Here was a nice compact presentation on the principles of circular economy and also on the different ways we humans fuck up things (translated by me):
Aperol-Spritz’ coloring substance is prohibited in most countries. The reason it’s legal to use in the EU is: it’s a cultural asset.
OK, not everything is perfect in the EU.
Also she mentions that if everyone on earth would live like the average German, it would take 3 earth to support this. Surprisingly, it would take 3.1 earth if everyone would live like the average Russian.
OK, at least Germans aren’t the worst.
Other things I found really interesting (my translation)
Research showed that people who buy the usage of a product (Service Concept) rather than to by the product itself, tend to treat the product worse than if they owned it.
However, the cool thing is that the producer has an incentive (under the Service Concept) to build the products in a more sustainable way. Seems like there is a kind of homeostasis of evil
I also like the idea that the public sector could act as a role model to favor circular products or services. Why isn’t this applied to computing? I’m thinking for an public administration it would be great if it could rent computing capacity - but of course not in the sense of monstruous cloud service data centers, but as offering ready-set-up laptops/ desktops with a service agreement for a specific purpose and that those just work? Using Open Source software (like Linux and friends) would be in the interest again of the service provider, since it doesn’t require latest hardware and hence more sustainable, less energy consumption by usage and lower demand for more devices altogether. At the end 90% of the things done are emails, Excel-like files and document writing, like everyone did already 20 years ago.
Two reasons: Like is an adverb, but it is often informally used as a conjuction, instead of e.g., “as”. Or it’s being used without carrying any meaning.
A famous ad in the 1950s caused public outrage for it’s improper use of English
Winston Tastes Good, Like a Cigarette Should.
Like has always been widely misused by the illiterate; lately it has been taken up by the knowing and the well-informed, who find it catchy or liberating, and who use it as though they were slumming.
—Strunk & White, The Elements of Style, 1959
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/read-this-if-you-hate-the-word-like
free markets don’t really exist. The history of market regulation is often forgotten: if we had truely free markets everything would be up for sale including votes, humans, child labor, organs etc.
Example for free market failure: Albanian Pyramid Schemes. After the opening of the country after decades of isolation and no experience with a banking market, rampand Pyramid Schemes launched and collapsed within a few years due to non-existent regulation, that caused a state collapse.
Historically, rapid economic growth wasn’t the result of free markets and great innovation, but the state limiting liability for shareholdrs and investors. Before that, company owners as well as investors or shareholders were personally liable for everything. This also created a great imbalance regarding the interest of wellbeing of the company between employees, who usually can’t easily drop out (many reasons) and shareholders, who simply would have to sell their shares.
Capital has no nationality: International companies usually run critical core competencies in their home country, because it is very hard to move those due to cultural difference or established supply chains.
[…] the first purpose of statistical modeling is interpretation. It is one of the fundamental human nature that we want to know the reasonings and mechanisms of phenomena, and to acquire new knowledge. (p. 23)
The problem with these methods [machine learning algorithms] is that they cannot fully take advantage of domain knowledge or past experiences about a phenomenon. (p.23-24)
On 30th July 2022 Martin Mobarak allegedly burned a drawing from Frida Kahlo that was turned into ten thousand NFTs (cryptographically unique digital items) that can now be bought individually. Done purportely to raise child charity funds, while NFT market had been dropping. It’s yet unclear whether the drawing was original. Mexico’s National Museum which was said to receive part of the revenue hasn’t seen a donation yet (and I guess wouldn’t accept).
Does the destruction of original, irreplacable, highly valued art in pursuit of financial growth mark a point of perversion in a capitalistic society? It’s strickingly absurd to replace an already unique item by it’s digital version - something that could be copied without loss indefinitely at minimal cost - only to establish ownership by costly (because of blockchain) cryptography - for exactly one such copy.