Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

> The stated purpose of the law is to force the general public to use digital means of payment rather than cash, so that transactions can be easily monitored.

You mean you don’t want the government monitoring you at all times?

I mean, the end goal is also to decide what you spend it on…

> Digital dollars, on the other hand, would be traceable and programmable. The Federal Reserve (or some other designated entity) would have the ability to create more digital dollars whenever it sees fit, and, depending on how the legislation is written setting up the currency, the dollars could be formulated to have various rules and restrictions built into their design.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/599768-biden-is-planning...

(This is the US, but UK, EU, and I’m assuming elsewhere all have the same legislation at the moment. China already has this to a degree with the social credit system)

Imagine, I go to get groceries:

checkout machine: “sorry, you used all your carbon credits this month”

You: “but I need food!”

Checkout machine: “if you need food, remember cricket powder is carbon net neutral”

You: “guess I’ll eat that this week.. grumble”

Yeah, that’s literally and explicitly what is being discussed. Maybe this scenario is exaggerated, but carbon tax credit and restricting purchases inbound.

View on HN

> Maybe this scenario is exaggerated, but carbon tax credit and restricting purchases inbound.

It's funny, in context, because Israel is the largest per-capita consumer of single-use plastics in the world, driven by a religious public that uses single-use plastic to help comply with religious dietary law. Attempts have been made to implement taxation of single-use plastic, but have failed because of entrenched religious party members in the government. And crickets don't comply with Jewish dietary law.

The truth is more mundane. When finding plumbers, movers, painters, etc. it is quite common to be quoted a price "without VAT", which is code for "pay in cash, don't request a receipt, and we won't charge you the additional 17%, thus also permitting them to underreport income.

> [...]it is quite common to be quoted a price "without VAT", which is code for "pay in cash, don't request a receipt, and we won't charge you the additional 17%[...]

It's also annoyingly used to quote one price and then "oh but you also need to add VAT", sidestepping the law that requires prices always be specified with VAT. (A store is not allowed to advertise a VAT-less price and then charge VAT afterwards, the price you see is the price you pay, they must deduct VAT)

india does the same thing.... there is an entire world of unregulated cash economy which does not care about indirect taxes.

>plumbers, movers, painters, etc

unless you are quite big, you are not required to get registered with the tax department and as such, you dont collect taxes on your sales from customers.

In Israel, the threshold is low : 100000 NIS, about $29k, and that's revenue, not profit.

As a reference point, the minimum wage in Israel is 60,000 NIS, so adding expenses and buying parts/consumables/fittings etc on behalf of your customers onto that, most contractors would reach that threshold quickly.

I can see why the contractors are keen to stay below the threshold, and why the government is keen to restrict cash usage (they are gaining 17% sales tax as well as income tax.)

alright. in india, for a "service provider", the threshold is inr 20 lacs or $25000. daily wages is at best inr 7-900 or $10-12.

the threshold is calculated on the "bank deposits" so people simply collect cash and don't route it through the banks. that way, people can avoid reaching the limit for quite some time...

> And crickets don't comply with Jewish dietary law.

If you mean specifically the religious law, then locusts/grasshoppers are the only kind of insect permitted to eat (see Leviticus 11:20-23). Ancient prophets consumed them too.

Most modern rabbinical authorities forbid them. Source: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4624319/jewis...

I've read the same article. The fact remains that it's not a blanket ban. If you could figure out which species are kosher and limit production to just these for kosher products, they would be perfectly fine as far as the religious law is concerned.

> If you could figure out which species are kosher

Therein lies the crux. How do you figure out which modern-day species were the ones that are referred to in the biblical source? Many religious followers would prefer to act out of an abundance of caution and simply not partake.

> driven by a religious public that uses single-use plastic to help comply with religious dietary law

Say what now? As someone who knows this religious dietary law quite well, I have never heard of this ever.

In addition you have to pay for each bag in the supermarket in Israel, those disposable bags are not free, so I really doubt they are wasting them that way. https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/decrease_of_74_percen...

Source: https://m.calcalistech.com/Article.aspx?guid=3741791

Did you read your own source? There is zero connection to anything religious. Only convenience.

And this article is from 2018, in 2019 they passed laws that dramatically reduced plastic waste.

