I will never be able to wrap my head around watching someone else play video games. I get how there should be a similarity between that and watching pros play physical sports, but I just can't get over that gap.
You seem to be a little unclear on the scale of this whole thing.
* Are you aware what "snowball earth" means? Do you have an understanding of how much glaciation there was? * Do you understand that a half billion years is a very, very long time, even in geologic terms? * Do you have a concept for what plate tectonics might look like on the scale of a half billion years? * Do you know where the continents were during this period? Or even what they were? Or if they were?
Seriously, your comment reads like a 12 year old trying to sound smart, and failing really, really badly.
I'm more optimistic. The efficiency gains we've realized over the last couple of decades are incredible. LEDs, HVAC, even ICEs are all massively more efficient than their predecessors. At the same time, we're steadily deploying more and more renewables, and they are already outperforming most fossil fuels from a cost standpoint. My house is 2x the size of my parent's house, but it costs 20% what theirs costs to heat and cool. 80 years of construction improvements makes a giant difference from an efficiency standpoint.
Efficiency is self-rewarding. All other climate-based arguments aside, the people who live more efficiently are going to have more money to spend, and the businesses which are more efficient, especially in regards to their infrastructure costs, are going to be more successful. We're not likely to go backwards in this regard. Pretty much nobody will ever again build a new home with a coal furnace in the cellar and crumpled newspaper in the walls. Yet that was not uncommon during the early half of the 1900s.
More importantly, the developing world isn't going to go through the whole power and efficiency revolution that we did. They're going to be starting with our better technology, and advancing from there. China is a good example. Thirty years ago, they weren't building massive fields of solar arrays and wind turbines. And yes, while they are still building coal plants, they're also deploying a lot of renewable energy. Like the rest of the world, financially, it makes sense to be moving to renewables.
We've already made some serious steps towards developing carbon negative concrete, which would be a real game-changer. Cement production releases a ton of CO2, but if it could be made to be a net negative, we'd have industrialized carbon capture. CO2 reinjection into gas wells seems to work, and there are some other promising capture and storage projects under development.
I think we're tantalizingly close to being able to address climate change in a meaningful way. One more iteration on battery storage will get us a very, very long way. Double the capacity or half the price, and storing electricity will become a financial no-brainer for most of the world.
Compounding on this, thousands upon thousands of prophets of varying prophetic specialities don't tend to come together to create a bunch of prophetic subsets that are used to test the limitations of and inter-prophetic reliability of other prophecies. While further prophets examine the historic reliability of past prophecies, and use what they find to improve current prophecies, all the while providing a rigorous margin of error for their prophecies.
This is one thing that all climate deniers seem to miss. They have no idea how big the science is, and how very, very deep it goes.
Lots of people can and do have the math skills and the underlying science knowledge. Universities around the world churn out thousands of them every year. You make it seem like this is some black box that 3 people understand, but that's far from reality.
Just because you personally don't understand it, doesn't mean that it's wrong or that nobody really understands it. That's just your appalling ignorance showing.
And saying "the scientists" also makes you look like a dumbass. Which ones? Astrophysicists? Geologists? Oceanographers? Meteorologists? Biologists? Atmospheric scientists specializing in stratospheric aerosols? Because while you don't know this, dozens of fields intersect in climate science. And if one of them was really wrong, people in other fields would notice.
Do you have zero faith in everyone smarter than you? Do you second guess your doctor? Your dentist? At some point in life, most marginally intelligent people recognize that they can't know everything, and they look for ways to determine when they should trust the wisdom of people much more knowledgeable than themselves. If you have a better system to determine the merit of ideas than the university system and peer reviewed publications, we'd all love to hear about it.
All that said, what you're whining about already has been done! If you want a very good example of someone who decided to actually check the climate scientists' work go read up on Richard A. Muller. I even posted a helpful link up above, if google is too hard for you.
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
Richard Muller is the poster child for what a real skeptic looks like and how they behave. He saw what he thought were serious errors in measuring climate change, and decided to do it right. What he found was that he just didn't really understand the field, and he didn't understand why things were being done the way they were. He was excessively and very inefficiently thorough, but doing it his own way he got the same answer, because he was rigorously applying proper scientific and statistical techniques. When you do that, reality doesn't change.
What he didn't do was to prosecute climate change in the media, where reality can take a back seat to flash and entertainment. What he didn't do was make some blogs up and cherry pick evidence to feed to an audience who doesn't want to believe. What he didn't do was go into the comment section of articles on climate change and flatly deny everything we know to be true about climate change. None of that is skepticism. It's trolling at the best, or a bizarrely dogmatic decision to be wrong at the worst.
