6 ms·

Yeah does Reddit create value? Ignoring their advertising. They also consume energy. The energy comment is so naive. Move to renewable nuclear and who cares. M

Yeah does Reddit create value? Ignoring their advertising. They also consume energy. The energy comment is so naive. Move to renewable nuclear and who cares. Most people that complain can't even calc the marginal increase in net energy usage for their country.

piva00 5y ago
> Move to renewable nuclear and who cares. Who cares? Any society which could use that energy to actually produce some value instead of cracking a hash. Wasted energy is just that, wasted.
anoonmoose 5y ago
I mean, I think Reddit creates value. There are a lot of very positive communities on there that are helping a lot of people. It's a lot easier for me to see the positive value created by those communities than it is for me to see the positive value being actively created by cryptocurrencies.
- ls15 5y ago
  You haven't heard of crypto communities?
Loughla 5y ago
Reddit provides entertainment? Are you claiming that bitcoin serves as an entertainment item? >renewable nuclear Was that a misprint or intentional? That's a real question. I've never heard nuclear be referred to as renewable. That's an interesting take.
- rajin444 5y ago
  When your concern is global warming most things in the world today can’t be justified outside of necessities including Reddit. If your argument is “it’s a waste because we’re destroying the environment for no gain” all entertainment falls in that bucket as well.
oneplane 5y ago
That's a whole lot of straw man and not a lot of reality right there. The "network" is still useless, it still creates no value and it still consumes energy that could be used to actually create something valuable instead.
- hanselot 5y ago
falcolas 5y ago
> Yeah does Reddit create value? Yes. Entertainment value aside, it's a place for some remarkably useful discussions on niche topics. > Move to renewable nuclear and who cares. Renewable Nuclear? I haven't heard of that. If you mean renewables and nuclear, aside from the fact that it requires real money and a lot of time to do - there's still an absurd amount of energy being wasted for a single transaction. Recording transactions is a well explored space, and requiring energy on the same magnitude as homes or countries to do so is absurd.
- landemva 5y ago
  Someone was willing to pay for the transctions, so they paid the amount of value it provided to them. I am curious why you think you can out-guess voluntary economic transactions by other people. Their bodies, their choices.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    The payment for transactions is using the same 'currency' as the transactions (and for a time "paid" for by the act of creating more BTC), so the actual cost of the electricity is not clearly linked to the transaction cost. And the cost to our climate is absurdly higher than the individual $2-3 with all the previously closed coal plants being spun back up to facilitate all the transactions.
    - landemva 5y ago
      You have something there with '... not clearly linked to the transaction cost.' Maybe you would be supportive of environmental parity tariffs to price the environmental problems created by manufacturing in locations which spew pollution. A few dollars extra on price of an iPhone or solar panels could even become a status symbol.
dbingham 5y ago
1) Nuclear is not renewable. 2) Reddit arguably produces value by facilitating information exchange and dialog. (The quality of that value varies highly by community and it's fair to argue about whether Reddit as a whole is a net negative or net positive.) 3) Bitcoin produces nothing. It's a place for rich people to gamble, and for poorer people to get screwed trying to gamble. If people want to gamble, they can play poker and it costs zero energy. We need to stop pretending energy is limitless. It's not. And we need to start factoring that in to our decisions about what technologies/businesses/activities are affordable/worthwhile and what aren't.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  I mean nuclear isn’t renewable but neither is the sun and thus solar, wind, and hydroelectric power on a long enough time horizon. The reality is that there is enough nuclear fuel in the oceans alone to provide for thousands of years of clean energy. And after that plenty of nuclear fuel on the moon and other planets to keep us going.
- landemva 5y ago
  Malthus lost this argument a long time ago. 'We need to stop pretending energy is limitless.' Human ingenuity applied to the abundant energy available from both short and long term effects of the sun give me great hope. The barrier is basically politics.
  - dbingham 5y ago
    Malthus didn't lose this argument - malthusian assessment of scarcity ultimately lives at the heart of capitalism and free markets. If it didn't, we'd all have access to whatever we wanted. Instead, we use markets as the best tool to distribute scarce resources. And in many countries we include the basic necessities of life (food, housing, clothing, etc) as those scarce resources. Energy is limited and production of energy has costs and side effects. Sure, over time we can increase our production of energy, but again - with costs and side effects depending on how we choose to do it. And at any point in time our access to energy is limited and we need to make choices about how that access is distributed. Right now we use markets to do that. But we've clearly seen that markets, with out intentional, ethical and moral guidance will often make insane choices. And note, I say this as someone who believes post-scarcity (with in wise limits) for many of the basics is more or less with in our technological reach. IE. We can reach a point of post-scarcity for food, housing, clothing, energy where everyone has what they need and a good chunk of what they want as long as we don't let anyone hoard and insane amount of these resources or burn them away in frivilous uses.
shmatt 5y ago
Reddit profits don't rely on cheap subsidized electricity in a 3rd world country

piva00 5y ago

> Move to renewable nuclear and who cares. Who cares? Any society which could use that energy to actually produce some value instead of cracking a hash. Wasted energy is just that, wasted.

anoonmoose 5y ago

I mean, I think Reddit creates value. There are a lot of very positive communities on there that are helping a lot of people. It's a lot easier for me to see the positive value created by those communities than it is for me to see the positive value being actively created by cryptocurrencies.

ls15 5y ago
You haven't heard of crypto communities?

