the problem with the boycott is that 99%+ of the users aren't active contributors, just passive viewers. So a boycott won't change the viewership numbers very much. heck, most of the people who would boycott are probably no script/adblock anyway, so there's no lost impressions there.
You are probably right about that percentage, but you miss the point that even the passive viewers are here for the comments and the links to interesting tech stuff. If the active users go away there will be nothing left to passively view.
That applies now.
The only reason it is not economically feasible is because it is so cheap to dig fossil fuels out of the ground.
Allegedly, we are now past peak oil, and the price of fossil fuels should start going up. Eventually it will be economical to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels using solar/nuclear/other power and either biomass or CO2 and water - either because the technology has improved, or the products have risen in value, or more likely, both.
Your government has nukes, artillery, tanks, bombers, etc. Are you going to demand access to these too? After all your logic seems to be 'whatever government can has, I want too'.
Any objective reading of the second amendment would seem to indicate that that is the case. If you don't like it, you should work to get the second amendment changed, not work to violate your constitution.
I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.