HN user
The section on investments in technology and chemical recycling is probably most relevant to our discussion:
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/nl/pdf/2021/sectoren/gr...
Anecdotally, those that are leading these investments and innovations are aggressive about it.
I mean recyclable in a conventional sense the way most people understand it.
Energy cost is probably the single biggest obstacle for the technology I mentioned above. Renewable energy is changing this.
Most plastics will soon be a part of an efficient closed loop system. Regulations are driving some of this. However, the real driver is that these systems are incredibly profitable, and serve risk and resource management priorities as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon and others started accepting plastics and paper returns. Their consumption is massive and they already have a logistics closed loop in place.
Plastics are an incredible innovation and a valuable resource. Misinformation about their recyclability is a threat to their stewardship.
This is not true. Essentially, all plastics are recyclable, and it merely depends on the technology available.
This might be a little late, but it may be helpful:
https://singularityhub.com/2019/10/03/deep-learning-networks...
I don't think anyone is trying to disqualify DNNs. I think the difference might be an abstraction for a neuron vs an abstraction for the brain. Success or value doesn't necessarily equate to "human-like." The paper seems naive to, or ignore, prominent, long-running/standing related research that provides a stronger foundation and as far as I can tell includes what they propose. So, at least for me, I'm not sure what the contribution is.
I find it disappointing that the paper makes no mention of Numenta, TBToI or HTM. How is what they are proposing not already included in Numenta's work (informally, of course)? Plus, Numenta's work seems to go much further confronting biological plausibility head-on.
What is the best way to contact you?
On Lisp by Paul Graham is a great starting point. It's a quick read, it will give you a conceptual basis, while exciting and inspiring you to use it's power. After that just start using it. As others have mentioned, emacs, slime, etc. are helpful.
Thank you! Edited.
NB: Title edited for space.
From my perspective, this and similar programs, like Amazon Key for example, shifts the responsibility of a company's liabilities to the consumer, and generally leaves a bad taste. I think these programs are poorly conceived with the wrong motivation and self-serving intentions. I think it would be a good thing if consumers recognized these for what they are and pushed back against them.
These are the little things, relative to Paris for example, that end up being administrative/environmental tipping points. Years from now, a documentary will point to moments like this, and ask why no one was paying attention. Transparency in resources, or the lack thereof, can have far reaching diplomatic/political and economic impact.
NB: Title edited for space.
Direct link to thesis: http://schema.lib.cam.ac.uk/PR-PHD-05437_CUDL2017-reduced.pd...
Aren't we better served by question consumption broadly and our modes of consumption specifically, rather than questioning recycling?
You have both done well to articulate that it doesn't feel right, but do you have any actual proof against the value of recycling? And I don't mean trade-offs, I acknowledge recycling isn't perfect, but there are plenty of statistics that prove it is worthwhile.
Plastic saves lives and reduces waste. Medical devices/healthcare and food packaging are the only proof you need, but it goes far beyond that.
Societal mismanagement has turned plastic in to an environmental disaster/burden. We have only ourselves to blame, not "demon materials".
Recycling is an important tool in material management in a global context. It is not "the solution" and it is not misinformation, or a conspiracy perpetuated by the packaging industry or the plastics industry, or anyone else.
Society was not prepared for the growth or complexities of plastic waste. However, we are perfectly capable of innovating through and out of the current circumstances. This is particularly true as renewable energy becomes more accessible and less expensive. Technologies such as depolymerization, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion are all viable, scalable and in practice to varying degrees. Waste to energy or incineration has a long way to go, but it may prove to be worthwhile through further innovation. I've previously posted about carbon capture as well, which could work on it's own or with processes mentioned above.
It appears to me that the Precious Plastic people are doing good work. I don't think it's fair to diminish or dismiss that good work because we have collectively created a less than optimal system for resource management.
I think the value needs to be aligned with the associated network. If there is no network then I think you have increased risk of a token being a security, snake oil, or baseless speculation.
The Token Effect, by Ramon Recuero (http://blog.ycombinator.com/the-token-effect/) does a good job of emphasizing the role of a network and how value is aligned. From the blog post:
"Fairness is defined by rewarding good actors monetarily for contributing value to the network."
"Tokens allow decentralized protocols to capture the value of the network."
"In summary, tokens coordinate efforts in the network and motivate responsible participation."
The hype of ICOs has been focused on tokenizing everything, which doesn't necessarily create value. Going forward, I expect the emphasis to shift from tokenizing everything to creating networks out of everything, and tokenizing those networks. However, I also expect we will require numerous, obvious, practical examples (e.g. failures) before the community refocuses on networks as the source of value and tokens as yet another tool.
NB: Title edited for space.
NB: Title edited for space.
NB: Title edited for space.
NB: Title edited for space.
NB: Title edited for space.
NB: Title edited for space.
The full report is available here: https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FIW_2017_Rep...
NB: Title edited for space.
Please pardon any confusion on this point. What I am considering (I'm not really proposing anything) is offering a guaranteed amount of coin for working for a short period of time (3-6 months) leading up to an ICO. After the ICO the company would buy back all or a portion of the coin at the final ICO price. Beyond that the coin could be exchanged (ultimately for cash) on open exchanges.
From my perspective the work could be done remotely, full-time, part-time, on the side, essentially whatever you like. This will likely vary depending on the role and the work being done. As would the amount of coin.
I am not proposing peanuts, but rather a significant sum.
The advantage of coin in lieu of equity, at least in this context, is that the participants I am seeking input from could/would be fully cashed out much sooner than in a typical equity stake.
Additionally, the point of asking the question was to initiate a conversation with people that consider this an option for themselves. It really comes down to the success of the ICO event. So, good work could be rewarded handsomely on a very short timeline. Of course, this is not without risk, and the reason I am seeking input.
For those interested in coin:
Ask HN: Who is willing to work for coin? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14776408
Get involved and produce.
This is broadly true for any area of study.
Intern if you can do it to understand how and why things work the way they do.
Join clubs or start a new one. The ability to organize people and communicate well is generally useful.
Identify the needs of family members, friends or anyone and create something useful for them. Give it to them for free.