That is a case of a specific chemical in tires, not microplastics generally, or even rubber tire particles generally.

Why do you say "nothing to see here" ? The existence of the earlier paper does not imply that procedures corrected for this afterwards. Is there any published protocol for a study since that first article that mentions avoiding stearate powder from gloves ?

I've ordered books that were print-on-demand and had them arrive in 3 days. Some of the Amazon ones will have the exact date in the back, and I can see they were printed the day I ordered it.

For what it's worth, I think print-on-demand is a win overall, while there are lots of low quality stuff out there, the ability of small authors to get published and readers to find rarer stuff out weighs that.

I have used a DR-DOS 7 that was set up with a nice task switcher, between terminate-and-stay-resident programs ( not true concurrent processing ).

This setup started WP5.1, a spread sheet -- I think Lotus123, and a graphics editing program. I think it switches using cntrl and the F keys, similar in feel to how a linux machine switches consoles.

I think at the time this was set up, only DR-DOS could do the task switching. I don't know if that is still true.

MS-DOS/PC-DOS 4+ DOSSHELL has a task switcher.

I've thought about making a C02 scrubber for indoor use. The simplest way, using commercial lime, would mean replenishing a consumable to keep it going. The C02 scrubbers that acquarium owners use also don't seem to be able to be regenerated.

I think it would be interesting to see what effect, if any, an indoor C02 level of near 0 would have on humans and mammals. Because your blood has to stay in a narrow PH range, and C02 is part of maintaining that, I wouldn't presume it would be good.

I think a small desktop C02 scrubber might have a market in the same demographic that pays for air ionizers, de-ionizers, HEPA filters and incense burners.

I don't think that piece of plastic would last as long as you think. I think even ABS or PETG would be crumbling to powder in 100 years.

But you could use it as a stamp for thin sheet metal, that might last a longer time.

Yeah it seems like a cheap CNC drill which can drill holes in steel sheets would be something that would last basically forever. Something like this:

TTC3018 CNC Router Machine 3-Axis Engraving Machine Metal Engraver GRBL Control with Built-in WiFi, 775 Spindle Motor, Engraver Desktop CNC for Wood, Acrylic, Plastic, Aluminum, PCB Milling & Carving https://www.amazon.com/TTC3018-Machine-Engraving-Engraver-Al...

Hey I just did a bit of a deep dive into this. Wow, thanks for pointing this out. It seems like 'PEEK' would last the longest, but most printers can't do this.

"Standard estimates for indoor PETG longevity are 10–20+ years under normal conditions, with some sources giving a more conservative 5–10 years. A century is 5–10x beyond those estimates under passive conditions." Wow! Thanks for pointing this out. This is fascinating.

Or, press it into soft clay and then fire the clay.

But currently, most of the high intensity retail areas tax the landlords on the value of the land PLUS the value of the building ( "improvements" ). They owe this tax even if the building is empty.

How does switching to a land value tax, which only taxes them on the value of the land, help at all ?

I think it makes a lot of sense. Like if you have a $100k empty lot taxed at 1% of total value, and you build a $200k house on it, then your taxes go from $1k to $3k, which somewhat disincentivizes building. You might feel pretty comfortable sitting on the lot at $1k/year, especially if values are increasing at more than a few % per year. But if you tax only the land at 3%, then your taxes are already $3k. There’s no disincentive to build, and it’s a lot more uncomfortable to sit on that empty lot, so you develop it or sell it to someone who will.

In urban and suburban areas, it benefits society to have more development on a given piece of land. Taxing the land only does not mean the nominal tax liability goes down. Taxing the land only means the land owner is incentivized to do something with the land. The more productive the use, the better for their bottom line, and the better for society.

Easiest example is having an empty lot or a detached single family homes taking up 0.2 acre lots in the middle of a city that could house 10x as many people on the land. Right now, leaving it underutilized makes it a cheap savings account for the landowner. Developing it is work. So let's incentivize the development taxing the land only (can be the same or more), so that the only way it makes sense to control that land is to do something sufficiently useful with it.

I don't think there is a connection. The situation where the landlords capture most of the increase in value that a cluster of retailers create, would not be affected if we switched from taxing the landlords on the value of their land and building, to taxing them just on the value of the land.

The trick is that land alone can command higher tax rates than land+buildings without negative economic effects, due to land having an inelastic supply. A community could therefore tax land value at ~100% and capture the entirety of the value increase that'd otherwise end up in landlords' bank accounts. Combine that with UBI or some other means to redistribute that captured value and literally the only “losers” in this scenario are the landlords (and only to the extent that they'd no longer make money on renting out land; slashing the building tax to zero would make those landlords less disincentivized to maintain and upgrade their buildings).

In the immediate order of things yeah, tenants aren't going to receive any relief from taxing land. The benefit lies in the second, or maybe even third order of effects that LVT produces.

Do we want the landlords to just sit on all of that value they're accumulating or do we want to take in more tax revenue (not a higher tax rate) as their land value increases and then do something for the common good with that additional tax revenue? Maybe tax relief for businesses, or social programs that reduce the cost of living for the workers. Or even better, encourage the landowner to further develop their land to get a better return, potentially benefitting tenants and the nearby community? Because that's what LVT does, or at the very least enables.

LVT would increase supply of rentable spaces by forcing landowners to utilize their land as the market demands.

So it directly solves for this problem by giving store owners more power in negotiations (I’ll just move across the street)

i can't move across the street because there is no vacancy because it's a superior spot and the landlord is charging a premium because they know that even though there is one hundred strip malls within a few mile radius thanks to the gluttonous supply enabled by LVT that i don't wanna move to an inferior spot. negotiation negated.

It does capture the increased value of the land around the shops though. Transferring that to the retailer is harder, as you say

It can be transferred by lowering sales or corporate taxes. It is also indirectly transferred by encouraging more valuable land use around the retail like public transport or complementary businesses.

Another option on top of all that is UBI, which gives customers more money to spend at those businesses.

I have hopes that the Slate vehicle will turn out to be a dumb EV, but I'm cynical enough that I want to wait til it hits the market and someone does a tear-down. https://www.slate.auto/