It's not an all-or-nothing thing. For me, I watch YouTube in a dedicated Firefox Container (and everything else in either temporary containers or dedicated), so not much follows me around.
Figure out what you want, and then put together pieces that get you there.
Yeah. BTW, on macOS, it would be trivial to hack together an Automator workflow that gives you a Service (ie, a menu item in Safari->Services) that says "Download Video", or "Add Youtube Song to Music", and does what it says.
Basically you'd use the "Get Current Webpage from Safari" block, then in the Terminal
PATH="/usr/local/bin:${PATH}"
cd Music/YTDownloads
# or wherever you want it
youtube-dl -q -f 140 "${@%%&*}"
# format 140 is 128k .m4a
Then add to existing playlist in music. Ah, if only it were legal!
yup. I just keep a terminal open set to that path. Had just 10Mbit wifi before but that is now 500Mbit. Will have to revisit this solution. Something like a rsync would be nice.
Cyanobacteria cultivation is an old idea[1] and is limited by more than just phage. I did the math on carbon removal in a controlled environment somewhere like Nevada, and it could contribute to climate solutions. If Church is suggesting we release GMO cyanobacteria into the ocean, that is a whole separate category of idea, somewhere between Guam's Brown Tree Snakes and Ice Nine. If it succeeds, we will introduce a new kind of ocean trash - an organism with no predators. But phage is likely just mutate anyway. IDK how close you've been to Church or his orbit, but most of his ideas are mostly clickbait.
In the case this one isn't, the release of genetic modifications into the wild will be a debt our children have to pay, the way we are paying for our ancestors use of CO2.
I'll look more into this - this isn't a solution I'm familiar with. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for your kind words and dedication to solving this problem.
Hilarious that nobody upvoted my post. I've been looking into the CO2 problem for more than 10 years & this seems like one of the most promising ideas... because it sounds possible to pull off.
Yes, I have the same question for Dr. Church. How does he plan to control their population? Maybe something like this:
Doesn't matter what eats them, after digestion, the CO2 is back in the atmosphere.
If you actually want to do this, you can't just leave them in the wild, you have to breed them in massive quantity and bury them. Same as growing a tree and burying it.
George Church figured they'd just collect and then sink. not much life down there and once it is deep enough, it might be deep enough to perma-sequester.
The elephant in the room that I don't see much discussion about is the use of options by small retail accounts.
There are piles of rules around trading in accounts < $25,000.
But then those same guys are allowed to trade options.
An option has a 100x built in leverage.
A simple solution to this problem is to require the underlying amount of margin or cash in the account to purchase the option. ie. If you want to buy a $3 option for BBBY (costing $300) then this will take $2800 from your initial cash or margin.
Yes, this effectively puts options out of reach to small investors, but... maybe that's a good thing.
> What a fantastic way to ensure that only The Right People (TM) can make money off of anything
To be fair though, this is why the regulators exist. And they've got their post government careers to worry about so they will have to do something behind this supposed calamity. But don't worry, like the owner who crams their cat into a brightly colored sweater, they're doing it to protect you.
This argument is equivalent to supporting the IRS going after small-time tax cheats because the big boys - with billions in public revenue lost by their fraud every year - are "too difficult" to prosecute.
Regulators exist to prevent the most dire threats to a system - the system being the American economy, not simply financial markets (and their profits). They should act like it.
If a crisis manufactured by Wall Street hubris and capitalized upon by retail traders functionally crashes the system by way of a massive wealth transfer, so be it. Regulators should be concerned with the setting up of the earthshaking domino set in the first place, not with taking a chainsaw to the hand that goes to knock everything over.
> But then those same guys are allowed to trade options.
You act as if they are allowed to so symmetrically. I'm pretty sure they can only *buy* options, in which case there is no "extra" risk outside of what they paid up front.
Why would you hinder that from a false risk/margin perspective, if not but just to block the little guy.
Not really my point that selling options is the problem.
imo, allowing < 25k account holders to buy short dated options should not be allowed due to their outsized effect on stock price. And the tendency for that price rise to snap back like an overstretch rubber band. It's just creating more volatility.
