The New Yorker's house style was minimalist – few images, links rarely – long before the dawn of modern SEO. (I wish they'd change it, though.)

New Yorker rarely has good pictures or videos.

That's incredible, and honestly looks quite fun. The fact that they're venomous might keep me from trying, though.

This got me thinking - as drone tech continues to improve and drop in price, I wonder if we could deploy a fleet of cheap autonomous fish-killing submersibles. The failure modes or evolutionary pressures might be problematic, but imagine the lionfish we could kill at volume.

> This got me thinking - as drone tech continues to improve and drop in price, I wonder if we could deploy a fleet of cheap autonomous fish-killing submersibles. The failure modes or evolutionary pressures might be problematic, but imagine the lionfish we could kill at volume.

You're not the only one with that idea, automated underwater robots [0] are developed to kill crown-of-thorns starfish that eat corals[1]. They can cause a lot of damage to coral reefs and don't have a lot of predators.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COTSBot

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starfish#Ecolo...

Spearfishing is one of the most exciting and engaging sports I can think of. I’m not much for scuba, but spearing on a breath is pretty incredible.

I’ve continued free diving but I don’t kill fish anymore for personal reasons. Regardless, I strongly encourage anyone interested to try it. Of all the ways to get a meal, getting in the water and selecting the ideal catch is the best I’ve ever known.

Just like the article describes, there are invasive species up for grabs all over the world. They’re usually fine to eat and worth targeting.

I got into spear fishing last summer. It's an amazing sport/pastime. And if you buy fish from a shop normally, then spearing them instead has no negative environmental consequences, and avoids any bycatch. Just swim out from the shore instead of diving from your diesel-chugging boat.

Totally. That was part of what drew me into the sport. I learned that the fishing industry kills close to a trillion animals per year, globally. I couldn’t wrap my head around that.

It seems like many marine animals are probably sentient. The idea of causing so much destruction on its own is concerning, but to do that to creatures who experience pain and suffering seems gratuitously and absurdly immoral.

Selective harvest is not only incredibly important for the health of the ocean, it seems like the morally correct solution as well.

Of course not all of us have the time, opportunity, or physical ability to selectively harvest. I think those of us that do should seriously consider it though... People would realize how polluted and depleted so many essential populations are, see the trash inside the ocean, hear the excessive boat traffic, etc. They would also see all of the incredible parts too, though. Nothing makes you realize how beautiful and important the oceans are better than getting inside and being a part of them.

I guess it’s similar to terrestrial hunting. It can give you and immense love and appreciation for the environment you’re depending on.

Just curious, where are you diving? I’m in BC, Canada. I’ve always been a little envious of people in warmer, clearer waters.

Yep agreed!

I'm on the Tutukaka coast in Northland NZ. It's an amazing coast for diving, I'm slowly snorkeling my way around the coast where we live, one bit at a time. Here's a typical scene from my GoPro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wkLZKiPewc.

That is just off shore so it's pretty quiet for fish, though there are usually a few Blue MaoMao which are good eating and have no limit as they are plentiful. On the Poor Knights marine reserve a few miles offshore, the fish are a lot thicker https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10155868863065128!

The article happened to talk about this.

I'm frequently guilty of reading the comments first, getting sucked into links, and never reading the original article.

Thanks for the FYI.

Oh hey, me too. I just thought you might be interested.

It didn't go well, and the description wasn't great. It left me thinking they maybe hadn't tried very hard, like didn't iterate the design.

Seems like they're a really easy target, though.

The article is merely a comment on the topic of discussion. Often the best comment, but not always.

Sometimes I find myself wishing there were more comments so I can learn more about the topic, and then realize I haven't read the article.

You are not alone ;)

You said NYT twice, did you mean New Yorker for one?

No, they’re saying NYT links to sources and other newspapers do not.