carbon crystals to be used as status symbols?

Never mind the energy used to prop up the Militaries, financial systems, & other centralized industries?

The real "problem" is that Bitcoin mining is harder to centralize & control, so certain jet-setting, energy-guzzling, interested parties will play the morality card. The general population is not allowed to use untaxed energy, but those who control the energy are allowed to. It's the original scheme of civilization.

> I wonder what the chances are that you believe in man made climate change?

Key in on the word "believe". It's a faith. Not saying the climate is not changing, but I am suggesting we ought to have healthy skepticism & awareness of the history of the networks of people (i.e. the priesthood) who demand that we allow them to tax energy; lest the wrath of the gods (e.g. Gaia in this case) tear us asunder with their judgment. Unless you pay your tribute, using their money, of course.

If climate skeptics are right, we will have only hastened the inevitable transition away from fossil fuels - there's only enough coal, oil and gas in the ground to last us another century, give or take.

If climate skeptics are wrong, millions of people will die due to avoidable natural disasters and hundreds of millions will become climate refugees.

Those are our choices - do the thing we need to do anyway, or put it off until later and risk catastrophe.

Asking whether or not climate change is "real" is entirely the wrong question. It's always the wrong question. We need to ask what the probability is, how wide the error bars are and what the effect size will be across the range of possible outcomes. Even if our predictions are wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude, reducing our carbon emissions is +EV. Doing something now is obviously the best course of action, because you avert a high-probability and high-magnitude loss at a relatively low marginal cost.

Very good points. The other point that people often misunderstand is that there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that anthropogenic global warming skeptics are mostly or entirely wrong.

While not unfair... I think the difference between the two scenarios you aren't understanding is the absolute truth that: We will use every drop of oil there is, until it's gone.

Solar doesn't make great plastic. You know what carbon fiber is - it's burnt plastic that's been processed with lots of oil and electricity. We know of no better stable and denser energy storage than hydrocarbons, we're going to use all of it.

Your set of choices is limited & reflective of a certain narrative.

First, many (including Russia) contend that petroleum is not old plant matter, but made from a geological process. We also have plenty of Coal & Natural Gas; never mind Solar energy.

There's also weather modification (e.g. Stratospheric aerosol injection). There's also other forms of energy.

There's also Electrogravitics, which contends that Gravity & Electricity are related. The Electrogravitic model provides a unified model that is simpler than String Theory.

If Electrogravitics is an accurate model, then we are living on a massive engine (planet Earth) & can, as Nikola Tesla has demonstrated, harvest the energy generated by this engine.

Not really. I think that the gold and diamond industry is hugely destructive and I'd encourage everyone to avoid their products wherever possible. Gold has some valid industrial uses, but diamonds are just bullshit and I think the world would be a better place if everyone believed that.

If De Beers found diamonds in my neighbourhood, I'd petition my local government to refuse them a permit to mine; if that permit was granted, I'd petition them to enforce high environmental standards and ensure that the externalities of that mining activity are appropriately priced.

Diamonds do have some industrial uses, but those can be lab-grown with absolute purity, and for jewelry, synthetic diamonds are actually 20-40% cheaper than mined diamonds and look better, whether that's because of a higher clarity or colors that "real" diamonds don't have. So there's really no reason to mine diamonds anymore except to market them as more expensive and more luxurious "real" diamonds, which is just bullshit. And there's no reason to buy mined diamonds unless you look to spend extra money and want to support an environmentally destructive and exploitative industry; the very same industry that financed wars to get what they want and tried to make sure that lab-grown diamonds couldn't be called diamonds even though they have the very same chemical composition so they could keep selling their blood diamonds without ethical and cheaper competition. Luckily, they lost that battle.

And since we can't create gold in labs yet, at least not more than a few atoms, it's actually better to buy diamond jewelry (as long they're lab-grown) than gold at this point. Just don't buy the De Beers lab-grown diamonds; even if those are ethically produced, we shouldn't support that company in any way, shape, or form.

I wonder what the chances are that you eat industrial animal products while signaling how concerned you are about the environment.

Wow. What an unfair statement. I am mostly vegan, drive as little as possible with my third hand high-mpg vehicle, and make a conscious effort to reduce reuse and recycle. However, yes I eat industrial animal products (not a lot but . . . ). Does that mean I'm just signaling because I think, and state, that cryptocurrency mining is a hugely wasteful environmentally damaging and morally dubious activity?

I bet I have very different beliefs than you in lots of things - and agree bitcoin is a massive waste.

I think this is a place where hippie vegans (sorry!) and redneck Luddites can agree :)

I never stated my position at all. Just asked what his is, since he sees no problem wasting massive amounts of energy on bitcoin. Many of the people caught up in cryptocommity are the ones turning around and posting about melting ice caps with no sense of irony or shame at all.

I could be entirely opposed to the idea of a tax solution to "fight" climate change while also being entirely opposed to bitcoin because of the uses of money laundering, drug purchasing, a My First Day Trading schemes.

I'm personally opposed to bitcoin for lots of reasons, mostly like kids think it's a decentralized currency, when really it's a very centralized commodity (any one of 12 people could effectively destroy bitcoin at any point in time) - but...

I'd be a hypocrite if I considered myself into bitcoin and environmental issues.

Because, at least from the municipality's perspective, supply is constrained.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com