We should have these power collectors/transmitters in orbit around the Sun, pointed down at the Earth to collectors floating on the seas. Where they could electrolyze water, or any of a number of other ways to get the energy back to the land where it can be consumed. Emissions free, vastly more power than we can use for the foreseeable future.
The beams would have to be only a few times the intensity of sunlight, but shine all day/night (courtesy of geosync relay satellites) over a few dozen square kilometers on each station. No danger from a beam missing the target, though extra protection added by laser interlocks back from the surface to space that drop both up and down beams when the down beam goes off the target.
That system would require several $billion, perhaps several hundred $billion, investment. But at $0.01:KWh, and $100B is only 1KW:m^2 * 3intensity * 36Km^2 * 6stations * $0.01:KWh = 22.5 months payback time. That's better than 50% ROI, on hundreds of $billions. Plus the value of eliminating emissions, terrestrial fuel production and distribution, energy wars and corruption. And regaining the envy of the world.
So raising the debt ceiling will cause economic collapse, but instantly shutting down the US credit won't? Because the US will be able to borrow enough to spend - that will destroy the country.
I see. Income taxes that corporations and their richest currently pay while amassing the largest stack of profit of all time must be reduced, because they make manufacturing unprofitable. The US manufacturing industry, the largest in the world and in history, is run for the fun of it but not the profits.
Competition is good. The copyright industry depends on stuff to copyright, which is produced here. They've already got an extraordinarily advantageous environment here - if it's not good enough, they'd have left. Let them speak French, or German, or with a British accent, or Chinese - whatever their alternative choice.
The idea that the American people are hostage to any industry that demands unjust special protections and subsidies is insane. They didn't get to dominance from America by chance or by legislative subsidy. And they all know it. I've worked with many people in the copyright industry, from creators to managers to execs to lawyers. In NYC where I'm from, in California and Toronto where I lived. There is nothing to their threats to leave the US, or Soho for that matter.
Besides, the copyright industry is filled with the dumbest people it's ever had, since the exodus to other network business in the 1990s. The music business is just the Miss America of the stupid greed pageant. Their power and legacy riches come almost exclusively from their century of legislative handouts and technology revolutions. Without immersion in the US culture and marketplace they're as doomed as their fringe foreign competition always has been. A new generation of American content producers and distributors would immediately take their place, made even more powerful by protection of their free speech/press rights and the galaxy of content to reuse, embracing their young fans who do it themselves at the fringes.
No, you earned a curt dismissal. See my extensive posting history for plenty of examples of polite disagreement with people worthy of it. Don't flatter yourself with thoughts of inspiring hate. "Grow up"? You're the one reducing this to some ego conflict. Read the post and see why you should shut up.
This is the second nuke plant to face meltdown within a few months. "This never happens" is not a reasonable argument anymore.
You admit that you're no expert, yet you're nattering about the serious problem of the nuke people being too concerned about dotting checklists to actually run their plants. You don't know anything about it. You're either a pure anti-regulation ideologue or just a pure idiot. Shut up already.
NRC inspectors concluded that at flooding levels above 1,008 feet, the plant "would experience a loss of offsite power and loss of intake structure" and water pumps providing essential cooling water to the plant.
In that case, "the plant would be incapable of reaching cold shutdown" with normal operations -- a fundamental safety requirement imposed by the NRC.
Did you know that water was now at 1007 feet today? That upstream continues to flood, and the lake now completely surrounding the plant will last until at least August, during which any extra rains would push the flood back to and past 1008 feet? Past the 1010 feet that are the top of the walls?
How about what happens when this plant goes Fukushima, or even a fraction of it? When its extremely toxic stockpile washed down the swollen Missouri, poisoning all the downstream land now flooded but later necessary to return to being America's most valuable farmland?
You say "all things considered" so easily, but you've considered nothing. You're not qualified to say what's acceptable here. Stop posting and get out of the way of people working now to limit these nuke catastrophes to just the few we've had. And insulate your house some more, so at least you're doing something worthwhile to get us out of this mess.
No, it's well known that Peak Oil production is within a decade of today, and strong evidence to believe it's a few years in the past already. The "untapped bounty" is more BS from the oil corps and their government cronies who brought you the Iraq "it will pay for itself" War, and all the "restated" (lowered) proven reserve "estimates" dropping in Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria...
