Probably the most effective thing we could do is re-imagine Smokey Bear from a "put out your campfire" mascot to a spokesperson for effective forest management & prescribed fire.
Also worth mentioning her new podcast (along with Carolynn Levy), The Social Radars, which is sort of a podcast version of Founders At Work: https://www.thesocialradars.com/
I think it's a false assumption that when something burns in a high severity fire, it returns to a healthy state afterwards. Historically, natural fire was low severity because it was high frequency, burning through once a decade (or even more frequently). This left large trees and soil intact, and so dense regrowth was limited, since there was still shade.
With high severity fire, two things can happen. Trees can be totally wiped out (called a stand-replacing fire) which causes extremely dense, brushy regrowth (prone to another high severity fire). Or in really bad conditions, the soil can be damage so no regrowth happens, causing strange moonscape-like forests that are completely dead. This affects watersheds, causes mudslides, etc. Neither is good.
If we could burn large swaths of landscape with low severity fire, that would be a huge step in the right direction but is extremely difficult. We are treating only a small fraction of the acreage in that manner.
Note: This varies from landscape to landscape but is directionally correct. For example, in some climates, stand-replacing fires are healthy and normal. But in most climates, bad.
One thing I find frustrating in the discussion of wildfire is that it frequently dumbs down to one thing vs another, usually "We must treat the landscape with thinning and prescribed fire" vs "We need better firefighting resources and equipment". This is a false choice and we need both.
The principle of Defense in Depth in infosec is illustrative. No one would debate whether or not you need secure passwords vs role-based permissions. You obviously need both and they reinforce each other.
The same is true in fire. To end megafires, we need:
1) Landscape Management
2) Community Resilience
3) Fast & aggressive suppression
Better technology can help play a role at all three levels.
Pano will have a great business even if megafires are ended, since fire will always be a part of the landscape. One of their major usecases is monitoring controlled burns.
There are plenty of economic models that can support cures to recurrent issues. For example, internal sprinklers & smoke detectors have dramatically improved survivability of structure fires, but that "cure" supports a whole industry of sprinkler and alarm system companies.
Most experts agree that 3 things are required to end megafires: Landscape management, community resilience and fast & aggressive suppression. It's a layered approach - similar to infosec models. No one layer is an effective solution.
Some of the examples in the article are focused on suppression (since that is a bit easier to grasp) - but there are some really exciting examples that exist outside of that. BurnBot, for example, is a robotic device that helps make fuel management more efficient. Overstory uses satellite imagery to help utilities prioritize line trimming and avoid ignitions.
Disclaimer: I am mentioned in the article as a Firetech investor
The liability for prescribed burns is a big issue. If the government agreed to co-insure landowners against escaped burns, it would make prescribed burning significantly easier. But right now, landowners have less liability if they just let fuel accumulate and it burns "accidentally" but dangerously than if they undertake controlled prescribed burning operations to reduce fuel loads (the right answer).
One thing that often gets overlooked with respect to payments is consumer preference (and this is actually the primary driver of cost).
Why do credit cards cost 2-3% to process? Because of expensive rewards programs given to the consumers who use the card. Why are there expensive rewards programs? Because consumers like them! And they insist on paying with a credit card because of them. Except in edge cases, merchants have no choice but to accept credit cards despite the cost.
While Visa, Mastercard & Amex frequently get the blame, the lions share of the processing fee flows to the issuing bank of the card, and the lions share of that fee goes to fund rewards programs. (There are other perks to credit cards that encourage consumer usage, including chargeback protections, free 30 days of float, near universal acceptance, etc)
Payment costs won't materially decrease unless someone invents a form of payment that consumers prefer which doesn't have these cost burdens. Or if you, as the merchant, have such market power that you can mandate a less preferred but cheaper form of payment (like cash or debit card or ACH - this is why you often can't use your credit card to pay a parking ticket or your taxes)
I think it is more likely that the economics killed Concord ($20k per seat), not the route, and it appears that Boom thinks like they can deliver a luxury, supersonic experience at a far cheaper, business class price.
And if transoceanic supersonic travel becomes popular, pressure will mount to define overland supersonic corridors, or manufacturers will invest to reduce the noise, or both.