Quote:

> Much of the consumption of disposable tableware in Israel can be linked to the country’s ultra-orthodox population. Netanel Leifer, an editor for online magazine Kikar Hashabat, which caters to ultra-orthodox readers, told Calcalist that ultra-orthodox neighborhoods have hundreds of disposables stores. “For every convenient store, there is a store selling disposable tableware. It is very common,” he said.

Sure, the article gets into the convenience aspect of it, but for religious consumers, single-use plastics help tremendously with simply avoiding issues of cross-contamination of dairy and meat. Synagogues hosting light refreshments and meals do not need to maintain kitchens with strict supervision when there are no dishes to be washed, and neighbors who bring food over do not need to worry about whether their dishes were mistakenly used or washed incorrectly (i.e. households that keep separate meat/dairy sinks) if there are no dishes to return.

If you want a more recent source, feel free: https://www.ynet.co.il/environment-science/article/sjzqqpxco (Hebrew). Two years after that initial attempt in 2019, there's still 1.3 billion NIS spent per year on nearly 70,000 tons of single-use plastic, with more than 1/3 the population using single-use plastic on a daily basis and more than half using single-use plastic cups for drinking water from home/office cold water dispensers.

There's a relevant table on page 7 of this 2020 UK document, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/29941...

Note the goal of zero consumer travel by 2050.

Are private jets and yachts subject to Net Zero carbon restrictions?

> Note the goal of zero consumer travel by 2050.

I'm not seeing where it says that? It explicitly says, for 2050, "Road use at 60% of 2020 levels" and "Electric trains the preferred mode of travel for people and freight over all significant distances". If you mean "flying and shipping are at zero" then yes but that's only because they don't envisage having net-zero planes and ships by 2050. If electric planes and ships arrive before then, they'll be usable under this plan (as it says under "Beyond 2050").

> If you mean "flying and shipping are at zero" then yes

Yes. Current electric plane prototypes have limited range (e.g. 150 miles) and weight capacity.

> but that's only because they don't envisage having net-zero planes and ships by 2050.

Don't be disingenuous.

You replied to the wrong person, or cited the wrong text?

That document appears to be an academic exercise into how the UK could reach absolute zero emissions, not net zero but actually completely zero, and doing it using current tech.

This is not anyone's policy nor realistic.

(edit: putting further comments here as I am rate limited and unable to reply -

The paper itself says on page 4 that it is going over and above the climate commitments in law in the UK, and is about absolute zero emissions. It even says the paper is an appeal for public discussion and then goes on to set out what it means by Absolute Zero and how that differs from the current law.

This is not a policy document.

Heathrow's decision to cut flights is due to ongoing covid-related staffing problems, not environmental concerns.)

From the 2nd page of the document:

> UK FIRES is a research programme sponsored by the UK Government, aiming to support a 20% cut in the UK’s true emissions by 2050 by placing Resource Efficiency at the heart of the UK’s Future Industrial Strategy.

UK Heathrow recently tried to impose a 50% cut in daily passenger air traffic, from 200,000 to 100,000, https://www.emirates.com/media-centre/emirates-statement-on-...

It's very explicitly an academic exercise. From the same page:

> In response, this report starts from today’s technologies: if we really want to reach zero emissions in thirty years time, what does that involve?

The UK has not made it an official policy to reach zero emissions in 30 years. The might have a policy to reach "net zero" emissions by 2050, which is completely different.

> UK Heathrow recently tried to impose a 50% cut in daily passenger air traffic

Yes, because they don't have enough trained staff to handle the current volume[1]. Absolutely nothing to do with climate change, just trying to stop bad PR from delays to people going on holiday.

[1] https://www.heathrow.com/latest-news/heathrow-implements-sum...

> UK Heathrow recently tried to impose a 50% cut in daily passenger air traffic, from 200,000 to 100,000

Not sure why you bring it up, yes they did, but in a completely unrelated manner to emissions.

LHR wasn't prepared to handle the influx of passengers once travel picked up because of lack of staffing/readiness and they're trying to force the problem on airlines to handle.

Of course airlines would reject this. Take the PR brunt of LHR's problem?

I would call it idiotic. They call for no shipping by 2050. Like a country in the modern world can survive without getting goods shipped in or out.

