https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/551266-snl-cast-members-who-object-to-elon-musk-wont-be



----------

IG @erichrigonan

Lorne is a fucking asshole for this - and every other stunt host.

Anti-Vax
Pro-Crypto
Anti-worker

And bad hair.

Fuck this guy.

not sure if jobs was ANTI vax - he bought into holistic medicine - but I don't think he ever came out against western medicine - especially since he ultimately went with it.

Also not a crypto investor.

Also he's dead - if Musk had that in Common we could finally get Kennan his hosting shot.

I mean your whole screed imo is dumb but specifically that. What's the beef there

on sabbatical.

does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

link: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-bitcoin-is-bad-for-the-environment

swipe: Why Bitcoin Is Bad For The Environment

Cryptocurrency mining uses huge amounts of power—and can be as destructive as the real thing.

By Elizabeth Kolbert

April 22, 2021

Money, it’s often said, is a shared fiction. I give you a slip of paper or, more likely these days, a piece of plastic. You hand me eggs or butter or a White Chocolate Mocha Frappuccino, and we both walk away satisfied. With cryptocurrency, the arrangement is more like a shared metafiction, and the instability of the genre is, presumably, part of the thrill. Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency that was created as a spoof, has risen in value by eight thousand per cent since January, owing to a combination of GameStop-style pumping and boosterish tweets from Elon Musk. On Tuesday, which backers proclaimed DogeDay, the cryptocurrency was valued at more than fifty billion dollars, which is more than the market cap of Ford. Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange, went public last Wednesday; almost immediately, it became worth more than G.M.

The mainstreaming of cryptocurrency, as it’s been called, is obviously a big deal for the world of finance. It’s also a big deal for the world of, well, the world. This is particularly true in the case of the ur-cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. Like Dogecoin, bitcoin has recently surged in value. In April, 2020, a coin was worth about seven thousand dollars; today, it’s worth more than fifty-five thousand. (It hit a record high of $64,895.22 on April 14th, but has since fallen off.) As the cost of investing in bitcoin has soared, so, too, has the potential profit in “mining” it. Bitcoin mining is, of course, purely metaphorical, but the results can be every bit as destructive as with the real thing.

According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, bitcoin-mining operations worldwide now use energy at the rate of nearly a hundred and twenty terawatt-hours per year. This is about the annual domestic electricity consumption of the entire nation of Sweden. According to the Web site Digiconomist, a single bitcoin transaction uses the same amount of power that the average American household consumes in a month, and is responsible for roughly a million times more carbon emissions than a single Visa transaction. At a time when the world desperately needs to cut carbon emissions, does it make sense to be devoting a Sweden’s worth of electricity to a virtual currency? The answer would seem, pretty clearly, to be no. And, yet, here we are.

The Greenidge Generating Station in Dresden, New York, sits on the shores of Seneca Lake, about an hour southeast of Rochester. It was originally built in the nineteen-thirties to run on coal; over the decades, new units were added and older ones shuttered. The power station ceased operations in 2011, and it sat idle until it was purchased by a private-equity firm and converted to run on natural gas. In 2017, under the ownership of Greenidge Generation Holdings, the plant reportedly began operating as a “peaker plant,” to provide power to the grid during times of high demand. (A spokesperson noted that the plant “is permitted to run 24/7.”) Then, in 2019, it was announced that the plant would power bitcoin mining.

Mining is the process by which bitcoin is both created and accounted for. Instead of being cleared by, say, a bank, bitcoin transactions are recorded by a decentralized network—a blockchain. Miners compete to register the latest “block” of transactions by solving cryptographic puzzles. The first one to the solution is rewarded with freshly minted bitcoin. Miners today receive 6.25 bitcoins per block, which, at current values, are worth more than three hundred thousand dollars.

It’s unclear exactly who dreamt up bitcoin, so no one knows what this person (or persons) was thinking when the mining protocols were first established. But, as Ari Juels, a computer scientist at Cornell Tech, recently explained to me, the arrangement seems to have been designed with equity in mind. Anyone devoting a processor to the enterprise would have just as much stake in the outcome as anyone else. As is so often the case, though, the ideal was soon subverted.