I think his most powerful point, and one that deniers really need to address, is this:
The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
An interesting bit research into extreme events is looking at relative vs expected rates of record setting events. There's a lot of research into this, and there are statistical hallmarks of stable systems that we see breaking down in weather records currently.
As an example, lets say we start taking temperature measurements today. Tomorrow is going to be either a record high or a record low, or the same temperature as today. The day after now has something like a one-in-three chance of being a record. As time goes on, the chance of setting a record high or low goes steadily down, as we've sampled enough of the system to have captured the bulk of the variability in our record keeping. There are little blips around tens, hundreds, and thousands of years generally, as we start capturing further data to see things like the dust bowl or medieval warm period.
If you look at the expected rate of record setting weather events vs current records being broken, it's clear that our climate system is not stable. What's interesting is that you can see this without resorting to any sort of meteorology or climate science - just the statistics of measuring a variable system.
Oh, you precious little child. Remember three posts back, when I said, "Please provide some data to back up your assertion."? And then you didn't do that?
You thinking something is some way doesn't make that true. Doesn't matter what your gut tells you. Data are data. You've so far provided none. If you want to be taken seriously, post a link to some data.
You call it lazy and cheap, others would likely call it innovative and efficient.
For what good reason should your hairdressers be accountants, security guards, and couriers? Back in the day businesses had a cashier, but as time goes on, it's clear that that's not a required position.
If you don't need to store cash, as you point out, you don't need procedures, audits, staff training, specialized hardware and software, daily (or at least weekly) trips to the local bank, insurance, concerns about embezzlement and tax issues, etc. From the standpoint of a business in a competitive market, none of this makes you money. It's all a cost. And if the cost is more than the business lost not accepting cash, it's a net gain to go cards-only.
I get that a lot of people (me included) have issues with the tracking of electronic payments. But this is capitalism. To be successful, you need to make sure you're controlling your costs. Not accepting cash is one such way.
You don't have to agree, and you don't have to patronize businesses that make this decision. Until they all do. Unfortunately, once businesses see a new way to reduce costs trialed successfully, a lot will join suit. Better get in the habit of buying pre-paid Visa cards, I guess.
Combine the renter's age, the size of the place, and the day of the year, and holy fuck that's all red flags. It wasn't a guy who just needed a bed to crash in after going out, or a room for a shag if he got lucky. A kid in his early 20s rented a whole fucking house on NYE. FFS, I wouldn't rent a 50 yr old a whole damn house on NYE if I wasn't ok with a giant party there!
And as you noted, he got paid in spades for his criminal negligence for being all of 10 minutes away and not doing at least a couple of drive-bys, and cancelling that rental and calling the cops as soon as there were 3 cars in the driveway. Not looking on social media for a party at that address was also stupid.
Most people are buying the container, not the water.
No, no they are not. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "disposable bottles". And they wouldn't be made of plastic. (Excluding nalgene, I guess)
I bought my container almost a decade ago. I still use it daily. It's an aluminum bottle I fill at the water fountain. My state, like most states, has abundant, fresh, clean water. I can (and sometimes do) download a quarterly water report showing all the minerals and contaminants that I'm drinking. I know what I'm drinking is better than what 99% of humans in history ever drank. It's most likely better than anything that comes in a plastic bottle, since none of those comes with a full lab breakdown of all the components. And they are packaged in plastic.
A handy way to have water when you need it is to buy a nice water bottle and use it daily. A shitastic way to have water when you need it is to by a plastic bottle and use it once, then throw it. A very marginal way to do that better is to reuse that bottle a few times. But neither are a good way to keep water around.
You're half right, but don't totally have it. It's not instragram at all anymore. Fortnight replaced it.
From my coworkers with pre-teens and teens, Fortnight became the new social network. It became the new social currency. The kids acted out the victory dances on stage, on the ball field, in the classroom, and on the playground. The social currency became buying the limited dance moves for your character, learning them, and being able to drop them at a moment's notice to blow your friends' minds.
Fortnight became a meta-game, where playing was important, but being able to abstract it into the real world was what was valuable. Nobody cared or remembered who won what match the other weekend, but they did when you were introduced on the basketball court and did a stupid dance from the game.
It was still definitely more appearance than substance, but what's critical to understand is that it is its own social network, and the real life acting out of the game was the real social currency, not IG posts or facebook posts, or anything else online. That's what made Fortnight different, and what made it $3b.
