undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfartcannon4y ago0 comments

I see! How does that differ from, for example, owning stocks? Or real estate? I literally don't see a functional difference. Sorry I realise this seems antagonistic but I really want to understand the vitriol.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

polygamous_bat4y ago· 2 in thread

Apple, along with a bunch of upstream suppliers, brings together some glass, some plastic, some metal, and create an iPhone out of it. The value of an iPhone is greater than the value of the raw materials. Thus, it's a positive sum game. Same goes for owning a stake in Apple the company.

One person buys a Bitcoin that another person sold, which is zero sum. But miners burned real energy paid with not-Bitcoin to process it, thus value exits the system. Thus it is negative sum.

fartcannonOP4y ago

Ok, Im not sure why youve chosen Apple but I'll bite. Those resources aren't actually renewable. And mining that stuff certainly costs the environment more than the value of this conversation we are having on those devices warrants. And at the end they're tossed in landfills. You might disagree, but so would a crypto enthusiast.

I do understand your point though I think. Waste in general is bad.

Bud4y ago

Aluminum is renewable. So is glass, of course. And no, Apple is actually doing all they can to keep old iPhones from being tossed in landfills, including designing custom robots to disassemble them so that the components can then at least theoretically be recycled.

You don't need to mine more aluminum if you're able to use recycled aluminum in your products. And Apple does.

So Apple is perhaps not the best choice of a company to pick on in this particular part of the argument.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse