Live data from Hacker News

Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

longform.asmartbear.com

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? EU talks a lot about national carbon footprint, and GCP launched carbon calculator https://cloud.google.com/carbon-footprint . Sure, noone asks this in explicit way but given current trends it feels like we are going in this direction very fast.

well, EU talks a lot about national carbon footprint and normally the solution is to send the carbon footprint overseas, then the national problem is solved.

This is actually being changed and was discussed here on HN[0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33833017

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#52

I am missing: "How could we make the world a better place while doing good business?" Probably too extreme a question.

It's not extreme, but it's somewhat naive. If you want to make the world a better place, there are usually better ways to do so than via a for-profit business.

PR stunts aside, a business is where you allocate capital that needs to generate a return. Why overload this concept? Invest your money in a nonprofit or a charity instead. If you want to ride a horse, don't argue with a cow because it isn't a horse. Milk it, sell the milk, and buy a horse.

...And if this is not a discussion about how you personally are allocating your capital, your best next step is to go generate more capital because then you can invest it however you damn well please. :)

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, EU talks a lot about national carbon footprint and normally the solution is to send the carbon footprint overseas, then the national problem is solved.

This is actually being changed and was discussed here on HN[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33833017

Have they fixed the wood burning loophole, where you can burn overseas wood without recognizing any carbon emissions because the carbon accounting places the emissions at the place where the wood was harvested?

>In 1996, scientists at the United Nations devised a method to measure global carbon emissions. To simplify the process and avoid double counting, they suggested emissions from burning biomass should be calculated where the trees are cut down, not where the wood pellets are burned.

>The EU adopted this methodology in its Renewable Energy Directive, allowing energy companies to burn biomass produced in the US without having to report the emissions.

>The accounting method– which was never intended to assign national responsibility for carbon emissions, according to climate experts has created a lot of discussion and disagreement among advocates, scientists and policymakers. But ultimately it is not the accounting of carbon that is the problem, it's the emissions.

>"It doesn't change the physical reality." said Tim Searchinger, senior research scholar at Princeton University. "A law designed to reduce emissions that in reality encourages an increase in emissions... has to be flawed," he said, referring to Europe's directive.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-bi...

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#54
post #22

One question is missing : "what if we had to pay for our environmental footprint" ? Since so few ask it in a meaningful way, I dare to say it is still, unfortunately, a pretty extreme questions for those it should be asked to.

I would ask "When is it justified to put the environment over human life?"

Can you really separate those, given that humans have to live in the environment?

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#55
post #22

One question is missing : "what if we had to pay for our environmental footprint" ? Since so few ask it in a meaningful way, I dare to say it is still, unfortunately, a pretty extreme questions for those it should be asked to.

I would ask "When is it justified to put the environment over human life?"

That’s a false dichotomy. You can’t separate human life from the environment; hurt the latter and you hurt the former.

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#56
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it would make it hard to start charging again later if we decided it was the wrong decision. You don't have to tell people it's free. Tell them it's free for the first year, and don't actually charge them for future years. Automatically extend their subscription at 30 days. Or only charge some people. Or cut them off when it expires, and then extend them 7 days after expiration. Lots of options if direct re…

Great suggestions. We've experimented with a free "student pass" (1/4 our users are university students), but it hasn't had a huge impact. This might be because there's some friction involved. Our current focus is on revamping our freemium structure, so that instead of 2 weeks of unlimited usage and then extremely limited functionality thereafter, it would instead offer indefinite usage on a limited number of website…

You're nearly there. You've got a large uninstall base because you're giving two weeks unlimited features and then scaling back, but some specific features are "core" to the usage of the product.

Switch the model, after 2 weeks it is limited to 1-3 sites unlimited and anymore requires upgrading.

You'll retain your students who are probably using it for specific sites to summarize papers or class information. Create the habit over a long period and then people will be willing to pay.

If you want a no code/less code approach allow to opt into an extension of 3-6 months if they click cancel.

Assuming COGS are low and the compute cost is on your side and not third party the goal is forming habits and then converting. The goal is not short term 2 week conversions to profit.

Would you like 25% paying after 2 weeks or 25% paying after 2 weeks AND an additional x% paying after 3-6 months?

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#57

I am missing: "How could we make the world a better place while doing good business?" Probably too extreme a question.

It's not extreme, but it's somewhat naive. If you want to make the world a better place, there are usually better ways to do so than via a for-profit business. PR stunts aside, a business is where you allocate capital that needs to generate a return. Why overload this concept? Invest your money in a nonprofit or a charity instead. If you want to ride a horse, don't argue with a cow because it isn't a horse. Milk it,…

Au-contraire, I think its naive to think that when such a large fraction of our lives (and economic activity) is built around particular types of for-profit businesses that we can somehow achieve our broader goals without them.

We must break that spell. For-profit business are not structured according to some immutable laws of nature. Everything about them is a legal construct and it can be tweaked. Corporate entities didn't even exist until a few centuries ago. There is probably an entire spectrum of entities one can have between a charity and a typical modern corporate.

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#58
post #22

One question is missing : "what if we had to pay for our environmental footprint" ? Since so few ask it in a meaningful way, I dare to say it is still, unfortunately, a pretty extreme questions for those it should be asked to.

Going one step further. "How do we meaningfully calculate the total life cost of products? " Externalities, clean up costs etc are currently not being charged which makes some products economically viable when they probably shouldn't be. For example in China Coal plants keep getting opened, because despite a cheaper lifetime cost for solar, coal has a much lower upfront cost and without meaningful costs for environme…

I don't doubt the part about environment costs but:

>you can always sell the fully profitable plant before the late life costs come and bite you

Why wouldn't this be accounted for in the selling price (unless you scam the buyer)?

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going one step further. "How do we meaningfully calculate the total life cost of products? " Externalities, clean up costs etc are currently not being charged which makes some products economically viable when they probably shouldn't be. For example in China Coal plants keep getting opened, because despite a cheaper lifetime cost for solar, coal has a much lower upfront cost and without meaningful costs for environme…

I don't doubt the part about environment costs but: >you can always sell the fully profitable plant before the late life costs come and bite you Why wouldn't this be accounted for in the selling price (unless you scam the buyer)?

You can always sell it at the current price, but with further environmental commitments by country the price of operating or closing a plant will probably only go up.

But due to the hypothetical nature of those new environmental regulations they are probably not considered during the buyout process.

But the current trend would point towards their cost only going up, and no regulation making fossil fuel plants any cheaper to run or decomission.

Re: Extreme questions to trigger new, better ideas

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, EU talks a lot about national carbon footprint and normally the solution is to send the carbon footprint overseas, then the national problem is solved.

This is actually being changed and was discussed here on HN[0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33833017

I would be careful with "actually being changed". They pushed it to start on 2024, so there is nothing being changed. They still can rollback it because of the war, because of the economy, because we have to protect our kids, because Hungary doesn't like it, you name it.

In another hand, it's a market, as stated in their website, "It is the world's first major carbon market and remains the biggest one."[0], so for sure it will be a huge source of income and therefore the countries will have much more incentive to do it. I saw already the same in another countries and the results weren't so spectacular, but instead the whole supply chain just got more expensive, which meant the prices raised to the customers.

[0]: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-...

Post reply on HN