That free dongle that allows charging and using the headphones at the the same time which comes with the phone and will be supported for the life of the phone? Or that expensive dongle that I need to purchase which may or may not work at a later date if the phone manufacturer decides to update their software, since this needs to interface with the USB-C port as an "officially supported piece of hardware"?
All that cost and effort just to deny us a $0.10 port that works just fine. It's really a load of crap. FFS, I'd rather pay $20 more to have the 3.5mm port back in the phone than pay that for a dongle. But that's the point, right? I can lose, break, or they can stop supporting that dongle. The headphone jack? It just works, and there's no additional profit available from it.
When I need headphones for the first time in three months, and I reach into my bag and pull them out, will the bluetooth ones still have any charge? I ask, because if I leave them on the charger, they won't be in my bag when I need them. And I certainly am not about to set a calendar reminder every week to charge the headphones I'm not using. That's stupid, given that my wired ones work every time even after a couple years of ignoring them.
And this is where our use-cases diverge. I use my headphones every few months, but when I need them, I tend to need them for a few hours. For this, wireless headphones are not a solution, at least until they retain charge indefinitely.
Micro-USB or USB-C headphone adapters come with the issue that most don't allow charging at the same time. You really need to pay more for that. And it requires buying and keeping yet another piece of equipment around, with all the exponentially more things that can go wrong as you link more and more hardware together. Not many people seem to be as hamfisted as you when it comes to using the headphone jack, and I honestly don't understand how the technology was so hard for you to use. But given this complaint, I would expect you, of all people, to understand that adding an expensive dongle to a phone that allows charging and audio through a wired headset at the same time makes such issues far more likely than a dedicated port.
For many years now I've carried a moderately priced set of 3.5mm headphones in my bag rolled into a little loop. When I need them, they're there. The rest of the time they are tucked out of the way. You could use your bluetooth headset or headphones this whole time too. We both got what we needed to fit our use-cases. There are zero benefits to me to suddenly be forced to move to wireless headphones or an expensive dongle. And from the comments here, I don't seem many other people seeing a benefit either.
I don't see this as a freedom (or "bravery") topic or even a big deal.
Then you are blind. If they had kept the option for wired, it wouldn't be a big deal. You could have your best fit, and we could have ours. Removing that option and charging a lot of money to be able to charge and listen to headphones is a big deal. Charging a lot more money for headphones and accessories is a big deal. Requiring another dongle is a big deal. All of these things were not necessary in the least, as they were solved by a $0.10 port that has been used for decades, and will still be useful for decades.
It is a big deal when multiple companies remove functionality from their products in the name of additional profits.
Just because you donâ(TM)t doesnâ(TM)t mean others donâ(TM)t. I only donâ(TM)t because I have never bought a smartphone without a headphone jack. Far as Iâ(TM)m concerned.....I will NOT REWARD Apple for trying to rip me off
We are all now 100% convinced that you don't use any apple products, and have not been ripped off by them. And will most certainly never reward them for it.
But don't you see, this means that it cost apple like -$200 to include the 3.5mm port. When they got rid of it, they had to pass that (negative) savings onto the consumer.
Which would still probably be cheaper than sending humans. There seems to be a vast underestimation of what it takes to keep humans alive and happy in this thread. The sheer amount of non-science effort it's going to take to build and maintain habitation, life support, refining and manufacturing facilities, and science labs for humans is going to dwarf the science they will eventually be able to do.
The ISS gets resupplied about monthly. To have humans live on Mars is going to require something on the order of the ISS. Except it's unlikely that we'd be able to resupply it that frequently, from both an orbital and a cost prospective. So it is going to need to be a lot more self-sufficient, and that's going to require a lot more infrastructure. All those trips, all that stuff, all those logistics could be robots instead. Robots that are happily running around doing their science years later, with no additional supplies required.
And whereas robots can do some science, a lot of the more meaningful things, the questions we can't already answer- requires a human.
Could you name a couple? Because they aren't evident to me, at least. Unless by "more meaningful things" you mean "feelings and experiences", at which point you're advocating for tourism and not anything really informative.
Slashdot Mirror
I will never be able to wrap my head around watching someone else play video games. I get how there should be a similarity between that and watching pros play physical sports, but I just can't get over that gap.
You seem to be a little unclear on the scale of this whole thing.
* Are you aware what "snowball earth" means? Do you have an understanding of how much glaciation there was?
