I mean recyclable in a conventional sense the way most people understand it.
Energy cost is probably the single biggest obstacle for the technology I mentioned above. Renewable energy is changing this.
Most plastics will soon be a part of an efficient closed loop system. Regulations are driving some of this. However, the real driver is that these systems are incredibly profitable, and serve risk and resource management priorities as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon and others started accepting plastics and paper returns. Their consumption is massive and they already have a logistics closed loop in place.
Plastics are an incredible innovation and a valuable resource. Misinformation about their recyclability is a threat to their stewardship.
I don't think anyone is trying to disqualify DNNs. I think the difference might be an abstraction for a neuron vs an abstraction for the brain. Success or value doesn't necessarily equate to "human-like." The paper seems naive to, or ignore, prominent, long-running/standing related research that provides a stronger foundation and as far as I can tell includes what they propose. So, at least for me, I'm not sure what the contribution is.
I find it disappointing that the paper makes no mention of Numenta, TBToI or HTM. How is what they are proposing not already included in Numenta's work (informally, of course)? Plus, Numenta's work seems to go much further confronting biological plausibility head-on.
On Lisp by Paul Graham is a great starting point. It's a quick read, it will give you a conceptual basis, while exciting and inspiring you to use it's power. After that just start using it. As others have mentioned, emacs, slime, etc. are helpful.
I'm the founder of endswapper and the creator of the Internet of Materials (IoM). Materials markets are complicated, and affected by technology, informational, political and relationship frictions, all of which result in negative economic, social and environmental impact. You can see this in Apple's latest announcement about cobalt. We work to eliminate market frictions and manage/mitigate other priorities mentioned in comments here.
We are currently building prototypes for the largest chemical/material companies in the world.
From my perspective, this and similar programs, like Amazon Key for example, shifts the responsibility of a company's liabilities to the consumer, and generally leaves a bad taste. I think these programs are poorly conceived with the wrong motivation and self-serving intentions. I think it would be a good thing if consumers recognized these for what they are and pushed back against them.
These are the little things, relative to Paris for example, that end up being administrative/environmental tipping points. Years from now, a documentary will point to moments like this, and ask why no one was paying attention. Transparency in resources, or the lack thereof, can have far reaching diplomatic/political and economic impact.
Aren't we better served by question consumption broadly and our modes of consumption specifically, rather than questioning recycling?
You have both done well to articulate that it doesn't feel right, but do you have any actual proof against the value of recycling? And I don't mean trade-offs, I acknowledge recycling isn't perfect, but there are plenty of statistics that prove it is worthwhile.
Plastic saves lives and reduces waste. Medical devices/healthcare and food packaging are the only proof you need, but it goes far beyond that.
Societal mismanagement has turned plastic in to an environmental disaster/burden. We have only ourselves to blame, not "demon materials".
Recycling is an important tool in material management in a global context. It is not "the solution" and it is not misinformation, or a conspiracy perpetuated by the packaging industry or the plastics industry, or anyone else.
Society was not prepared for the growth or complexities of plastic waste. However, we are perfectly capable of innovating through and out of the current circumstances. This is particularly true as renewable energy becomes more accessible and less expensive. Technologies such as depolymerization, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion are all viable, scalable and in practice to varying degrees. Waste to energy or incineration has a long way to go, but it may prove to be worthwhile through further innovation. I've previously posted about carbon capture as well, which could work on it's own or with processes mentioned above.
It appears to me that the Precious Plastic people are doing good work. I don't think it's fair to diminish or dismiss that good work because we have collectively created a less than optimal system for resource management.
I think the value needs to be aligned with the associated network. If there is no network then I think you have increased risk of a token being a security, snake oil, or baseless speculation.
The Token Effect, by Ramon Recuero (http://blog.ycombinator.com/the-token-effect/) does a good job of emphasizing the role of a network and how value is aligned. From the blog post:
"Fairness is defined by rewarding good actors monetarily for contributing value to the network."
"Tokens allow decentralized protocols to capture the value of the network."
"In summary, tokens coordinate efforts in the network and motivate responsible participation."
The hype of ICOs has been focused on tokenizing everything, which doesn't necessarily create value. Going forward, I expect the emphasis to shift from tokenizing everything to creating networks out of everything, and tokenizing those networks. However, I also expect we will require numerous, obvious, practical examples (e.g. failures) before the community refocuses on networks as the source of value and tokens as yet another tool.
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/nl/pdf/2021/sectoren/gr...
Anecdotally, those that are leading these investments and innovations are aggressive about it.