[HN Gopher] Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red
___________________________________________________________________
Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red
Author : Petiver
Score : 62 points
Date : 2024-11-23 23:49 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| isoprophlex wrote:
| https://archive.is/QO7jd
|
| An aside:
|
| Why bother submitting paywalled articles? Why bother upvoting
| paywalled articles? > 95% of readers probably don't have access.
|
| Not being facetious, I genuinely want to know. Do people upvote
| without reading? Will almost everyone take the effort to throw
| the link into a paywall buster? Do many HN readers subscribe to
| paywalled sources?
| matsemann wrote:
| FWIW it wasn't pay walled here. I just had to press "Show full
| article" and could read on. Perhaps it's based on geo location
| (I'm not their market) or how much one's read them lately?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Oh right, that actually makes a lot of sense, thanks..!
| asimpletune wrote:
| I was prompted to create a free account to keep reading.
| cwassert wrote:
| If you have to create an account or accept an EULA it is
| not free.
| valicord wrote:
| Free as in beer
| joak wrote:
| If you google "Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red" the
| first hit is the nyt article, if you click on this link
| you'll find the article non-paywalled!
|
| Edit: if it doesn't work try again in a private/incognito tab
| to make sure it's all fresh cookies
|
| So depending on the http-origin header the article is
| paywalled or not.
|
| This is a trick I always use, it works for many newspapers.
| nosianu wrote:
| Nope, I still get the paywall. I noticed this for some
| time, the trick to go "Incognito" does not work any more
| for some sites.
|
| It's not a big deal, I can use the archive link or just not
| read it, all those articles are merely of the "mildly
| interesting" category anyway. Not to mention that they are
| 90+% fluff and the core message could usually be summarized
| with a few sentences.
|
| I am curious though, given that this is HN, does anyone
| know how they are doing that paywall tracking these days?
| It is not just NYT where the fresh incognito window no
| longer works to get around the restriction. Washington Post
| too, for example, at least for me.
| joak wrote:
| It's weird, I tried before posting to check if my tip was
| working on this article, and it did.
| thom wrote:
| 99% of the time the top comment is an archive link.
| bell-cot wrote:
| For me (NYT non-subscriber, US, blocking most js), only the
| first 4 paragraphs are visible. That's fairly common for web
| sites to do (# of visible paragraphs varies, obviously). And
| usually shows enough to convince me that the article is worth
| no more of my time.
| oniony wrote:
| I share your annoyance. I've convinced that the sites
| themselves are doing this to attract subscribers.
|
| Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if you
| want good journalism you have to pay for it", yet few can
| afford to subscribe to more than one or two publications and
| yet we have to suffer paywalled links from all of them. For me,
| the one UK publication I pay for is enough (and that one is,
| ironically, not even paywalled).
| echelon wrote:
| It's a distribution and friction problem.
|
| We solved it for music. We need the same for journalism.
|
| Microtransactions never took off, so that leaves one option:
| journalism companies need to stop having their own websites
| and instead publish to an aggregator (or aggregators) that
| handle payment and monetization. Spotify or Netflix for news.
|
| But perhaps that would turn them into an even lower margin
| business with no ownership of their own audience
| relationship. Doesn't seem like a fun business to be in.
|
| Nevertheless, it's still a distribution and friction problem.
| pluc wrote:
| The model does not work. Nobody wants to subscribe to read
| one article in a blue moon, so we "pirate" it using
| archival sites. Piracy gave us DRM and streaming, archival
| will give us something new eventually, when they realize it
| doesn't work.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Apple News+ is kind of that, but has the basic issue that
| paid articles are still stuffed with ads, which makes it
| pretty pointless.
| jjmarr wrote:
| That already happened, except Reddit, Facebook, and Hacker
| News don't pay for the content they aggregate. People dodge
| paywalls in the comments, and many don't even bother to
| read the story. What would a paid solution offer over that?
|
| My cool idea would be an aggregator that charges people a
| subscription fee to participate and read stories.
