Razer's Plastic-Hunting Robot Aims To Clean up the Oceans

helper800 said:

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Whats your point? If our energy grids we made sustainable then we could use all we want to. Giving a company crap for doing a good thing about one issue because it is in some facet or another giving consumers an option to mine is a ridiculous notion. Harp on the bad when they do bad, encourage the good when they do good, and don't incessantly bag on companies when they do good because that one other thing they do that is "bad."

I don't see how it's more environmentally friendly to replace existing energy grids with sustainable versions if we still demand more energy from the environment to begin with, especially for something that's in the pursuit of trying to make more money and that money ultimately gets spent on things on things that violates the 3 Rs. I'd rather a company who claims to commit to green initiatives do it throughout the entire stack, which includes not encouraging (i.e., providing the option) to mine.

Or in another way, I don't see how it's better to replace a coal plant with swathes of wind and solar, because those have their own environmental problems. If we want to be more mindful of our environment, we should do our best to reduce our impact overall.

It's the same kind of criticism Apple gets. How can they claim to be a "green company" when they want to destroy the right to repair?

helper800 said:

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Whats your point? If our energy grids we made sustainable then we could use all we want to. Giving a company crap for doing a good thing about one issue because it is in some facet or another giving consumers an option to mine is a ridiculous notion. Harp on the bad when they do bad, encourage the good when they do good, and don't incessantly bag on companies when they do good because that one other thing they do that is "bad."

Actual non-green energy use isn't countered by vaporware/prototype AI vehicles that won't survive even a modicum of real world use cases.

hotaru.hino said:

I don't see how it's more environmentally friendly to replace existing energy grids with sustainable versions if we still demand more energy from the environment to begin with, especially for something that's in the pursuit of trying to make more money and that money ultimately gets spent on things on things that violates the 3 Rs. I'd rather a company who claims to commit to green initiatives do it throughout the entire stack, which includes not encouraging (i.e., providing the option) to mine.

Or in another way, I don't see how it's better to replace a coal plant with swathes of wind and solar, because those have their own environmental problems. If we want to be more mindful of our environment, we should do our best to reduce our impact overall.

It's the same kind of criticism Apple gets. How can they claim to be a "green company" when they want to destroy the right to repair?

The problem with the three R's is that the first R is useless if the last two are upheld, though that is more philosophical argument as the real world is different and the sole reason the first R is there. Anyway I am not going to start a debate, as I am unwilling to invest the time and energy willing to convince you or anyone else reading this.

TLDR Company do good, encourage further good actions. Company do bad, shame and regulate them.

pixelpusher220 said:

Actual non-green energy use isn't countered by vaporware/prototype AI vehicles that won't survive even a modicum of real world use cases.

This exact attitude is why a lot of companies who are rightly the bad guys on environmental issues don't get anywhere. They want to do some good but are berated until they just say "screw it" and stay what they are expected to be, an evil profit-motivated environmental polluter. Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot take this technology for anything other than what it is at face value, a potential solution to cleaning our oceans and good faith gesture by at least two companies. Anything more is rampant speculation on motivations that are being assigned to them and not yet earned by them.

helper800 said:

This exact attitude is why a lot of companies who are rightly the bad guys on environmental issues don't get anywhere. They want to do some good but are berated until they just say "screw it" and stay what they are expected to be, an evil profit-motivated environmental polluter. Unless you have a crystal ball you cannot take this technology for anything other than what it is at face value, a potential solution to cleaning our oceans and good faith gesture by at least two companies. Anything more is rampant speculation on motivations that are being assigned to them and not yet earned by them.

Sort of like Chevron celebrating PRIDE month....while donating to GOP bigots pushing anti-trans legislation - We shouldn't criticize them for that?

There is zero need for Razer to be in the crypto business. Like none. Stop the bad things.

pixelpusher220 said:

Sort of like Chevron celebrating PRIDE month....while donating to GOP bigots pushing anti-trans legislation - We shouldn't criticize them for that?

There is zero need for Razer to be in the crypto business. Like none. Stop the bad things.

Sure, encouraging Razer to stop doing bad things is good, but talk about it on a relevant post. Razer's crypto mining venture may contribute to ecological damage and even to climate change, but considering the amount of people mining their currency I would suspect the car you are driving is worse for the environment than the whole of the operation. Also, who are you to know "whats best" for Razer?