“What was quickly discovered is that specialized computing devices—so-called mining rigs—are much, much more effective at solving these puzzles,” Juels said. “And, in addition, there are economies of scale in the operation of these mining groups. So the process of mining, which was originally conducted by a loose federation of presumably individual participants with ordinary computing devices, has now become heavily consolidated.”

Because rig “farms,” which are essentially like server farms, consume a lot of energy, bitcoin-mining operations tend to chase cheap electricity. Roughly seventy per cent of bitcoin mining today takes place in China. (A recent study found that the associated electricity consumption could “potentially undermine” China’s efforts to curb its carbon emissions.) Russia is also a bitcoin-mining center—there are big operations in Siberia, where cold temperatures help keep rig farms from overheating—as is Iran, where electricity is subsidized.

In the United States, home to about seven per cent of the world’s bitcoin mining, finding cheap power can be complicated. A few years ago, miners “descended upon” the city of Plattsburgh, New York, about a hundred and fifty miles north of Albany, which gets much of its electricity from hydroelectric dams on the St. Lawrence River. The power is relatively inexpensive, but, once Plattsburgh uses up its allotment, it has to purchase more at higher rates. Bitcoin mining drove up the cost of electricity in the city so dramatically that, in 2018, Plattsburgh enacted a moratorium on new mining operations.

Buying a generating station, as Greenidge Generation Holdings has done, is a way around the problem. Let others pay retail; Greenidge now gets its power “behind the meter.” The firm recently announced that it was going public, via a merger with a Nasdaq-listed company called Support.com, and boasted that it “expects to be the first publicly traded bitcoin mining company with a wholly-owned power plant.” In the announcement, Greenidge said that it was planning to more than double its bitcoin-mining operations in Dresden by the fall of 2021, and to double them again by the end of 2022. It further declared that it intends to “replicate its vertically integrated mining model at other power sites.”

To expand its operations in Dresden, Greenidge will have to burn more and more natural gas, thus producing correspondingly more greenhouse-gas emissions. The firm’s plans have sparked demonstrations in the Finger Lakes region. On Saturday, a hundred protesters marched to the gates of the plant.

“This is a test case,” Joseph Campbell, the president of Seneca Lake Guardian, the group that organized the march, told WRFI, an Ithaca radio station. Two days later, the local planning board approved Greenidge’s application to build four new structures at the site, to house more mining rigs. Members of the planning board said that for, legal reasons, they were barred from considering the broader implications of their decision. “We know that bitcoin is a big waste of energy,” the chairman of the planning board, David Granzin, said. “But we’re bound by law.”

Whether this is, in fact, the case is debatable. What’s beyond debate—or should be, at least—is that this is a matter that shouldn’t be left to a local planning board to decide. There’s no way for New York, or the U.S. as a whole, to meet its emissions-reductions goals if old generating stations, rather than being closed, are converted into bitcoin-mining operations. Greenidge may become the first mining firm with a “wholly-owned power plant,” but, unless the state or federal government steps in, it won’t be the last: another cryptocurrency firm, Digihost International, has already applied to New York State’s Public Service Commission for permission to purchase a natural-gas-burning station near Buffalo. As representatives of Earthjustice and the Sierra Club recently put it, in a letter to officials of New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, “additional scrutiny . . . is essential to prevent the floodgates opening for other retiring power plants.”

Andrew Yang, the former Presidential candidate who’s now running for mayor of New York City, has said that he wants to turn the city into a cryptocurrency-mining hub. It’s hard to imagine a worse idea. The city is already looking at spending billions of dollars to protect itself from sea-level rise; increased emissions are pretty much the last thing it needs. Forward-looking politicians should be thinking about ways not to buoy bitcoin mining but to bury it.

I’m sorry but is that supposed to scare me?

It requires a fraction of the energy used by proof of work protocols, which is what Bitcoin uses.