The rest of the world pays a lot more than the US' inflated currency for oil already, so globally your "costs more is proof" is already proven.
The "untapped reserves" are as economically sane as purifying billions of cubic meters of seawater for the gold it contains. That is, not sane. But so pleasing for the naive mind to say to itself, smugly insulated from facts and reality.
But you somehow believe that the US has the largest remaining oil reserves. As your own article states, neither the environmental nor extraction costs are worth the value of what's down there, trapped farther than even the stuff that BP showed was statistically too costly to drill for, when something goes "unexpectedly" (though not unexpectably) wrong. Though people like you will insist on spending every penny we've got left to invest in doing it some way that isn't destroying us fairly quickly instead on pumping more poison into the sky. Indeed, you'll insist that after we pump the oil and gas within reach into the Greenhouse that it's now too late to stop climate change, so we might as well just burn all the coal without bothering to clean it up at all.
The entire Midwest is covered in floodplains and tornado alleys, as we're seeing every year now.
But we don't have to build nukesthere, where the deaths extend far beyond the locals in space and in time when the nuke catastrophe happens.
3/4 of a million people in one of America's oldest cities is worth building and maintaining (real, F5) levees. A nuke plant in Nebraska is not. It's repleacable. New Orleans is not, even if you have now way of knowing that in your own limited life.
All you nuke fetishists who tag any nuke-extension story with "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense", tell me now that these risks don't exist, because nobody got killed or something.
Not really. The "ifs" you postulate, whether energy for the chimes or sporadic visitation, are at odds with the remoteness strategy for preservation. But there's no reason to believe the location(s) will be remote for the next 10,000 years. It's not uncommon for an ice age to recede, civilizations come and go, and another ice age arrive over that scale. And we're just starting a significant climate change right now that can reverberate back and forth for the next 100 centuries.
Yet around the world are artifacts like pyramids and standing stones that are known to mark time, yet we cannot read them like "clocks" even after decades of study. The preservation of the idea of any artifact as clock is the first order of business. Yet it's an afterthought at best among the Long Now org. I was there when they were thinking this thing up, as I was part of the Dead Media group run by Bruce Sterling, who was associated with Stewart Brand's pals in this related endeavor.
Look, Stewart Brand is an instigator. His Baby Boomers are proving their point about the current limited appreciation of anything "long" by building this clock according to the naive view of such a project. I happen to be from a later generation than theirs, and I can see a little better the real problem of duration they're raising. Perhaps a little better due to their work. Even a bad example is an example to learn from that the example didn't have to learn from themself. But that doesn't mean this clock isn't folly. Indeed, it underscores its folly to get any value from it.
Using your computer's spare cycles isn't wearing it out, or possibly damaging it, or using nearly as much energy as driving your car around. Your analogy isn't useful at all.
People still might not want their PC's spare cycles used in this way, but it's not like driving their car.
What makes you say that we radiate any less telecom waves into space now than we ever did? I'd say we blubber far more now from Earth, even if it's a much smaller percentage of our overall telecom total.
I would want to see scientific problems that the website publishers could solve for money distributed to the website consumers. That way sites like Wikipedia could fund their operation scaled to their audience.
Indeed I'd like to see a cross-website distributed credit accumulate, so I could purchase from websites against my accumulated credit from my computing on their behalf. Websites that split with me fairly, say 50-50%, their revenue from my computation would get my preferred business, weighted against their intrinsic value. Eg. I'd be more likely to read the same news story published by news sites that paid me more of what they got from my distributed computation.
How about describing how "thinking like an engineer" specifically doomed Google Health and Power Meter? Those are the subject of this story. It's hard to even think about the examples you gave within the context of the facts we're actually talking about.
Except they don't. Nearly all buildings are inefficient in ways that are fairly cheap and simple to fix, once the specific problem is identified. Very few of them are identified. The efficiency upgrade industry should be 100x larger, but most people are ignorant, inefficient, and even smug about it.
No, airsealing buildings to retain heat (or keep cool) and maintain humidity has been probably the highest priority of both new buildings and retrofit for at least a decade. "Breathable" buildings are energy inefficient. Preventing mold with the minimum mechanical ventilation and proper materials in construction is much cheaper and effective over a building's operational life. You are the one who is 100% wrong, at least in the modern construction era.