It's not idiotic, it's a theoretical scenario on how CO2 emissions could be reduced to zero (not net zero, actual zero) by 2050. And they don't "call for" it, they say that if the goal were to reach zero emissions by 2050, all ships that still burn CO2-producing fuels would have to stop doing that by that date.

It doesn't say zero consumer travel, it specifically talks about trains being the preferred mode of travel and becoming faster.

It does say that all airports would close by 2050. However, that doesn't address military flights or flights used for other than transportation purposes (ex. aerial imagery, etc.) So it would seem that small airstrips would likely remain open for those purposes.

They don't seem to suggest a solution for intercontinental travel at all. Presumably, everyone would have to land in the European mainland and take a train over. But it would seem strange to rely totally on the EU for that.

> It does say that all airports would close by 2050.

But that's only because they can't see getting net-zero planes etc. in sufficient time that everyone can switch over before 2050.

"Although there are lots of new ideas about electric planes, they won’t be operating at commercial scales within 30 years, so zero emissions means that for some period, we’ll all stop using aeroplanes."

Other than the fossil fuels already being used, there doesn't seem to be anything energy dense enough for commercial air travel coming any time soon.

Maybe some kind of in-air carbon capture on the engines?

Carbon capture doesn’t create energy, it uses a lot of energy to generate fuel. This makes it excellent where you have lots of renewable energy that may be irregular (like wind), since hydrocarbons are an incredibly dense energy storage mechanism. You can then create fuel from that renewable energy and use it to power everything (like planes). Not the best to create on a plane tho

I actually think carbon capture is a great solution to global warming and general oil depletion, since hydrocarbons are such a great energy source for everything except their pollution characteristics. If we can build out carbon capture / hydrocarbon production facilities that use renewable energy, and we can do it cheaper than current oil extraction, I think we’re set to just use hydrocarbons forever!

We really just need a breakthrough that makes the whole process more economical, which (fingers crossed) is actually possible within our lifetimes

It would generally be better to do the syngas generation on the ground in major hubs, since it’s probably like most industrial processes where scale improves economics.

If only there were hubs that planes congregated at on the ground.

That would be literally engines operating on thin air, so no, I don't see that happening...

Private jets wanted to be exempt from jet fuel carbon tax in the EU:

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-...

>Are private jets and yachts subject to Net Zero carbon restrictions?

This isn't an answer, but the European Commission have proposed an aviation fuel tax that exempts cargo aircraft and private jets.

Thanks, looks like yachts would also be exempted by the EU, https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022...

> In July 2021, the European Commission published a set of proposals to decarbonise the maritime sector. However, the proposed carbon pricing scheme (ETS) and the low GHG fuel standard (FuelEU Maritime) will only apply to ships above 5,000 GT and exclude a number of ship types such as offshore vessels, fishing vessels and yachts.

I hope this is an academic exercise because if absolute zero entails no air travel, no shipping, no lamb or beef, amongst other prohibitions, it also entails violence.

This, for those who aren't aware, is a somewhat more eloquent rephrasing of the "Great Reset" neoreactionary conspiracy theory[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Reset#Conspiracy_theorie...

What "conspiracy theory"? Several government officials clubs and "policy proposal" bodies have openly stated plans to that effect, and even used those very terms. They have even published public policy wishlist books about it, it's not like they've been shy about it.

That's a conspiracy alright, in the sense of coordinated action to specific goals, but hardly a "conspiracy theory".

But of course, if you tag it a "conspiracy theory" knee-jerk idiots will consider it to be the same category as alien abductions, the illuminati, and Elvis being alive...

As noted in the link: there's "the Great Reset," which is a broad collection of economic and social policies that generally prioritize environmental and social action, and then there's "the Great Reset," a neoreactionary conspiracy theory that says that the former is really about getting people to live in the pod and eat the bugs.

The former is a "conspiracy" in the sense that there's a bunch of policy being written and applied by various important people, the legitimacy of which you're welcome to contest. But it's not remotely consistent in content with the conspiracy theory, which is a redressing of the iconic "The Other (Jews, Muslims, Last Night's Meatloaf) is going to take away Everything You Value" conspiracy template.

The WEF conspiracy doesn’t seem that radical to me.