| $100/month and extremely heavy (paid) moderation that
| forces people to engage with the articles. The price point
| helps get rid of anyone who is unwilling to participate
| constructively. Revenue-sharing for commenters as well.
|
| Make it the place where _real_ discussions happen. People
| are social creatures and want to join exclusive clubs.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Re aside: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989>
| latexr wrote:
| > Why bother submitting paywalled articles?
|
| They are explicitly permitted, as long as there are
| workarounds.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20payw...
|
| Though I wish submitters would provide the workaround (or gift
| link) too when submitting (I try to do so). It's often someone
| else who does it. Though in fairness I guess someone may forget
| something is paywalled when they're paying for it and have
| access.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If people just marked the title with a (paywall) it would
| already be an improvement.
| latexr wrote:
| Sounds like that should be done automatically, like HN auto
| adds [pdf] or [video] for certain URLs. You can suggest
| [paywall] by emailing hn@ycombinator.com.
| anjanb wrote:
| I subscribe to 4-5 paywalled sources. Rest, I rely on others to
| give me the archive links.
| ctippett wrote:
| Save yourself the angst and give this userscript[1] a go. It
| adds some nice quality of life improvements for posts that link
| to paywalled articles.
|
| [1] https://github.com/MostlyEmre/hn-anti-paywall
| matsemann wrote:
| Just before visiting HN I read a news article about our glaciers
| in Norway also melting. One glacier has moved back 83 meters in a
| year, and the last ten years it's moved back 483 meters.
|
| A glacier that normally melts a meter in thickness each year and
| gains it back during winter, has melted 4 meters.
|
| We've lost 20 glaciers here the last decade.
|
| It's scary.
|
| https://www.nrk.no/klima/breforsker-sjokkert-over-hvor-mye-i...
| baq wrote:
| The election cycle, at least in a small part a function of a
| human's expected life span btw, is way too short for
| governments to be incentivized to do anything about it.
|
| It's going to be a wild ride for our grandchildren.
| adrianN wrote:
| It's going to be a wild ride for anyone under fifty.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| This makes me wonder if society would be improved by radical
| life-extension therapies or technologies. Detractors
| generally say it would result in stagnation, but at least
| people would have a very good incentive to think long-term if
| they knew they had a good chance of still being alive in 200
| or 1000 years and having to deal with the long-term effects
| of current policy.
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| I think it would also allow "careers" to detach from
| mistakes like papers published on the wrong side of a
| paradigm as "junior" mistakes.
| pjc50 wrote:
| That incentivizes not so much long-term thinking as the
| politics of the permanent stagnation bunker. You'd get a
| caste of mortal disposable workers who live in the flood
| plains, working for a tiny group of immortals who have
| locked down the top positions and made themselves effective
| rulers for life.
|
| Think Japanese stagflation but for centuries. Reiwa era
| 200.
| thanksgiving wrote:
| To play the devil's advocate, imagine if politicians (US
| senators / House members) could live for and hold their
| positions for a thousand years... I don't know if that is a
| good thing.
|
| Or Xi of Mainland China...
| lifeinthevoid wrote:
| Meanwhile the most popular politician in Belgium claims that
| climate activists are overly dramatic and that we should
| trust technology to save us. Just great.
| lazide wrote:
| Delusion is always an easier sell than hard work.
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| Which is a inherently insane argument, to trust on the
| exploration of a labyrinth (research) to uncover ever more
| powerful hot potatoes, to save you from the hot potatoes
| you already juggle with. One missed juggling motion and you
| are stuck in a position you are unlikely to get out of
| because the failure to juggle reveals the original tribal
| societies inability to hold it together and propel a
| scientific society under stress.
| trueismywork wrote:
| That has been humanity forever now though
| netsharc wrote:
| Yeah, also here I've seen commenters having faith that
| "some technology will come along and save us!".
|
| It's a different sort of "climate denial"[1].
|
| OK, my faith that we're totally fucked is also based on
| guesstimate, just in the opposite direction (it can be
| viewed as a denial of the idea that there's something we
| can do to rescue this extravagantly luxurious modern life).
