If you're interested, here's a pretty good podcast episode that sat down with Dr. Janale Schmidt, a history professor who ultimately got the Robert e Lee statue melted down.
What I find fascinating about the whole story is she did not start with the goal of melting down the statue. In fact, this whole controversy was kicked off because the city of Charlottesville wanted to move the statue to a less prominent park, rather than having it in the center of the city.
She talks about the journey of the statue and why ultimately they came to the conclusion that destruction was the right decision (including the fact that they observed these statues turning into racist shrines after the initial incident).
I believe that we should take the statues and move them into museums dedicated to history. We can’t change what happened before we got here, but we can clean up leftover shit and make the future a better place to live.
Let me share 2 practical real reasons why that's a bad idea.
there are a LOT of these statues and these things are HEAVY. A responsible museum won't accept this stuff because there's simply not the room for it.
The people that will accept it end up being the last people that should. Like stone mountain Park, which enshrines and worships these racist assholes.
The very real problem is by having and concentrating this "artwork", you create meeting spaces for white supremacists. Because ask yourself, WHO is going to and wants to experience the confederacy memorials?
"Stop turning museums into the attic for your aunt's racist junk"
The cost has already been paid. Even small farming communities have rail line access that's mostly been abandoned because the line owners switched business models.
As for flexibility, again, that's mostly an issue with how rail line management has evolved. From shorter more frequent trains to ultra long infrequent trains. Mostly to cut the cost of staffing.
The solution is simple, nationalize the rail service. Put it under the USPS and have them figure out scheduling to optimize the speed of goods shipping.
The current state of the rail system is entirely due to the monopolistic nature of ownership. The incentive is to increase prices as much as possible while shipping to the fewest stops possible. Profit motives are in direct conflict with generalized shipping.
The reason trunking works today is the public nature of roads. Well, why shouldn't rail lines be equally public? We practically gave the property away to the current rail owners with the notion it was for the public good... They've failed that.
Trains should be the backbone for shipping. They are WAY more fuel efficient, like 3 to 4x more efficient than shipping by truck. Rail requires far less maintenance. And there's always the option install a 3rd rail and use electricity instead of fossil fuels to ship.
Iron and steel were a precious metals at one point in time.
Funnily enough, not because iron isn't abundant (it's super abundant). Rather, because the medieval process of smelting required a LOT of fuel for even a small amount of iron.
I mean IANAL but in a rational world there would be a minimum of grievance requirement before being able to file such a lawsuit.
There is, that's what the discovery phase of the lawsuit is for. That's what the dismissal phase of the lawsuit is for. The issue isn't that these things don't exist, it's that these things are the most expensive parts of trial.
Imagine the reverse case where you find out someone has started a campaign to keep you from getting hired anywhere. You know they are doing this because someone tips you off on this happening.
You do not have enough evidence to prove that this is happening in court at the moment of the lawsuit but you are damn sure that the person you are suing has a trail of documents proving your allegation and if they don't the third parties that didn't hire you likely do.
If you find enough evidence you can get the person to settle before trial. If you don't find any evidence you can either go to trial and lose or simply drop the lawsuit.
The unfortunate thing is gathering minimal evidence, which really is the job of lawyers beyond just knowing the law, is a time consuming task for someone (Usually multiple someones) that is pretty expensive.
Now, to the actual real problem. It's actually 2 fold.
Gigantic lawfirms gobble up basically all lawyers that have any sort of talent. This drys up the pool of lawyers available to represent people and consequently drives up prices, for everyone. These lawfirms can keep increasing their prices because their rich clients will pay for it and the smaller lawfirms that would represent your case can similarly raise prices because there is no competition.
These gigantic lawfirms and big companies when they sue take a TON of time and resources from the court. You can expect 100 or 1000 issues being filed by one of these lawsuits just at the very beginning. They apply a "Well, there's a 90% chance you'll win without these motions, but there's a 95% chance you'll win with them. So we'll file whatever we can to make sure every single avenue is explored. Oh, and we bill you for the hours we spent with our law ghouls scouring legal books in the dungeon."
These 2 issues mean the courts are constantly flooded, any lawsuit (especially against someone with the resources) takes a long time to resolve, the cost will be astronomical on both sides because the legal team on the other side needs to respond to every court filing, and finally the number of available lawyers will go up because there is little competition forcing them to have lower prices.
The reform we need, if anything, is some sort of penalization on these giant firms for wasting time. Perhaps applying sanctions to the other side if it's found that they spent 90% of their filings for stuff they never used.
You don't have to get a lawyer, but you do have to respond to the lawsuit. That is, participation is not optional.
Now, there is protection from the "bad haircut" lawsuits. It's called "Vexatious litigation". If someone sues you for a bad haircut, and they've sued others for it as well, you can ultimately seek sanctions (including covering your legal fees) against them and their lawyers. That's why you don't generally see bad haircut lawsuits.
Further, if the lawsuit is so bad that it's "bad haircut" level, it's possible to get sanctions against the lawyer that filed it for wasting the courts time.
But again, participation isn't optional here. You HAVE to respond to a lawsuit, you can't just shut your eyes and hope it goes away.
Certainly certainly. But breadth and scope of the amount equipment needed is important here. I grant everything that you are saying. I'm just saying that the physical dimensions of these fermentation barrels (see the image) is not high. Even if you shrink this down to 1000 500mL cans (soda can sized), the actual physical space that'd be occupied simply isn't all that much.
Certainly, however the long tale of making penicillin is the fermentation process. That requires bigger or more vats on site in the existing facilities in the existing contamination free zones. Maybe there isn't room in those... but then perhaps there is in the several company sites Pfizer purchased to create a monopoly on Bicillin.
I'm definitely being too flippant about "purchasing a brewery", however not by much. They certainly have higher requirements for safety and sterility but beyond that, it really is just the same dumb process of "Put in the right food and bacteria, keep the temps consistent, mix, wait for 50 days, separate the Bicillin from everything else".
Things only get complicated if the pfizer execs decide they need to "optimize" the use of facilities to maximize profits. Reusing fermentation barrels for other more profitable drugs. Or reclaiming space for other processes/office space. But like I said, because the process is that dead simple and the amount of Bicilin needed for the population is so little (We need less than 2.5ml per dosage).
We are talking about 200,000 cases, to treat all them we need a vat that can hold ~500L of materials to generate enough Bicillin for everyone in 50 days.
Yet Pfizer wants to tell use it costs them 38 million dollars to build out enough capacity? That's some high bullshit to allow them to ramp up the price.
You can eventually trademark once you get big enough. As with all things law it's a bit tricky. However, the default is that geographic locations aren't trademarkable.
Interesting. Wonder what that means in terms of github. Yuzu isn't technically distributing the source, is Nintendo taking ownership of it? What stops someone from forking the repo? Who is "yuzu" that's paying this bill?
If you're interested, here's a pretty good podcast episode that sat down with Dr. Janale Schmidt, a history professor who ultimately got the Robert e Lee statue melted down.
[It Could Happen Here] Melting Charlottesville’s Robert E Lee Statue #itCouldHappenHere https://podcastaddict.com/it-could-happen-here/episode/171742565 via @PodcastAddict
What I find fascinating about the whole story is she did not start with the goal of melting down the statue. In fact, this whole controversy was kicked off because the city of Charlottesville wanted to move the statue to a less prominent park, rather than having it in the center of the city.
She talks about the journey of the statue and why ultimately they came to the conclusion that destruction was the right decision (including the fact that they observed these statues turning into racist shrines after the initial incident).