Lots of crypto coins are already using it, Ethereum (2nd most popular coin) is in the process of converting from PoW to PoS.

Not saying the energy consumption isn't a problem, but it's being worked on.

literally as long as I can remember.

if you think it will, cool, but please write down a date by the time you think it will and then we can check back to see if we're at exactly the same place

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I hope knowing that I'm wrong about this will give you the tingly feelings you so desperately crave.

what if, and I know this is unimaginable

I just think it would be good if this new tech actually rolled out

and it's bad that it hasn't yet

and that history of failed delivery suggests it won't come any time soon


is it possible those things are true.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It was supposed to be implemented by 2017

then 2019

we are in 2021

it's supposedly coming soon

pardon me for believing in the history over the promises. I might be wrong!


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>It requires a fraction of the energy used by proof of work
>protocols, which is what Bitcoin uses.
>
>Lots of crypto coins are already using it, Ethereum (2nd most
>popular coin) is in the process of converting from PoW to
>PoS.
>
>Not saying the energy consumption isn't a problem, but it's
>being worked on.

So you mention that Ethereum is in the process of using this Proof of Stake Validation that is better for the environment. What are some other cryptocurrencies that currently use this for valuation? I'm curious in terms of wanting to invest in some cryptocurrencies without investing in killing the planet at the same time.

although there has been some good news on the ethereum front, so maybe they'll do it. we'll see

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/a-comparison-of-bitcoins-environmental-impact-with-that-of-gold-and-banking-2021-05-04


As backbone already mentioned, Bitcoin's Proof of Work tech isn't the most commonly used in the several other blockchains out there.

Bitcoin is extremely old tech compared to the rest of the crypto market. Over a decade old.

This is the equivalent of complaining about Game Gear battery life in 2004.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

A guy that rich won't feel any pressure of following the rules of never breaking character.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

he's gonna spend that time doing?

will he go social reactionary or bonkers conspiracy

which is already policy for all guests so the article is kind of about nothing

that said, if they do it's pretty goofy. Yeah seems to be a douche, but maybe this is a chance to actually talk to him when he's there and find out for yourself instead of just going off headlines. You could come away, saying wow i kinda misjudged him based on what i've heard, or you'll come away saying i can confirm he's even more insufferable in person.

Either way it seems better than saying, yeah i just hid in the other room until he left.

I don't understand why they chose him, but I can only see it going horribly or so blah that no one ever remembers it.

Keegan-Michael Key is next week on the 15th, so they'll probably be back on track.

cool

link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/michael-che-mocks-report-snl-cast-may-skip-elon-musk-episode/ar-BB1geSE0

swipe:

Michael Che Mocks Report SNL Cast May Skip Elon Musk Episode
Matt Wilstein 4 days ago


EU’s Breton Says Time to Fix ‘Naive’ Approach to Chip Supply
Stocks open higher after ADP jobs report

On Friday afternoon, the New York Post flashed this “exclusive” headline on its website: “‘SNL’ cast won’t be forced to appear with controversial host Elon Musk.”

The report cited an unnamed source who told Page Six, “Speaking historically, if a cast member has been that unhappy, they don’t have to do it,” adding that executive producer Lorne Michaels “won’t ever make them do anything they don’t want to do.”

It was a somewhat dubious claim that appeared to be little more than speculation, and also seemed to be news to Saturday Night Live co-head writer and co-anchor of “Weekend Update,” Michael Che. In an Instagram post that he is likely to delete soon, Che posted a screenshot of the Post article, followed by a series of jokes about the outrage over the Tesla billionaire’s hosting gig.

“Does this rule mean I won’t be forced to appear next to Colin anymore?!” Che joked of his co-anchor (and perpetual punching bag) Colin Jost. He then added, “#CancelJost.”

The report comes after several SNL cast members, including Bowen Yang and Aidy Bryant, subtly expressed their frustrations with the decision to have Musk, who has spent much of the past year spreading misinformation about COVID-19, host on social media.