No, that scenario is correct. "Accidentally setting it to run 9PM-3PM" happens because the systems were installed before anyone considered conserving, when the building takes hours to preheat in the morning. So there was no timer, no indoor/outdoor thermostat, nothing. I work for a company that installs systems like that, and the scenario described here is overwhelmingly typical.
What you described is precisely what happens. When you're not just the Mayor of Sim City, in the real world there are real limitations to what is actually done, especially by organizations large enough to own buildings. We're lucky that it turns out that most of our current energy problems can be solved by just better organization, clearer information, and explicit adoption of people who tell us about our behavior compared to what's achievable.
US Energy Group has installed Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS) in thousands of NYC buildings, including public schools (tuition: $0). In one school, indeed the entire large building (1000 students + staff) was being heated 5PM-8AM just to keep the gym heated (through its high ceilings, with people exercising) until the BEMS showed it to the Department of Education. Yet practically all of the NYC buildings' owners refuse to consider buying a BEMS unless the payback time is under 3 years, usually under a year. 10-25% ROI is dismissed, even as no other investment can bring even a good chance of that return. While utility inflation guarantees it will be even higher ROI, especially over longer than a few years.
Even among the most notorious moneygrubbers, NYC landlords, it takes a law like NYC LL84 to force everyone to even count up how much they're consuming in energy every year. Energy efficiency consciousness in the US is so primitive that these ubercapitalists must be forced by the public to look at how much they're consuming, let alone how much they can save by doing some of the very many things that pay for themselves promptly.
I disagree with them building a durable physical clock and claiming success. But your post shows that you didn't get the first thing right about the Long Now project. Even this clock's design folly was useful, because it shows how far so many (probably practically all) of us are from having truly longterm vision skills.
A project to build a clock that will ring periodically through 10,000 years must include assurance that people will recognize the clock ringing, and what time it is on it, or it's just a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear. It would demonstrate nothing about a long duration "now" in planning, execution or just thinking through as a span, except that we presently suck at it.
Which is why this project is folly. All its effort is making a physical object durable, which is of course no assurance of longevity. The chances are high that sometime in the next 10,000 years some people (if not a nonhuman natural event, like volcano) will damage, dismantle or disable the physical clock - no matter how strong some of their ancestors once made it. But even if it does last, without ensuring people around throughout the 10,000 years can read it when it rings will mean they have failed to make a "10,000 clock", though they might have made a "10,000 year machine".
The project should focus on how to enable people to recognize that it's a clock ringing through its 10,000 year lifetime. And indeed the project could be limited to only that: ensuring that people can read how stars, the Sun, the Moon and planets align to "ring" when they reach certain layouts would use the much more long lived celestial bodies as a durable clock. If they want to build a machine that will point to the skies every decade/century/millennium that's a decent next step, even if the machine is just the caption to the real clock. And to the real achievement: planning 10,000 years of viable function.
No, the right is defined by authoritarian ideology, centralized control of people but minimal control of business groups (corporations, trade associations), valuing property higher than labor, enforcement of principles by coercion. The left is defined by voluntary ideology, decentralized control of people but centralized control of business groups, valuing labor higher than property, encouragement of principles by incentive.
There is little to no left in the US. There is a lot of right, to a mostly greater or somewhat lesser degree, especially among government officials.
But you're the one claiming equivalence between left and right. Yet when asked you claim that the terms mean nothing. I say your equivalence is simply false.
Please give me some examples of those "on the left" who do exactly the same thing. Note: not all Democrats are "left" - indeed, few are.
And also note: I said "other directions", not just "the other direction". The "left vs right" framing is a strawman, since there's little "left" in the US, but many (actual, if not properly identified) alternatives to the right.
The US dominates the global copyright industry. The WTO TRIPS and Berne convention do little or nothing to protect our free speech/press. The US forcing the global copyright regimes to adopt our protection of people's rights would be a win for both our freedom and for legitimate, sustainable commerce. But if the business as usual of copyright commerce were impaired by new tariffs, that would force content creation back to its basic motives and the higher quality, if lower quantity, that they produce.
Slashdot Mirror
But why build 15x as many collectors? And if you store energy as heat, you cut drastically the efficiency of recovering electricity from it.
Besides, the space infrastructure would be useful for powering activities in space. And indeed it would be cool.
