I think the reality is much more grim. I believe we are now firmly in the territory where it is incontestable. (My opinion was cemented after reading Overshoot: How the World Surrendered to Climate Breakdown by Andreas Malm, Wim Carton)
We will be spending much of our upcoming years trying to get people and capital to accept that fact, before we can even start thinking about what little we can even do. By which point, we may actually just be having to scramble to mitigate the immediate sequelae of the changed climate, rather than focus our efforts to fix the underlying cause.
I agree with your sentiment, but I have a hard time imagining any alternative action scientists could take besides publishing and warning.
Science is best when it’s purely that, I’ve seen plenty of living examples and read about past ones where science mixed with politics or overt profit motives don’t end well. Surely there must be examples where the contrary has been the case, but I am biased, and I would wager that it ended poorly more often than well.
I would much rather have politicians that heed scientific results than scientists springboarding into politics.
Are you perchance talking about deSEC? I've also switched to them, and thought that it was too much work to send an email and wait for replies, so I ended up using dummy inboxes for my other, lesser important domains.
Though I guess it's still a good thing they do this? At the time I remember being mildly inconvenienced, but not enough to actually care. I just remember thinking, "How is this nonprofit going to handle all that support volume?".
You're right in that money is not the only motivator for people. I would also argue that if you told them the _real_ reason, aka your own actual motivation behind the offer, the number of people who would actually be "playing" would be much lower.
I would be motivated to collect free data if it meant I was helping save lives, with that help not being behind a paywall.
I would be motivated to play a free game with ads just for the fun of it.
I would not be motivated to play a free game just for the fun of it if my playing of the game was furthering some faceless corporation's profit motives.
In fact, in that last scenario, I would feel tricked, and it would take a non-trivial amount of money for me to not feel that way.
Same thing with social media. If they clearly disclosed that the more time they spend glued to their apps the more money the company makes the majority would be turned off.
I would just like to add some cautionary anec-data: there are widespread cases in certain jurisdictions where rightsholders are known to seed the same torrents themselves, just to turn around and send love letters to leechers that connect to them. A good example is Germany with movies and TV shows.
Now, I don't know if, say, Wolters Kluver would/does the same thing, and what the realistic risk of an individual receiving such a letter is, but I think it makes it worthwhile to go over the actual law in your jurisdiction before diving head first on things like this.
I'm not saying it's wrong to seed these things, I'm just saying it might be a good idea to weigh the risks if you don't have a cool 500€ in cash to part ways with.
I don't think there's any country where a copyright holder can send you a copy of their work and then sue you for receiving it. If they sent you a copy, they gave you permission to have it.
Even if there is implied consent this way, they’re probably not doing this- just finding peers sharing the torrent and receiving from them - then they have evidence of actual sharing.
I don't know why you were downvoted, I think for the right purpose tape drives are great.
Used drives from a few generations back work just fine, and are affordable. I have an LTO-5 drive, and new tapes are around $30 where I am. One tape holds 1,5TB uncompressed.
I think they are great for critical data. I have documents and photos on them.
I'm not 100% up to speed with the current standing of things, but tapes (specifically the LTO technology) is still being relied on very heavily by the enterprise, both in data centers for things like cold storage or critical backups, and other corporate uses. Archival use is also very strong with libraries and other such institutions having large tape libraries with autoloaders and all that automation jazz. The LTO-5 generation I mentioned was released in 2010, and the first LTO generation was released in 2000 I believe. The current generation is LTO-10, with an uncompressed capacity of 30TB. New LTO tapes are still being produced, the last batch I purchased was made in 2023.
The LTO consortium consists of HP, IBM and one other company I believe. Now, in my opinion, none of this guarantees the longevity of the medium any more than any other medium, but when I initially looked into it, this was enough to convince me to buy a drive and a couple of tapes.
My reasoning was that with the advertised longevity of 30 years under "ideal archival conditions", if I can get 10 years of mileage from tapes that are just sitting on my non-environmentally-controlled shelf, that means I'll only have to hunt down new tapes 3 times in my remaining lifetime, and after that it will be someone else's problem.
I’m pretty out of the loop on this one - could I ask you to chime in why you feel so strongly about Neuralink? I knew they were ethicaly in the gray area what with the test animal living conditions etc., but I don’t know much beyond that.
In the long term (if the do have a long term, I expect them to fail due to technical reasons i.e. fibrosis around electrodes not being a solved problem)
