Just don't update your phone, they'll probably switch it on without asking like they do for Apple Intelligence. Or use Carplay, for which Siri is required.
Searching online, it seems to be comparing to coal miners specifically, not the industry as a whole. In any case, what conclusions are you drawing from this?
Not OP, but I have heard the comparison used when discussing jobs. There tends to be rhetoric in the US that transitioning away from coal and oil will lead to large job losses, so this is an anecdote disproving it.
I mean, assuming it's true, the obvious conclusion would be that there should be reasonable limits on what is done to save such a small industry. Looks like there are 40-45k people employed in coal mining in the US, depending on who you ask. _Even if there was no downside to keeping it going_, that would probably only be worth modest government action to keep it on life support; it's simply not a big industry.
I'm not American so perhaps I'm completely out of the loop, but is the justification for coal usage in the US to do with jobs? I thought it's more about climate change denial & costs (& stick it to the leftists).
I mean, it's definitely caught up with climate change denial, but a lot of the _justification_ for supporting what is increasingly an economically unviable industry is jobs.
(It wasn't even solar or wind or nuclear that killed coal. Really, it was _gas_; the writing was on the wall for the industry some time ago.)
When entire industries are automated, and one CEO can mine and sell millions of tons just by clicking buttons on a computer, it raises the question what incentive governments have to protect that industry.
There is no longer the "voters don't want to lose their jobs" argument. Now it becomes purely a "these guys pay lots of taxes" argument - but with most big companies being very efficient at tax planning, a huge mine might pay next to no taxes too. Then it becomes politically far easier to ignore them, and eventually maybe shut them down on a whim, eg. to appease green voters.
There is no such logic going on in the political calculus. It’s a fallacious call to a past where an uneducated man could get a good job in the mines, and by fallacious implication the entire ecosystem of work for uneducated men, that existed 50 years ago and does not now. It’s a symbol of something lost to “liberal” political ideology - something people who have never worked in a mine but also feel disenfranchised can get behind. There is no real belief coal is coming back into style, no one anywhere wants a coal plant operating near them and even if we built more, no one else on earth would buy our excess coal. It’s a canard and a red herring to distract disenfranchised under employed under educated and under skilled Americans, just like the anti-immigrant agenda, and all the other fallacies the modern conservative movement is built around. The goal isn’t to solve a single actual structural problem - it’s to appeal emotionally with things that sound like they could solve problems, despite the fact they wouldn’t if implemented and would make many other things worse.
There was once a time the conservative movement was built on pragmatic rationalism, and people keep looking for it in modern rhetoric. But it’s become built on fallacious populism recently as a short term way to grab power, then overwhelm the system to “rig” it towards their favored people. It’s not about conservatives or liberals, ideology or political goals are the foil. The goal is the appropriation of power and the blocking of democratic change in favor of cronyism.
So there’s no point in trying to find a rational explanation for the policy. There is none in the policy itself. It only exists to garner enough votes to do what’s happening in real time with the goal that with enough shenanigans voting won’t matter next time.
> Born wild, Ai was soon taken into captivity and sold to KUPRI in 1977 by an animal trader (this type of sale became illegal in 1980 with Japan's ratification of CITES).
I think monkeys are still bred in some zoos. I know that because there is typically media outrage when monkeys are killed in zoos when they were overbred. It's a very questionable system, since they are basically prisoners, then kind of forced or encouraged to breed, and then whacked to death when there are "too many". It's weird because zoos also claim to help preserve some species.
Zoos do help to preserve species. Whether that is worth it, when their natural habitat is destroyed is a different question.
And if we agree there should be Zoos (I don't) then breeding the animals there is definitely nicer, than capturing a wild animal and force it to adopt to the prison livestyle.
doing something good doesn't make other things also good. there is some kind of demand they are servicing or a need they are having which they cant meet in some other way (finances..) though, which is likely the root of the issue rather than the zoos' existence itself. this is ofcourse ignoring the opinion (which i also hold) that zoos themselves are essentially or inherently bad. kids' enjoyment is not a good reason for cruelty and imprisonment/enslavement. neither is money or anyhting else. Domesticated animals is a different story.
> Speaking at the DLD conference in Bavaria, Jan Koum confirmed that the $0.99 annual fee will be scrapped, effective immediately. Previously, WhatsApp had been free for the first year, with the fee charged for every subsequent year. Long-term users of the iOS version were given free use for life, as a thanks for paying a fee to download the app when it had a one-off charge.
As well as beautiful hardware that is a pleasure to use, Apple machines can be capable of running local models like gpt-oss-20B or Qwen Coder portably and without sweating. My 24GB M4 Mini was very cheap considering the local models it can run.
Yes hardware is great. Price per performance watt is also great. But UI sucks. Look at all then posts even macOS fans about new macOS release like the glass ones. I prefer ssh and running jobs in macOS.
I had a Panda from the early 2010s and that was my exact thought reading this thread: sounds like a fiat panda. Surprised to see this downvoted. Did they change so much?
Some people get confused, but they are owned by different companies.
The founders know each other, has some relationship in business, and the company behind Hard Off owns shares of the company behind Book Off.
Yep, it's a chain with a bunch of different brands.
Biggest ones are Book Off (books, comics...), Hard Off (electronics, computers, musical instruments...) and Hobby Off (toys, collectibles, video games...).
They even have a Liquor Off ! (not second hand, just discount/overstock)
reply