pilord8 · HackerTrans

That makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, that also suggests that if the price of bitcoin were to rise rapidly, mining costs would take some time to catch up, no? The connection between mining costs and price is an economic one (that can be in temporary disequilibrium), right?

pilord8

5 lat temudiscuss

This article makes a mistake by assuming that an installation (TheFarm) represents the best we can do with vertical or indoor farming. Of course an exploratory art installation isn't going to be particularly cost conscious - it's not designed for that, not really.

Instead, the obvious counterpoint is to look at currently vertical farming installations. The one I'm most aware of is Plenty, which has 350x the yield of standard outdoor farming. At that level, it's leafy green products are organic and cost competitive (i.e., the same price) as other organic spinach/kale/arugula brands.

This is really substantially understating the case for Plenty, but I don't think I can say much more and I would encourage anyone interested to just go look up what they and other vertical farming operations are doing.

pilord8

6 lat temudiscuss

This is de facto already somewhat the case - most index funds lend out their shares to earn some additional income, and so they can't vote those shares.

However, this becomes a bigger issue as index funds gain additional scale. As shares owned by index funds further surpasses the number of shares demanded for borrowing, index funds will be left with more shares to vote.

This will likely reduce shorting costs and increase total shares sold short somewhat, but likely not enough to compensate for the additional index fund ownership (i.e., index funds will net still have more shares for voting).

comments