* Do you understand that a half billion years is a very, very long time, even in geologic terms?
* Do you have a concept for what plate tectonics might look like on the scale of a half billion years?
* Do you know where the continents were during this period? Or even what they were? Or if they were?
Seriously, your comment reads like a 12 year old trying to sound smart, and failing really, really badly.
I'm more optimistic. The efficiency gains we've realized over the last couple of decades are incredible. LEDs, HVAC, even ICEs are all massively more efficient than their predecessors. At the same time, we're steadily deploying more and more renewables, and they are already outperforming most fossil fuels from a cost standpoint. My house is 2x the size of my parent's house, but it costs 20% what theirs costs to heat and cool. 80 years of construction improvements makes a giant difference from an efficiency standpoint.
Efficiency is self-rewarding. All other climate-based arguments aside, the people who live more efficiently are going to have more money to spend, and the businesses which are more efficient, especially in regards to their infrastructure costs, are going to be more successful. We're not likely to go backwards in this regard. Pretty much nobody will ever again build a new home with a coal furnace in the cellar and crumpled newspaper in the walls. Yet that was not uncommon during the early half of the 1900s.
More importantly, the developing world isn't going to go through the whole power and efficiency revolution that we did. They're going to be starting with our better technology, and advancing from there. China is a good example. Thirty years ago, they weren't building massive fields of solar arrays and wind turbines. And yes, while they are still building coal plants, they're also deploying a lot of renewable energy. Like the rest of the world, financially, it makes sense to be moving to renewables.
We've already made some serious steps towards developing carbon negative concrete, which would be a real game-changer. Cement production releases a ton of CO2, but if it could be made to be a net negative, we'd have industrialized carbon capture. CO2 reinjection into gas wells seems to work, and there are some other promising capture and storage projects under development.
I think we're tantalizingly close to being able to address climate change in a meaningful way. One more iteration on battery storage will get us a very, very long way. Double the capacity or half the price, and storing electricity will become a financial no-brainer for most of the world.
Compounding on this, thousands upon thousands of prophets of varying prophetic specialities don't tend to come together to create a bunch of prophetic subsets that are used to test the limitations of and inter-prophetic reliability of other prophecies. While further prophets examine the historic reliability of past prophecies, and use what they find to improve current prophecies, all the while providing a rigorous margin of error for their prophecies.
This is one thing that all climate deniers seem to miss. They have no idea how big the science is, and how very, very deep it goes.
Lots of people can and do have the math skills and the underlying science knowledge. Universities around the world churn out thousands of them every year. You make it seem like this is some black box that 3 people understand, but that's far from reality.
Just because you personally don't understand it, doesn't mean that it's wrong or that nobody really understands it. That's just your appalling ignorance showing.
And saying "the scientists" also makes you look like a dumbass. Which ones? Astrophysicists? Geologists? Oceanographers? Meteorologists? Biologists? Atmospheric scientists specializing in stratospheric aerosols? Because while you don't know this, dozens of fields intersect in climate science. And if one of them was really wrong, people in other fields would notice.
Do you have zero faith in everyone smarter than you? Do you second guess your doctor? Your dentist? At some point in life, most marginally intelligent people recognize that they can't know everything, and they look for ways to determine when they should trust the wisdom of people much more knowledgeable than themselves. If you have a better system to determine the merit of ideas than the university system and peer reviewed publications, we'd all love to hear about it.
All that said, what you're whining about already has been done! If you want a very good example of someone who decided to actually check the climate scientists' work go read up on Richard A. Muller. I even posted a helpful link up above, if google is too hard for you.
You hit the nail on the head. Here's what being a climate skeptic looks like: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.
Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.
Richard Muller is the poster child for what a real skeptic looks like and how they behave. He saw what he thought were serious errors in measuring climate change, and decided to do it right. What he found was that he just didn't really understand the field, and he didn't understand why things were being done the way they were. He was excessively and very inefficiently thorough, but doing it his own way he got the same answer, because he was rigorously applying proper scientific and statistical techniques. When you do that, reality doesn't change.
What he didn't do was to prosecute climate change in the media, where reality can take a back seat to flash and entertainment. What he didn't do was make some blogs up and cherry pick evidence to feed to an audience who doesn't want to believe. What he didn't do was go into the comment section of articles on climate change and flatly deny everything we know to be true about climate change. None of that is skepticism. It's trolling at the best, or a bizarrely dogmatic decision to be wrong at the worst.
