Not guaranteeing I got these conversions correct, but I believe the rough estimate for the thermal energy of the Earth is on the order of 10^31 Joules.[0] while the rough estimate for human energy use is 10^20 Joules per year.[0]

So if we switched to 100% geothermal (a few orders of magnitude more than we're actually discussing using), we'd be using on the order of a hundred trillionth of the energy per year?

[0] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/51920/amount-of-...

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

This also ignores that the Earth already has a flux of 50TW per year, so it's only an increase of about 40% (and even less, when you consider that intentional extraction would slow the flux of all surface area above it).

Not only that, but Earth's internal heat is being renewed constantly via things like radioactive isotopes and tidal forces.

You do know we actively use geothermal plants right now, right? It has almost no effect? Let alone compared to the effect of climate change.

The biggest concerns are specific techniques for pumping water, which (sometimes) can cause small earthquakes.

You seem to be missing the point.

I've joined Storygraph, LibraryThing, and I think a few others. Never heard of Bookwyrm before.

I still use Goodreads almost exclusively.

Goodreads is still the competition. If you mean competition specifically between alternative to Goodreads, I think LibraryThing is the most popular by a fair bit. After a quick look around Bookwyrm, it definitely doesn't look like the one I'd choose. I'm mostly seeing "some rando's list of books they read in 2025" and "some rando commented on some random book".

Maybe once it finishes importing my Goodreads list it'll be more useful, but it's taking a while (kaguya was very quick), and my initial impression is that I'm not impressed.

Bookwyrm is built on ActivityPub, you won't have any single server, but a constellation of them

However, its strongest point on it's favor is that anyone creating content on AP automatically has a potential reach of a few million users.

I don't mind where the search is. I do mind that the drop-down results can't be opened in new tabs—they are links, so you can choose "open in new tab", but they're links to "#", so you end up opening the current page in a new tab.

It's just a bunch of basic usability problems like that that they've never bothered addressing.

DNF seems useful to me. The other deficiencies you mention don't matter much to me, though the Goodreads UI is bad. (Don't care if it looks old, but right-clicking on things often doesn't work because they're stupid JS link, and it's way too focused on being a social feed.)

As far as features, the things I value about Goodreads / would like from replacements:

* I can see what my friends have read and rated books. (I specifically care about a tiny handful of friends who I know have similar tastes to my own.)

Obviously, this will be very hard for you to replicate.

Note that I do not care about the social feed. It doesn't matter that my friend is currently reading xyz. All that matters is that when I look at book X, I can see that [friend with very similar taste] read it (don't care when!) and whether they rated it highly or poorly.

* Goodreads recommendations are bad.

Related to the above point. Goodread's "Reads also enjoy" wavers from "moderately useful" to "fundamentally broken". Lists are okay, but broad lists are dominated by super-popular books that came out post-Goodreads, and there aren't enough specific lists (or not specific in a useful way; so many pointless lists for "books with an X on the cover".)

After importing my Goodreads books to Kaguya, and checking the recs on my latest read, you have roughly the same issue that Goodreads has with obscure books: the "similar books" are...other recent books I recently read. (On Goodreads I'll see this when my brother and I read an obscure scifi novel and something 100% unrelated. He and I will dominate the data set for that book.)

I recently discover that LibraryThing's similar books system is actually much better than anything on Goodreads for finding similar books. That's the thing to beat. I suspect they're able to do better because they've built up a large dataset from deep tagging similar to what you're planning. A tagging system isn't enough; you'll have to tag things! That requires a lot of users, copying an existing data set, or some clever LLM use. (Maybe not so clever; it's probably been trained on a lot of these books.)

* Libby integration

I have a Chrome extension (Available Reads) that will hit the Libby API for each book on a page. This lets me quickly see which books on my To Read list are currently available as ebooks or audiobooks at my local library. It's useful enough that I open up Chrome (not my primary browser) just to use that extension from time to time.

* Filters and sorting on genre

I have a big "want to read" list. When I want to pick my next book to read, I usually am thinking "I want to read scifi" or "I want to read about history" or whatever. In Goodreads, my Want To Read list doesn't even let me filter or sort fiction from non-fiction.

What would be cool would be if I could filter "1980s scifi that I haven't read that my brother has read and rated at least four stars". Or "middle-grades scifi that I read 10+ years ago and rated 4+ stars" for when I want a nostalgic read.

The "more stats" I think could be interesting, albeit not particularly useful. I do like the "date read / date published" graph on Goodreads stats. (The "date published" axes gets squashed to uselessness if you read "The Odyssey", though.)

Thanks for the detailed comment!

1. Friends reviews on book is actually not that hard at all. We will implement it right after we get the friends and follow system working.