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/ju
| n/20/...
| suzzer99 wrote:
| What is it to have no faith in humans to make shared
| sacrifice on a global scale, but at least some hope in
| mitigation technologies?
| Wololooo wrote:
| Fucking Bart, if that guy kicked the bucket everyone would
| be better off...
| yodsanklai wrote:
| > we should trust technology to save us
|
| I'd be curious about the actual stats, but I have the
| feeling it's a widely shared point of view, even in
| educated circles.
|
| The alternative option which is consuming less in order to
| pollute less is pretty unpopular.
| consp wrote:
| It might be able to but that would require getting rid of
| cheap sources of energy and manufacturing which the deck
| is stacked so hard against it will never happen. Before
| humanity will do anything we have to get rid of the
| current ruling autocracy since acting now would create
| pain over time, acting later would create pain when most
| people alive are dead. And maybe put the environment
| before profits, same problem though.
| throwup238 wrote:
| I mean at this point we're likely looking at the dreaded
| 2C scenario even if we ceased all carbon emissions and
| regressed back to the stone age immediately, which
| obviously isn't going to happen because I really like my
| hot showers.
|
| We've been using technology to solve our problems for
| thousands of years. If that streak stops now, we're
| royally fucked.
| stakhanov wrote:
| > The alternative option which is consuming less in order
| to pollute less is pretty unpopular.
|
| If you frame the problem like that, does it actually
| surprise you that no one will act on it? One has to
| either freeze or feel guilty of some kind of moral
| failing about the heat one consumes?
|
| You might say: No, no, the problem is not consumption,
| it's the superfluous part of the consumption, the
| _overconsumption_ that 's the problem. Okay, but, then,
| who exactly stands in judgment of which part of the
| consumption is the _overconsumption_? The same moralising
| types who bemoan the melting of the glaciers?
|
| Reminds me a bit of pre-enlightenment Europe and its
| juxtaposition of power and catholic moralising
| guilttripping. What's needed is a humanistic way forward,
| a way wherein man gets to fundamentally be the hero of
| the story.
|
| If you come to me and say: Here is a way to reconfigure
| the economy through technological, economic, and
| political change, to make it so that one can feel good
| about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back
| to make that change happen. If you just tell me "consume
| less", then don't expect me to do anything.
| wiz21c wrote:
| Ok, understood. I'm now telling you: "Here is a way to
| reconfigure the economy through technological, economic,
| and political change, to make it so that one can feel
| good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and
| back to make that change happen".
|
| Just don't spend too much time in hell, we need you to
| act here :-)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum... I noticed you aren't telling the actual way.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Name checks out
| adrianN wrote:
| The problem is that the technology is already ninety
| percent there, but replacing energy infrastructure costs
| money. The time of waiting for technology is long over,
| we know what we need to build, we just have to do it.
| katbyte wrote:
| There are also a lot of peoples who's wealth comes from
| continuing the way things are, and changing over to
| greener technologies would mean they might end up less
| wealthy
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Who is this so if I move to Belgium I turn the TV off when
| they come on it?
| wiz21c wrote:
| who is the most popular ? BdW ? JLB ?
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| We are going to be THAT generation that dropped the ball.
| Ekaros wrote:
| In general very small part of population will choose certain
| suffering now to avoid uncertain suffering in future.
|
| Actively doing enough against climate change will have very
| real and likely significant quality of life change now. And
| if lot of people don't think their quality of life is high
| enough now, why would they want it to go lower. And sadly
| rich are always insulated either way.
| orwin wrote:
| They truly won't be. global supply lines will probably be
| the first casualties that will trigger mainstream
| realization, and however deep your Hawaiian bunker is,
| feeding your plumber without those will be difficult.