On Friday afternoon, the New York Post flashed this “exclusive” headline on its website: “‘SNL’ cast won’t be forced to appear with controversial host Elon Musk.”

The report cited an unnamed source who told Page Six, “Speaking historically, if a cast member has been that unhappy, they don’t have to do it,” adding that executive producer Lorne Michaels “won’t ever make them do anything they don’t want to do.”

It was a somewhat dubious claim that appeared to be little more than speculation, and also seemed to be news to Saturday Night Live co-head writer and co-anchor of “Weekend Update,” Michael Che. In an Instagram post that he is likely to delete soon, Che posted a screenshot of the Post article, followed by a series of jokes about the outrage over the Tesla billionaire’s hosting gig.

“Does this rule mean I won’t be forced to appear next to Colin anymore?!” Che joked of his co-anchor (and perpetual punching bag) Colin Jost. He then added, “#CancelJost.”

The report comes after several SNL cast members, including Bowen Yang and Aidy Bryant, subtly expressed their frustrations with the decision to have Musk, who has spent much of the past year spreading misinformation about COVID-19, host on social media.
Video player from: YouTube (Privacy Policy, Terms)

During an appearance on the Tonight Show earlier in the week to promote his new HBO Max sketch series That Damn Michael Che, the comedian addressed the Musk news more directly. “I am excited to meet him,” he told Jimmy Fallon. “But I don’t know if he knows, usually, we have this tradition at Saturday Night Live, it’s customary for the hosts to give like a couple million dollars to the cast members. So if he’s a cool guy maybe he’ll…”

“Keep up the tradition,” Fallon said, finishing his sentence.

As for the idea that SNL cast members could skip an episode in protest of the host, it’s happened before. While no one refused to appear alongside Donald Trump when he hosted in 2015, 25 years earlier, Nora Dunn famously joined with musical guest Sinead O’Connor to boycott the week comedian Andrew Dice Clay was brought in to host.

“My objection to Andrew Dice Clay was that his character was only about one thing: abusing women and laughing about abusing women,” Dunn explained years later. “There was nothing else behind it. There was nothing else about it except to make him look harmless.”

Lorne Michaels declined to extend Dunn’s contract and she did not return for the following season.

https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/michael-che-on-why-controversy-elon-musk-hosting-snl-is-good-thing

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

And he thinks it's exciting to have someone spreading Covid disinformation on.

He must have LOVED Trump too. (R.I.P Grandma Che.)

----------

IG @erichrigonan

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-promoted-coronavirus-misinformation-then-tested-positive-2020-11
Elon Musk promoted coronavirus misinformation for months. Then his own infection kept him out of SpaceX's astronaut launch.

Dude's a CHUMP to rely un UNRELIABLE rapid testing - the kind he used came back with more false NEGATIVES - but when he got a positive he was like "this is weird, I must be negative and the test is bad."

Swipe:
--
In the months preceding his diagnosis, Musk insisted that the virus was not very deadly, that young people weren't vulnerable, and that doctors were misattributing deaths to COVID-19 instead of other causes. He sent employees back to work at his California Tesla factory in defiance of local shelter-in-place orders, which he described as "fascist" and "forcible imprisoning." He also predicted the US would be reporting "close to zero new cases" by the end of April. And he vouched for an approach that would allow mass infection before vaccines become available.
-

Dude's a pathological chump. Baby ran away from California to Texas where he'll be coddled by "real men."

So no he hasn't walked SHIT back.

Look above - people are saying "Crypto isn't bad for the environment except for Bitcoin." And dude's promoting Bitcoin - so much so his company bought $1.5 billion of it.

Dude's a piece of shit to host a comedy show. SNl is famous for this stunt hosting and Trump was destructive enough.

Maybe in 2024 we get Trump again on SNL?

Did Jim Downey start working at SNL again??

so it all makes sense

fuck Elon Musk.

that was a tweet Elon sent after the US-backed coup in bolivia when people brought up the countries lithium deposits and how Musk has been after them for years.

he kept it really real with that shit.

>fuck Elon Musk.


Some folks are borderline caping for dude in here.