2. This one will take a decent number of users and ratings. We need a lot of data before we can make recommendations using ML.

3. Noted.

4. We will add that in the next few weeks. Filtering TBR seems to be a common request.

> 1. Friends reviews on book is actually not that hard at all. We will implement it right after we get the friends and follow system working.

I mean it's hard because you have to get my friends to join. Goodreads has the network effect going for it.

> Adding a building doesn't improve the environment

Depends how concerned you are about pesticides.

Exactly

Show me any farm that doesn’t use them

I’ll wait

There is indoor lettuce I can buy at my supermarkets that is "zero pesticide" (you can just google it and find several, don't want to post any sort of links to products here).

I suspect it's hydroponic.

> I suspect it's hydroponic.

It's axiomatically-speaking the one of the only few ways to make it happen.

"zero pesticides" implies no bugs/insects around to need spraying it in the first place, and doing that requires (A) a clean environment + (B) no regular soil (regular soil may have insect eggs / fungi in them).

The only things that come to mind are hydroponics & hydrogel agriculture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogel_agriculture

> > Rising steadily is what you said. It's really not doing that.

> It really is.

It was dropping for most of the 1990s, and most of the 2010s.

So it's been rising steadily over the past 45 years...except for about two decades of that time? This isn't what most people call a steady rise.

> It was dropping for most of the 1990s, and most of the 2010s.

It was dropping in the 90s because of Clinton's enormous budget cuts and firing half a million federal employees which is clearly an outlier and something that now seems to be far more partisan and difficult to achieve. And in 2010s it was dropping relative to enormous stimulus spending and corporate bailouts aimed at helping the economy after the housing crisis.

> So it's been rising steadily over the past 45 years...except for about two decades of that time? This isn't what most people call a steady rise.

You can quote me correctly instead of making up a weak strawman. The entire thread is here for everybody to read, you're not going to be able to fabricate some "gotcha". I said it has been rising steadily for a century, and that recent trend is more shaky but probably still trending upward.

> I said it has been rising steadily for a century, and that recent trend is more shaky but probably still trending upward.

Can you define "recent" here? Because to me it looks like the last 40 years is shaky, and 40 out of 100 is a huge amount.

The comment I replied to which is easy to find is this:

> 1. There are claims that federal spending is out of control. How do you square that with the fact that spending as a percentage of GDP is only slightly elevated compared to the historical average going back to at least the 1970s, with the main deviation in the past few years coming from the after-effects of the pandemic? [1]

Most certainly since 1970 the trend (using a linear regression) has been very significantly upwards, which contradicts that claim.

Since the 1980 the trend has been upwards.

Since 1990 the trend has been upwards.

Since 2000 the trend has been upwards.

Since 2010 the trend has been upwards.

Now just give it a rest for god's sake. Don't keep doing the reddit internet arguing thing.

Separate comment because I feel like it.

If the list of data points was 10 98 times, then a 50, then another 10, it would give you the same results with those linear regressions. You'd see a "trend" going up when you measure from anywhere in the past to the present. But that trend would not represent anything real about the first 98 years. That is not the correct test to use.

That comment was basically right, but I'd say "over 40 years" instead of "1970s" to make the strongest point.

> Since the 1980 the trend has been upwards.

> Since 1990 the trend has been upwards.

> Since 2000 the trend has been upwards.

> Since 2010 the trend has been upwards.

Only one of those statements is true.

Stop using linear regressions for everything.

The 0's don't give you anything. You could just say 1.

As for why they're equal, there are various proofs and explanations, but the simplest proof is probably:

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1

0.333... + 0.333... + 0.333... = 1

0.999... = 1

Funny thing is, people think their bank account number is private, but it's printed on every check they write.

Btw by private info though, I just meant you need to actually create an account to use Zelle, PayPal, cash app, Apple Pay, etc. The account number isn’t as big a deal, just that it is annoying to have to make an account and agree to a 200-page EULA, with a random third party company you didn’t choose, just to receive some money you’re owed.

This is one of those secret versus private things that pops up now and then.

Yeah, one of those funny legacy things from the days when convenience and cost of storing alternate identifiers dictated designs. Just like how my SSN was printed on my school ID that I presented at the library and dining hall 20 years ago. NBD!

Chase online deposit was fine with it for us. I'm pretty sure quite a few of them were "and" and some were probably "[me] and [my wife's completely made up name]". (She doesn't go by her legal name, first or last, though now that we're married she intends to go through the legal process to update.)

I deposited a few of these in Louisiana (can't remember if it was online or not but my account was originally opened in Oregon so who knows if that part of ACH is more familiar with them)

Not being able to attract capital would clearly be a Mistral problem.

Luckily for Mistral, capital also exists in countries other than the USA.