| triceratops wrote:
| That's probably why they want AGI and robotics.
| ianburrell wrote:
| AGI and robotics will have the worst supply situation.
| They depend on expensive GPUs and complicated machinery
| from across the world.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| It's not that they _know_ they 're sacrificing their
| grandchildrens' future for their current quality of life.
| It's that they'll believe the flimsiest arguments that
| climate change isn't happening. Cognitive dissonance is
| undefeated.
| noelwelsh wrote:
| Birth rates are dropping faster than predicted, which means
| both fewer grandchildren to suffer and fewer grandchildren to
| produce carbon. A lot of environmental issues just go away
| with fewer people around. We'll have to adapt the current
| ponzi scheme of government pensions but that seems a small
| price to pay.
|
| https://x.com/_alice_evans/status/1849668492951220483
| baq wrote:
| This just means less people to handle the consequences of
| the last two decades of reckless exponential growth. It'll
| matter for their grandchildren, maybe.
| noelwelsh wrote:
| Not quite. A big issue with global warming is we have
| been taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into
| the atmosphere. We have the technology to stop doing
| that, but not the technology to capture carbon already in
| the atmosphere. Fewer people means more vegetation that
| will capture some of that carbon.
| baq wrote:
| While I agree this works (we have very good evidence in
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event), the
| timescales for that to matter are two orders of magnitude
| too long assuming we figure out the scale and genetics.
| zaik wrote:
| Enough people run for office who want to do something about
| climate change. But a plurality of the population seems to be
| mainly concerned with being angry about immigrants and
| wanting lower taxes.
| pastage wrote:
| Food riots is a thing. It is hard to govern when everyone
| is upset that it costs too much to live. To do something
| about climate change we need to do somethings 10 times
| worse than the pandemic for 10 years. No more visiting
| grandma who lives 5 hours away.
| fractallyte wrote:
| These are all _natural_ cycles, noooothing to worry about...
| :- /
|
| (Sorry, sarcasm... I've had immense battles with deniers...)
| keybored wrote:
| Assuming that the government is to a large part motivated by
| the electorate. Some governments certainly aren't (e.g. the
| US).
| MrVandemar wrote:
| We won't save ourselves.
|
| It's just not cost effective to do so.
| dagurp wrote:
| They are shrinking at an alarming rate here in Iceland as well.
| This is causing sandstorms and possibly increased volcanic
| activity.
| noelwelsh wrote:
| Y'all need to get some trees planted to stabilise the soil. I
| know some people in Iceland are attempting to do that.
| ponector wrote:
| It is the end of the recent ice age, those glaciers are set to
| melt anyway. With human contribution they melted slightly
| faster.
| propater wrote:
| We should be at the end of the current inter-glacial,
| temperatures should be going down, not up and glaciers should
| be growing, not shrinking. If you are talking about the
| Wurm/Winsconsin glaciation, it has been pretty much over for
| 12000 years and the climate has been pretty stable since.
| mooreds wrote:
| If you are interested in a prescient look at how climate change
| will impact geopolitics:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Wars-Fight-Survival-Overheats...
|
| The author intersperses nonfiction summaries (from 2011, so a
| bit dated) with fictional accounts of geopolitical conflict.
|
| Super scary but eye opening.
| Hilift wrote:
| A bit more recent. Soylent Green was set in the year 2022,
| and was about how humans and climate killed the ocean as the
| world's largest food source. In the film, they are always
| sweating and it's 90 degrees F at night.
| aodj wrote:
| Available without paywall
| https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/where-glaciers-melt-river...
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| So upriver ph guard station with lime? and methan flaming of
| drones?
| advael wrote:
| Sure seems like we ought to be more aggressive about this whole
| anthropogenic climate collapse problem
|
| Like maybe problems like vast swaths of the world becoming both
| less livable and less arable all at once is somewhat to blame for
| all the refugee crises?
|
| Not to be "political" or whatever
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-28 23:01 UTC)