You have some of the wealthiest people in the world flying into Davos on private jets to discuss how society needs to change to save the environment. Pro tip: When they’re talking about society they don’t mean themselves, they mean you. These folks aren’t going to be dining on synthetic meat or cricket protein, and they aren’t going to take public transit or give up a few of their 15 houses to reduce their CO2 footprint.

The reality is they are entirely self serving and it sure would be convenient for them if a few less plebs were crowding up the beaches in Fiji or jamming up the roads in NYC or London when their driver needs to take them to the airport.

I didn’t say radical. I said neoreactiory, as in: co-opting traditional reactionary pathologies and reusing them in a contemporary setting. The taboo disgust reaction of eating bugs is just a cherry on top.

It would be a grave error to read these comments as “I endorse whatever our planet’s ultrawealthy think is best for you and me.” I don’t. But that doesn’t mean I’ll hop onto every cheap retelling of the same basic reactionary conspiracy that’s been around for the last 600 years.

>I didn’t say radical. I said neoreactiory, as in: co-opting traditional reactionary pathologies and reusing them in a contemporary setting.

Is the above anything else than a word salad to say "thought crime" just with more words?

Label them "reactionary", yeah, because as if being reacted against is "revolutionary". It's convenient how such weasel words can justify anything ("You don't like the gig economy? You're reactionary") - as if there's a monopoly on the definition of societal progress.

>The taboo disgust reaction of eating bugs is just a cherry on top.

Yes. We should rejoice for every such corporate money-making scheme pushed through advertising, subsidies, and policy. And even if eating bugs is not taboo for many, there are still a lot with this taboo about shit eating. They should learn to eat shit with a grin too.

>As noted in the link: there's "the Great Reset," which is a broad collection of economic and social policies that generally prioritize environmental and social action, and then there's "the Great Reset," a neoreactionary conspiracy theory that says that the former is really about getting people to live in the pod and eat the bugs.

I've read the "broad collection of economic and social policies that generally prioritize environmental and social action" and they're mostly about "getting people to live in the pod and eat the bugs" (and buy into this or that new sector that will serve as an upcoming profit center).

They're not even covert about it, e.g. promoting bug protein as the "solution" to meat production, designing (and legislating) e-cash with full government control and even recommending its use to enforce policy (e.g. driving consumption to specific paths, etc), not to mention the "own nothing" concept (yes, we'll still own some things, just increasingly less, and with more rentiers coming to get a chunk of our income).

>But it's not remotely consistent in content with the conspiracy theory, which is a redressing of the iconic "The Other (Jews, Muslims, Last Night's Meatloaf) is going to take away Everything You Value" conspiracy template.

Nice strawman, but it doesn't have to be Jews, Muslims, or (to further the strawman) Last Night's Meatloaf.

It's enough to be global corporate interests and their lobbies, and government bureaucracies (who historically only know to add to their responsibilities, areas, information they collect and so on, never to take away, and which have been on a huge race on those fronts ever since the 1950s, that got "nuclear" with the advent of the digital era).

In other words, it can just be good old neoliberalism, empowered by the ongoing crises and "exceptional conditions".

I don't know whether this is unintentional or acquired ignorance on your part, but: there's two different things here. There's a bunch of obnoxious neoliberalism, which I am more than happy to criticize, and then there's a neoreactionary conspiracy theory that's basically a rehashed "FEMA death camps" but with COVID and the WEF as the objects of focus.

Nobody is going to make you eat bugs or live in a pod. If someone tries to, you can do what humans have always done when they're placed in an unlivable situation. It's embarrassing that this even has to be said.

>Nobody is going to make you eat bugs or live in a pod.

No. They're just going to jack up prices, subsidy bugs and promote them (including with taxpayer paid advertising campaigns) because "environment", and make them the main viable option. Eventually you can also tax meat more (no need for anybody who doesn't make 100K/year to be able to afford much of it).

Similarly, they're also just going to ensure wages are kept down, good public housing and affordable morgages are a no-no, and rent is made increasingly untennable.

Pods then wont have to be enforced - they'll just be the affordable option.

Ah, the naivety in believing that "somebody will make you" can just mean a gun-to-the-head or legal requirement.