We should have these power collectors/transmitters in orbit around the Sun, pointed down at the Earth to collectors floating on the seas. Where they could electrolyze water, or any of a number of other ways to get the energy back to the land where it can be consumed. Emissions free, vastly more power than we can use for the foreseeable future.
The beams would have to be only a few times the intensity of sunlight, but shine all day/night (courtesy of geosync relay satellites) over a few dozen square kilometers on each station. No danger from a beam missing the target, though extra protection added by laser interlocks back from the surface to space that drop both up and down beams when the down beam goes off the target.
That system would require several $billion, perhaps several hundred $billion, investment. But at $0.01:KWh, and $100B is only 1KW:m^2 * 3intensity * 36Km^2 * 6stations * $0.01:KWh = 22.5 months payback time. That's better than 50% ROI, on hundreds of $billions. Plus the value of eliminating emissions, terrestrial fuel production and distribution, energy wars and corruption. And regaining the envy of the world.
So raising the debt ceiling will cause economic collapse, but instantly shutting down the US credit won't? Because the US will be able to borrow enough to spend - that will destroy the country.
I see. Income taxes that corporations and their richest currently pay while amassing the largest stack of profit of all time must be reduced, because they make manufacturing unprofitable. The US manufacturing industry, the largest in the world and in history, is run for the fun of it but not the profits.
You Republicans are stupid.
Competition is good. The copyright industry depends on stuff to copyright, which is produced here. They've already got an extraordinarily advantageous environment here - if it's not good enough, they'd have left. Let them speak French, or German, or with a British accent, or Chinese - whatever their alternative choice.
The idea that the American people are hostage to any industry that demands unjust special protections and subsidies is insane. They didn't get to dominance from America by chance or by legislative subsidy. And they all know it. I've worked with many people in the copyright industry, from creators to managers to execs to lawyers. In NYC where I'm from, in California and Toronto where I lived. There is nothing to their threats to leave the US, or Soho for that matter.
Besides, the copyright industry is filled with the dumbest people it's ever had, since the exodus to other network business in the 1990s. The music business is just the Miss America of the stupid greed pageant. Their power and legacy riches come almost exclusively from their century of legislative handouts and technology revolutions. Without immersion in the US culture and marketplace they're as doomed as their fringe foreign competition always has been. A new generation of American content producers and distributors would immediately take their place, made even more powerful by protection of their free speech/press rights and the galaxy of content to reuse, embracing their young fans who do it themselves at the fringes.
We have nothing to lose but our crappy reruns.
No, you earned a curt dismissal. See my extensive posting history for plenty of examples of polite disagreement with people worthy of it. Don't flatter yourself with thoughts of inspiring hate. "Grow up"? You're the one reducing this to some ego conflict. Read the post and see why you should shut up.
This is the second nuke plant to face meltdown within a few months. "This never happens" is not a reasonable argument anymore.
You admit that you're no expert, yet you're nattering about the serious problem of the nuke people being too concerned about dotting checklists to actually run their plants. You don't know anything about it. You're either a pure anti-regulation ideologue or just a pure idiot. Shut up already.
Yet another nuke absolutist. We need power, therefore we need nuke power? No we don't.
How can you talk about "one of the lowest risk, cleanest" power sources in this story? Didn't you notice that today floodwater entered the plant building after its protective berm collapsed yesterday - the story we're discussing here? Did you know that
Did you know that water was now at 1007 feet today? That upstream continues to flood, and the lake now completely surrounding the plant will last until at least August, during which any extra rains would push the flood back to and past 1008 feet? Past the 1010 feet that are the top of the walls?
How about what happens when this plant goes Fukushima, or even a fraction of it? When its extremely toxic stockpile washed down the swollen Missouri, poisoning all the downstream land now flooded but later necessary to return to being America's most valuable farmland?
You say "all things considered" so easily, but you've considered nothing. You're not qualified to say what's acceptable here. Stop posting and get out of the way of people working now to limit these nuke catastrophes to just the few we've had. And insulate your house some more, so at least you're doing something worthwhile to get us out of this mess.
No, it's well known that Peak Oil production is within a decade of today, and strong evidence to believe it's a few years in the past already. The "untapped bounty" is more BS from the oil corps and their government cronies who brought you the Iraq "it will pay for itself" War, and all the "restated" (lowered) proven reserve "estimates" dropping in Iraq, Kuwait, Nigeria...