I think his most powerful point, and one that deniers really need to address, is this:
The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.
An interesting bit research into extreme events is looking at relative vs expected rates of record setting events. There's a lot of research into this, and there are statistical hallmarks of stable systems that we see breaking down in weather records currently.
As an example, lets say we start taking temperature measurements today. Tomorrow is going to be either a record high or a record low, or the same temperature as today. The day after now has something like a one-in-three chance of being a record. As time goes on, the chance of setting a record high or low goes steadily down, as we've sampled enough of the system to have captured the bulk of the variability in our record keeping. There are little blips around tens, hundreds, and thousands of years generally, as we start capturing further data to see things like the dust bowl or medieval warm period.
If you look at the expected rate of record setting weather events vs current records being broken, it's clear that our climate system is not stable. What's interesting is that you can see this without resorting to any sort of meteorology or climate science - just the statistics of measuring a variable system.
Oh, you precious little child. Remember three posts back, when I said, "Please provide some data to back up your assertion."? And then you didn't do that?
You thinking something is some way doesn't make that true. Doesn't matter what your gut tells you. Data are data. You've so far provided none. If you want to be taken seriously, post a link to some data.
You are wrong. It's far cheaper to just take cards.
Please provide some data to back up your assertion.
You call it lazy and cheap, others would likely call it innovative and efficient.
For what good reason should your hairdressers be accountants, security guards, and couriers? Back in the day businesses had a cashier, but as time goes on, it's clear that that's not a required position.
If you don't need to store cash, as you point out, you don't need procedures, audits, staff training, specialized hardware and software, daily (or at least weekly) trips to the local bank, insurance, concerns about embezzlement and tax issues, etc. From the standpoint of a business in a competitive market, none of this makes you money. It's all a cost. And if the cost is more than the business lost not accepting cash, it's a net gain to go cards-only.
I get that a lot of people (me included) have issues with the tracking of electronic payments. But this is capitalism. To be successful, you need to make sure you're controlling your costs. Not accepting cash is one such way.
You don't have to agree, and you don't have to patronize businesses that make this decision. Until they all do. Unfortunately, once businesses see a new way to reduce costs trialed successfully, a lot will join suit. Better get in the habit of buying pre-paid Visa cards, I guess.
Combine the renter's age, the size of the place, and the day of the year, and holy fuck that's all red flags. It wasn't a guy who just needed a bed to crash in after going out, or a room for a shag if he got lucky. A kid in his early 20s rented a whole fucking house on NYE. FFS, I wouldn't rent a 50 yr old a whole damn house on NYE if I wasn't ok with a giant party there!
And as you noted, he got paid in spades for his criminal negligence for being all of 10 minutes away and not doing at least a couple of drive-bys, and cancelling that rental and calling the cops as soon as there were 3 cars in the driveway. Not looking on social media for a party at that address was also stupid.
Here's the original: https://slashdot.org/story/18/...
Wish /. could get some editors at some point. This shit has been going on for decades now.
Most people are buying the container, not the water.
No, no they are not. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "disposable bottles". And they wouldn't be made of plastic. (Excluding nalgene, I guess)
I bought my container almost a decade ago. I still use it daily. It's an aluminum bottle I fill at the water fountain. My state, like most states, has abundant, fresh, clean water. I can (and sometimes do) download a quarterly water report showing all the minerals and contaminants that I'm drinking. I know what I'm drinking is better than what 99% of humans in history ever drank. It's most likely better than anything that comes in a plastic bottle, since none of those comes with a full lab breakdown of all the components. And they are packaged in plastic.
A handy way to have water when you need it is to buy a nice water bottle and use it daily. A shitastic way to have water when you need it is to by a plastic bottle and use it once, then throw it. A very marginal way to do that better is to reuse that bottle a few times. But neither are a good way to keep water around.
You're half right, but don't totally have it. It's not instragram at all anymore. Fortnight replaced it.
From my coworkers with pre-teens and teens, Fortnight became the new social network. It became the new social currency. The kids acted out the victory dances on stage, on the ball field, in the classroom, and on the playground. The social currency became buying the limited dance moves for your character, learning them, and being able to drop them at a moment's notice to blow your friends' minds.
Fortnight became a meta-game, where playing was important, but being able to abstract it into the real world was what was valuable. Nobody cared or remembered who won what match the other weekend, but they did when you were introduced on the basketball court and did a stupid dance from the game.