Has anyone properly debunked it? I just looked up the WEF promotion video about the Great Reset and it is just straight out of Orwell's 1984 including slogans like "OBEY": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPYx12xJFUQ

I can understand why people are skeptical. Youtube dislike extension shows 10% likes to 90% dislikes ratio on 1.8M views. Youtube's clarification banner doesn't help the impression. Why is Youtube putting warning banners like they did for Covid, but for Great Reset?

What's there to debunk? It's the name that a bunch of rich goobers gave to their rich goober conference. The content of the video itself is incredibly bland: it is, in effect, "more of the same but also some environmental justice, so that they don't hang us for burning the world."

The worst thing about all of this is whichever poor soul had to put this video together.

Why is it a conspiracy theory then?

It seems like the facts are not disputed. Just that people disagree with the policy.

Because we're now conflating two things. See the other threads in this discussion.

Uh oh, sounds like a “conspiracy theory”, must not have any validity at all.

Is there a “sounds like a conspiracy theory” fallacy someone can point me to?

I'm not interested in disputing the veracity of the claim; it's not worth my time. I'm merely pointing out that this is indisputably a popular neoreactionary conspiracy theory. It's a pointless insult to this forum's intelligence to pretend otherwise.

You’ve supplied the labels, I’ve supplied the critique. I don’t agree with your labels, am I pretending?

Like all things in life, "insult to intelligence" is meant to invoke the average, not the individual. You aren't accused of pretending.

Ah, so he’s a conspiracy theorist and I’m of average intelligence. Have a label for everything don’t we.

I think you misread the last comment.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Label a dog a conspiracy theory and hang him.

Where's the dog and who's hanging him?

"You will eat bugs" is bog-standard reactionary lingo at this point. You can't credibly expect people to not notice it.

You would be more convincing with reasoned arguments instead of this "guilt by association" tribalism. You do everyone here a disservice by resorting to ad hominem.

This is a pretty run-of-the-mill globe-spanning conspiracy theory. They are all more or less scapegoating mechanisms for a given demographic.

> I mean, the end goal is also to decide what you spend it on…

Governments in the US already exercise this power, making certain drugs illegal, restricting purchases of certain products, regulating quality and other requirements for food, vehicles, construction, etc.

The federal government already exercises both of these powers. The federal reserve changes the money supply. And WIC/“food stamps” (originally specially printed currency, now a cash card) can only be spent on certain purchases.

>Governments in the US already exercise this power

Yes. And now they will have it at 100x the reach, 100x the efficiency, and with automatic monitoring, install rule-change enforcement, and so on.

I never understood the tendency to say "It's already a thing" when the new development is so quantitatively and qualitatively different from what existed, as to be a whole new thing...

It's like "We're at war, the towns are bombed, and people are getting killed? Big deal, people were already getting killed in murder cases and gang shootings".

Carbon accounting is simply a way to build in a price signal to activity that produces an unwanted externality.

Imagine if it were free and legal to dump garbage in your local park. That is how air pollution is currently treated in the US.

In jurisdictions with sensible climate policy, you pay to dump waste into the atmosphere and those dollars are used to reduce GHG emissions elsewhere.

When politicians argue in favor of this kind of CO2 reduction measures, targeted at individual citizens, know that they are (perhaps unconsciously, perhaps because of dependence) following the framing put forward by fossil fuel companies:

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...

BP spent a lot of advertising budget so that we worry about our individual CO2 footprint instead of focussing on appropriate and social policy change which would enable us and make it easy to live climate-positively.

Eventually ... if you drive a mate to the airport, and it is a benefit in kind worth $100 say, then they have to report it and pay tax on it.

Most of the point of carbon credits is that you can buy more if you want.

I'm not sure why this is meant to make me feel better.

The elite would bid up the price of the credits so they can fully enjoy their yachts and private jets.

It would still be crickets for proles.

If the elite have all the money so nobody can do anything fun, the problem isn't this hypothetical carbon credit system that's bolted onto the side.

You're giving them yet another lever with which to control your life while maintaining maximum freedom for themselves.

Since I don't consider the overthrow of capitalism to be a realistic near-term goal, I am quite worried about near-term power grabs such as these.

This is heavy, heavy speculation.