The rest of the world pays a lot more than the US' inflated currency for oil already, so globally your "costs more is proof" is already proven.
The "untapped reserves" are as economically sane as purifying billions of cubic meters of seawater for the gold it contains. That is, not sane. But so pleasing for the naive mind to say to itself, smugly insulated from facts and reality.
But you somehow believe that the US has the largest remaining oil reserves. As your own article states, neither the environmental nor extraction costs are worth the value of what's down there, trapped farther than even the stuff that BP showed was statistically too costly to drill for, when something goes "unexpectedly" (though not unexpectably) wrong. Though people like you will insist on spending every penny we've got left to invest in doing it some way that isn't destroying us fairly quickly instead on pumping more poison into the sky. Indeed, you'll insist that after we pump the oil and gas within reach into the Greenhouse that it's now too late to stop climate change, so we might as well just burn all the coal without bothering to clean it up at all.
The entire Midwest is covered in floodplains and tornado alleys, as we're seeing every year now.
But we don't have to build nukesthere, where the deaths extend far beyond the locals in space and in time when the nuke catastrophe happens.
3/4 of a million people in one of America's oldest cities is worth building and maintaining (real, F5) levees. A nuke plant in Nebraska is not. It's repleacable. New Orleans is not, even if you have now way of knowing that in your own limited life.
All you nuke fetishists who tag any nuke-extension story with "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense", tell me now that these risks don't exist, because nobody got killed or something.
Not really. The "ifs" you postulate, whether energy for the chimes or sporadic visitation, are at odds with the remoteness strategy for preservation. But there's no reason to believe the location(s) will be remote for the next 10,000 years. It's not uncommon for an ice age to recede, civilizations come and go, and another ice age arrive over that scale. And we're just starting a significant climate change right now that can reverberate back and forth for the next 100 centuries.
Yet around the world are artifacts like pyramids and standing stones that are known to mark time, yet we cannot read them like "clocks" even after decades of study. The preservation of the idea of any artifact as clock is the first order of business. Yet it's an afterthought at best among the Long Now org. I was there when they were thinking this thing up, as I was part of the Dead Media group run by Bruce Sterling, who was associated with Stewart Brand's pals in this related endeavor.
Look, Stewart Brand is an instigator. His Baby Boomers are proving their point about the current limited appreciation of anything "long" by building this clock according to the naive view of such a project. I happen to be from a later generation than theirs, and I can see a little better the real problem of duration they're raising. Perhaps a little better due to their work. Even a bad example is an example to learn from that the example didn't have to learn from themself. But that doesn't mean this clock isn't folly. Indeed, it underscores its folly to get any value from it.
Using your computer's spare cycles isn't wearing it out, or possibly damaging it, or using nearly as much energy as driving your car around. Your analogy isn't useful at all.
People still might not want their PC's spare cycles used in this way, but it's not like driving their car.
What makes you say that we radiate any less telecom waves into space now than we ever did? I'd say we blubber far more now from Earth, even if it's a much smaller percentage of our overall telecom total.
I would want to see scientific problems that the website publishers could solve for money distributed to the website consumers. That way sites like Wikipedia could fund their operation scaled to their audience.
Indeed I'd like to see a cross-website distributed credit accumulate, so I could purchase from websites against my accumulated credit from my computing on their behalf. Websites that split with me fairly, say 50-50%, their revenue from my computation would get my preferred business, weighted against their intrinsic value. Eg. I'd be more likely to read the same news story published by news sites that paid me more of what they got from my distributed computation.
How about describing how "thinking like an engineer" specifically doomed Google Health and Power Meter? Those are the subject of this story. It's hard to even think about the examples you gave within the context of the facts we're actually talking about.
Except they don't. Nearly all buildings are inefficient in ways that are fairly cheap and simple to fix, once the specific problem is identified. Very few of them are identified. The efficiency upgrade industry should be 100x larger, but most people are ignorant, inefficient, and even smug about it.
No, airsealing buildings to retain heat (or keep cool) and maintain humidity has been probably the highest priority of both new buildings and retrofit for at least a decade. "Breathable" buildings are energy inefficient. Preventing mold with the minimum mechanical ventilation and proper materials in construction is much cheaper and effective over a building's operational life. You are the one who is 100% wrong, at least in the modern construction era.