Loughla 5y ago

Reddit provides entertainment? Are you claiming that bitcoin serves as an entertainment item? >renewable nuclear Was that a misprint or intentional? That's a real question. I've never heard nuclear be referred to as renewable. That's an interesting take.

rajin444 5y ago
When your concern is global warming most things in the world today can’t be justified outside of necessities including Reddit. If your argument is “it’s a waste because we’re destroying the environment for no gain” all entertainment falls in that bucket as well.

oneplane 5y ago

That's a whole lot of straw man and not a lot of reality right there. The "network" is still useless, it still creates no value and it still consumes energy that could be used to actually create something valuable instead.

hanselot 5y ago

falcolas 5y ago

> Yeah does Reddit create value? Yes. Entertainment value aside, it's a place for some remarkably useful discussions on niche topics. > Move to renewable nuclear and who cares. Renewable Nuclear? I haven't heard of that. If you mean renewables and nuclear, aside from the fact that it requires real money and a lot of time to do - there's still an absurd amount of energy being wasted for a single transaction. Recording transactions is a well explored space, and requiring energy on the same magnitude as homes or countries to do so is absurd.

landemva 5y ago
Someone was willing to pay for the transctions, so they paid the amount of value it provided to them. I am curious why you think you can out-guess voluntary economic transactions by other people. Their bodies, their choices.
- falcolas 5y ago
  The payment for transactions is using the same 'currency' as the transactions (and for a time "paid" for by the act of creating more BTC), so the actual cost of the electricity is not clearly linked to the transaction cost. And the cost to our climate is absurdly higher than the individual $2-3 with all the previously closed coal plants being spun back up to facilitate all the transactions.
  - landemva 5y ago
    You have something there with '... not clearly linked to the transaction cost.' Maybe you would be supportive of environmental parity tariffs to price the environmental problems created by manufacturing in locations which spew pollution. A few dollars extra on price of an iPhone or solar panels could even become a status symbol.

dbingham 5y ago

1) Nuclear is not renewable. 2) Reddit arguably produces value by facilitating information exchange and dialog. (The quality of that value varies highly by community and it's fair to argue about whether Reddit as a whole is a net negative or net positive.) 3) Bitcoin produces nothing. It's a place for rich people to gamble, and for poorer people to get screwed trying to gamble. If people want to gamble, they can play poker and it costs zero energy. We need to stop pretending energy is limitless. It's not. And we need to start factoring that in to our decisions about what technologies/businesses/activities are affordable/worthwhile and what aren't.

oceanplexian 5y ago
I mean nuclear isn’t renewable but neither is the sun and thus solar, wind, and hydroelectric power on a long enough time horizon. The reality is that there is enough nuclear fuel in the oceans alone to provide for thousands of years of clean energy. And after that plenty of nuclear fuel on the moon and other planets to keep us going.
landemva 5y ago
Malthus lost this argument a long time ago. 'We need to stop pretending energy is limitless.' Human ingenuity applied to the abundant energy available from both short and long term effects of the sun give me great hope. The barrier is basically politics.
- dbingham 5y ago
  Malthus didn't lose this argument - malthusian assessment of scarcity ultimately lives at the heart of capitalism and free markets. If it didn't, we'd all have access to whatever we wanted. Instead, we use markets as the best tool to distribute scarce resources. And in many countries we include the basic necessities of life (food, housing, clothing, etc) as those scarce resources. Energy is limited and production of energy has costs and side effects. Sure, over time we can increase our production of energy, but again - with costs and side effects depending on how we choose to do it. And at any point in time our access to energy is limited and we need to make choices about how that access is distributed. Right now we use markets to do that. But we've clearly seen that markets, with out intentional, ethical and moral guidance will often make insane choices. And note, I say this as someone who believes post-scarcity (with in wise limits) for many of the basics is more or less with in our technological reach. IE. We can reach a point of post-scarcity for food, housing, clothing, energy where everyone has what they need and a good chunk of what they want as long as we don't let anyone hoard and insane amount of these resources or burn them away in frivilous uses.

shmatt 5y ago

Reddit profits don't rely on cheap subsidized electricity in a 3rd world country