Public commentary in forums that serve as forges of opinion such as HN are much more than passive statements. It's similar to the quantum effect of observation affecting the state of a system. These speculative comments actively shape opinion. Any friction against the slide towards a cashless society is welcome. Speculation serves to stoke the imagination of a populace that would be subject to these changes if there was no friction for policy makers. An example is the Murderbots video which speculates on a future where small commercial drones are used as domestic political and literal weapons.

Actually “Hacker” “News” has been a point of ridicule for quite a while now outside of the bubble here, so arguing that it’s an opinion forge plays right into its notoriety.

One thing can be both a point of ridicule and an opinion forge. Pitchfork music reviews come to mind.

Where is HN being ridiculed?

You've heard of this thing called "Twitter"?

This is just another bot-riddled echo chamber, with disagreements over trivialities instead of what actually matters in the world

It's a bot riddled echo chamber because there is influence generated here.

Who exactly is being influenced?

Everyone.

Utter nonsense. People are laughing their asses off at the amount of idiocy on this web site.

The same way that people claimed 20 years ago that cash would be made illegal was "heavy, heavy speculation"?

Still is, yup. I have some cash in my pocket right now. I might even buy a sandwich with it later.

Just wait. It will happen sooner in some countries, later in others, but unfortunately it's almost inevitable.

So the 20 year old prediction didn't come true, but just wait, you're sure it'll happen?

Lots of predictions don't come true. The dystopian "A Nice Morning Drive" from 1973 turns into the Rush song "Red Barchetta" in 1980, and 40 years later, it hasn't happened.

> So the 20 year old prediction didn't come true

The 20 year old prediction wasn't that in 20 years cash would be banned. It was that eventually it would be banned.

And yes, you can look no further than this thread to see that it is being either banned or severely limited around the world already.

It always is, until it is proven a fact. In my country, people were being alarmist about the Corona travel restrictions, the vaccine, and the negative externalities of closing the healthcare system to pretty much everything. The alarmists were given a derogatory name, their concerns were labeled "speculation" and generally after 6 months, turned out to be true.

Gov: "There will be no app to restrict your movements if you aren't vaccinated."

Six months later: there's an app.

Gov: "The vaccine is fully tested and is completely safe"

Six months later: vaccine turns out to not have been completely tested, and the corporations behind it can't be sued.

Consider me heavily, heavily sceptical about CBDC's and the government's/central bank's desires to build a social credit system. I've seen too many quotes by August Karsten not to be.

Yes, if you throw enough theories at the wall, a few will stick.

> Imagine, I go to get groceries:

> checkout machine: “sorry, you used all your carbon credits this month”

> You: “but I need food!”

> Checkout machine: “if you need food, remember cricket powder is carbon net neutral”

> You: “guess I’ll eat that this week.. grumble”

> Yeah, that’s literally and explicitly what is being discussed. Maybe this scenario is exaggerated, but carbon tax credit and restricting purchases inbound.

This is trad "RETVRN" conspiracy BS verbatim. Nobody is going to force you to eat bugs or live in the pod. Let's try and do better, folks.

And this is where technologists totally fail to understand the implications of the technology they push forward.

Okay, get a drivers license, OK submit to speed limits, OK submit to random searches for a failed bulb, OK submit to automated license plate scanners, OK submit to marketing companies tracking your car in the parking lot.

Most technologies do not exist in a vacuum, when one becomes entrenched in society, it is impossible to operate as a human without one. Even the Amish have telephones now.

Remember Citizen, meat is for Party members only.

Your language is referencing communism, but this is mostly happening under capitalism not communism.

There is a meme in leftist spheres of pro-capitalist people posting photos of slums saying "this is the world under communism", except it's literally a photo of a part of the world under capitalism. Anyway, thought you should know you did the meme.

How does this kind of reactionary doomerism stuff have any traction on HN of all places?

Or alternately it's about combatting large-scale money laundering, terrorist arms sale, and the stuff that they actually say it's for.

Hmmm.

> I mean, the end goal is also to decide what you spend it on…

Or that might just be ludicrous hyperbole, and the article you linked could be 95% speculation, as it appears to be. The environmental concerns could be more to do with the investigations on BTC and ETH and the wastefulness of PoW.

But no, I'm sure you're right, the US government that is helpless in the face of citizens slaughtering each other with firearms is going to regulate how much beef you can cram down your gullet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com