What you describe is false.
No, that scenario is correct. "Accidentally setting it to run 9PM-3PM" happens because the systems were installed before anyone considered conserving, when the building takes hours to preheat in the morning. So there was no timer, no indoor/outdoor thermostat, nothing. I work for a company that installs systems like that, and the scenario described here is overwhelmingly typical.
What you described is precisely what happens. When you're not just the Mayor of Sim City, in the real world there are real limitations to what is actually done, especially by organizations large enough to own buildings. We're lucky that it turns out that most of our current energy problems can be solved by just better organization, clearer information, and explicit adoption of people who tell us about our behavior compared to what's achievable.
Sad, but true.
US Energy Group has installed Building Energy Management Systems (BEMS) in thousands of NYC buildings, including public schools (tuition: $0). In one school, indeed the entire large building (1000 students + staff) was being heated 5PM-8AM just to keep the gym heated (through its high ceilings, with people exercising) until the BEMS showed it to the Department of Education. Yet practically all of the NYC buildings' owners refuse to consider buying a BEMS unless the payback time is under 3 years, usually under a year. 10-25% ROI is dismissed, even as no other investment can bring even a good chance of that return. While utility inflation guarantees it will be even higher ROI, especially over longer than a few years.
Even among the most notorious moneygrubbers, NYC landlords, it takes a law like NYC LL84 to force everyone to even count up how much they're consuming in energy every year. Energy efficiency consciousness in the US is so primitive that these ubercapitalists must be forced by the public to look at how much they're consuming, let alone how much they can save by doing some of the very many things that pay for themselves promptly.
I disagree with them building a durable physical clock and claiming success. But your post shows that you didn't get the first thing right about the Long Now project. Even this clock's design folly was useful, because it shows how far so many (probably practically all) of us are from having truly longterm vision skills.
A project to build a clock that will ring periodically through 10,000 years must include assurance that people will recognize the clock ringing, and what time it is on it, or it's just a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear. It would demonstrate nothing about a long duration "now" in planning, execution or just thinking through as a span, except that we presently suck at it.
Which is why this project is folly. All its effort is making a physical object durable, which is of course no assurance of longevity. The chances are high that sometime in the next 10,000 years some people (if not a nonhuman natural event, like volcano) will damage, dismantle or disable the physical clock - no matter how strong some of their ancestors once made it. But even if it does last, without ensuring people around throughout the 10,000 years can read it when it rings will mean they have failed to make a "10,000 clock", though they might have made a "10,000 year machine".
The project should focus on how to enable people to recognize that it's a clock ringing through its 10,000 year lifetime. And indeed the project could be limited to only that: ensuring that people can read how stars, the Sun, the Moon and planets align to "ring" when they reach certain layouts would use the much more long lived celestial bodies as a durable clock. If they want to build a machine that will point to the skies every decade/century/millennium that's a decent next step, even if the machine is just the caption to the real clock. And to the real achievement: planning 10,000 years of viable function.
No, the right is defined by authoritarian ideology, centralized control of people but minimal control of business groups (corporations, trade associations), valuing property higher than labor, enforcement of principles by coercion. The left is defined by voluntary ideology, decentralized control of people but centralized control of business groups, valuing labor higher than property, encouragement of principles by incentive.
There is little to no left in the US. There is a lot of right, to a mostly greater or somewhat lesser degree, especially among government officials.
But you're the one claiming equivalence between left and right. Yet when asked you claim that the terms mean nothing. I say your equivalence is simply false.
Please give me some examples of those "on the left" who do exactly the same thing. Note: not all Democrats are "left" - indeed, few are.
And also note: I said "other directions", not just "the other direction". The "left vs right" framing is a strawman, since there's little "left" in the US, but many (actual, if not properly identified) alternatives to the right.
The US dominates the global copyright industry. The WTO TRIPS and Berne convention do little or nothing to protect our free speech/press. The US forcing the global copyright regimes to adopt our protection of people's rights would be a win for both our freedom and for legitimate, sustainable commerce. But if the business as usual of copyright commerce were impaired by new tariffs, that would force content creation back to its basic motives and the higher quality, if lower quantity, that they produce.
In other words, no great loss. Let babylon fall.