> Firms are already incentivised by profit to not waste
Anecdotal but my perception is that clothing has become so extremely low quality, and I assume dirt cheap to produce, that they have less of an incentive to let it go to waste. When I buy socks they get holes after wearing them 7 times, and then they go in the bin too.
This would been that more competition would be good for the environment because it would drive down prices and margins, and thus the incentive to overproduce. But this rule actually decreases the competitive pressure and increases margins because market exit barriers = market entry barriers
Update: I made a silly math mistake. That's $9 profit per shirt. So if you make 100 shirts but only sell 50 and burn the rest, that's $450 profit. You make $4.50 per shirt manufactured.
Stated another way: you can total up the manufacturing cost of the shirts you destroyed ($50) and distributed evenly among the ones you sold (50/50=$1 each) and just add that to the cost of each shirt you sell when calculating profit. Same result.
There is in France a kind of shared network of hot water used to heat up our homes (well, those that are connected and paying into the system at least). Part of the system works by burning trash and capturing the heat in the process. Supposedly they also work on using renewable energies to do the work.
Some people argue that the whole system is going against the objectives of recycling stuff but at least it's better than just burning it to get rid of it.
Thank you for letting me know, I’ll update both links asap.
nsa.tech is a domain name I acquired some years ago for fun and I’ve been meaning to use for some time now. I understand that most people know of an agency that uses the acronym but hey! We’ve been thinking “network secure access” around the office ;)
There is no "fundamental free-ness" for vids stored on YT. Videos are stored to serve the business plan of Youtube and under the rules Google sets for them, where they serve their advertisement and surveillance capitalism business.
Looking at the Wikipedia page for "Commons" [0] the first meaning of commons "accessible to all members of a society" is not really true, unless "on the whim of the YT platform". The second meaning of "natural resources that groups of people (communities, user groups) manage for individual and collective benefit" is also not really true. There is no understanding that google will take any other than their own benefit into account. The third meaning of commons on that page is closest I guess to what is needed:
> Commons can also be defined as a social practice of governing a resource not by state or market but by a community of users that self-governs the resource through institutions that it creates.
And that is certainly not what Youtube can be considered to be. Youtube videos are not in the commons, but kept on a proprietary platform where the proprietor is the sole decider what happens to its availability there.
Thanks for the list, but I didn't really understand what you are suggesting. If I host on any of these public services, people will need to create an account there.
Hypergrowth can be natural. Random example but what if you designed a microblogging service and all of the sudden the biggest platform gets bought by a facist and users come flocking? You could start turning users away or you could work as fast as you can to accommodate them and make small mistakes along the way. Both of these are reasonable decisions and neither one is really wrong.
That's demand driven and organic, at least, and it's not the first thing that comes to mind with hypergrowth, it's just scale.
Instead, I think of hypergrowth as a supply-side attempt to capture a larger market in a highly inorganic way and to also capture the absurdly high valuation that comes with it. Usually through VC.
Virality would be a factor in this too, which is totally demand-side even if there are levers that can be pulled to induce it artificially, but that's getting towards dead internet theory and engagement-bait I think and it's more on the media/consumption side of things.
Not books, but some inspiring resources. FModel [0] is a set of patterns for functional reactive DDD on the basis of event sourcing. In particular the Decider pattern is a great way to model aggregates, and test them using Scenario's that read like Gherkin in code (given.. when.. then). Combines well with actors to represent aggregates.
On the BEAM used by Erlang, Elixir, and Gleam actors are called processes, and this guide [1] delves into domain modeling with them.
Anecdotal but my perception is that clothing has become so extremely low quality, and I assume dirt cheap to produce, that they have less of an incentive to let it go to waste. When I buy socks they get holes after wearing them 7 times, and then they go in the bin too.
reply