It was still definitely more appearance than substance, but what's critical to understand is that it is its own social network, and the real life acting out of the game was the real social currency, not IG posts or facebook posts, or anything else online. That's what made Fortnight different, and what made it $3b.
That free dongle that allows charging and using the headphones at the the same time which comes with the phone and will be supported for the life of the phone? Or that expensive dongle that I need to purchase which may or may not work at a later date if the phone manufacturer decides to update their software, since this needs to interface with the USB-C port as an "officially supported piece of hardware"?
All that cost and effort just to deny us a $0.10 port that works just fine. It's really a load of crap. FFS, I'd rather pay $20 more to have the 3.5mm port back in the phone than pay that for a dongle. But that's the point, right? I can lose, break, or they can stop supporting that dongle. The headphone jack? It just works, and there's no additional profit available from it.
Because that's a mental illness, which luckily would be covered so you could get help.
When I need headphones for the first time in three months, and I reach into my bag and pull them out, will the bluetooth ones still have any charge? I ask, because if I leave them on the charger, they won't be in my bag when I need them. And I certainly am not about to set a calendar reminder every week to charge the headphones I'm not using. That's stupid, given that my wired ones work every time even after a couple years of ignoring them.
Yeah, charging headphones is a bit of a pain.
And this is where our use-cases diverge. I use my headphones every few months, but when I need them, I tend to need them for a few hours. For this, wireless headphones are not a solution, at least until they retain charge indefinitely.
Micro-USB or USB-C headphone adapters come with the issue that most don't allow charging at the same time. You really need to pay more for that. And it requires buying and keeping yet another piece of equipment around, with all the exponentially more things that can go wrong as you link more and more hardware together. Not many people seem to be as hamfisted as you when it comes to using the headphone jack, and I honestly don't understand how the technology was so hard for you to use. But given this complaint, I would expect you, of all people, to understand that adding an expensive dongle to a phone that allows charging and audio through a wired headset at the same time makes such issues far more likely than a dedicated port.
For many years now I've carried a moderately priced set of 3.5mm headphones in my bag rolled into a little loop. When I need them, they're there. The rest of the time they are tucked out of the way. You could use your bluetooth headset or headphones this whole time too. We both got what we needed to fit our use-cases. There are zero benefits to me to suddenly be forced to move to wireless headphones or an expensive dongle. And from the comments here, I don't seem many other people seeing a benefit either.
I don't see this as a freedom (or "bravery") topic or even a big deal.
Then you are blind. If they had kept the option for wired, it wouldn't be a big deal. You could have your best fit, and we could have ours. Removing that option and charging a lot of money to be able to charge and listen to headphones is a big deal. Charging a lot more money for headphones and accessories is a big deal. Requiring another dongle is a big deal. All of these things were not necessary in the least, as they were solved by a $0.10 port that has been used for decades, and will still be useful for decades.
It is a big deal when multiple companies remove functionality from their products in the name of additional profits.
Just because you donâ(TM)t doesnâ(TM)t mean others donâ(TM)t. I only donâ(TM)t because I have never bought a smartphone without a headphone jack. Far as Iâ(TM)m concerned.....I will NOT REWARD Apple for trying to rip me off
We are all now 100% convinced that you don't use any apple products, and have not been ripped off by them. And will most certainly never reward them for it.
But don't you see, this means that it cost apple like -$200 to include the 3.5mm port. When they got rid of it, they had to pass that (negative) savings onto the consumer.
Or being locked into an ecosystem, for that matter.
Which would still probably be cheaper than sending humans. There seems to be a vast underestimation of what it takes to keep humans alive and happy in this thread. The sheer amount of non-science effort it's going to take to build and maintain habitation, life support, refining and manufacturing facilities, and science labs for humans is going to dwarf the science they will eventually be able to do.
The ISS gets resupplied about monthly. To have humans live on Mars is going to require something on the order of the ISS. Except it's unlikely that we'd be able to resupply it that frequently, from both an orbital and a cost prospective. So it is going to need to be a lot more self-sufficient, and that's going to require a lot more infrastructure. All those trips, all that stuff, all those logistics could be robots instead. Robots that are happily running around doing their science years later, with no additional supplies required.
So everything that could be done by robots at a fraction of the price. Got it. That's a truly remarkable argument.
And whereas robots can do some science, a lot of the more meaningful things, the questions we can't already answer- requires a human.
Could you name a couple? Because they aren't evident to me, at least. Unless by "more meaningful things" you mean "feelings and experiences", at which point you're advocating for tourism and not anything really informative.