I had not heard of this one so I gave it a try.

Clean, simple, like Google of yore. But it draws the page in a distracting blinking fashion.

I'll keep using it for a while, but I found it too odd to use.

> Alphabet paid Apple $20bn in 2022 alone ... that's only 28% of the income from those links. They're hauling in something like 50 billion in ad revenue from this one deal alone.

Nice work if you can get it.

> I am surprised to learn that if Apple gives google more info about me that advertisers will pay more for, they profit.

I read both of the linked articles and can't find anything remotely like this. Apple isn't giving any data to Google, at least nothing in the articles suggest it is and you haven't provided any evidence of such.

> Changing my search engine (s) to DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo sends info to Bing and doesn't block their trackers: "Unfortunately our Microsoft search syndication agreement prevents us from doing more to Microsoft-owned properties"

I don't want to make good the enemy of better, and I don't imagine than DDG is worse in any case, but the search engines are still capturing your data in both cases.

> Just about everyone is one bad (common) event away from death.

Not *just* about everyone, *everyone* is one event away from death. That event being death, which doesn't require any badness and still occurs.

> Bob Boberson, CFO, who is putting out contracts on whistleblowers via a network of international
> assassins that he became a part of while auditing financial statements for U.S. GAAP compliance.

By far the craziest example of this happening is when Atari execs parachuted in from Warner HQ were sent to the far east to set up their production lines circa 1983 and tried to hire people to push their co-execs into traffic/light rail.

God knows if that really happened, but it seems a *lot* more specific than the misamic crap normally served up.

Ok, I did find it:

"According to market research firm IDC on April 27, Samsung’s foldable phone market share in China’s foldable smartphone market was 5.9% in the first quarter of this year, placing the company in fifth place. Considering the limited number of foldable phone manufacturers, this essentially puts Samsung at the bottom of the list. Samsung’s market share in China’s foldable phone segment was 11% last year, suggesting a significant decline over a one-year period."

No, it doesn't. Because:

"In the first quarter of this year, the total size of China’s foldable smartphone market was 1.86 million units, up 83% from last year."

So assuming a little over 1 million sales last year, Samsung sold 11% of those, so about 100k units.

This year they got 6% of 1.86 million, which is 112k units.

So yeah, nothing is really changing here.

"The latest data from IDC shows that Samsung's share in China's foldable smartphone market was 5.9% in Q1 2024."

If you click through to the original article, I see that the total sales of foldable phones in China was 1.86 million units. A bit of poking about suggests sales are on the order of 275 million a year. So the folding phone represents less than 1% of their phone market.

So... who cares? It's not like anything is really changing here.

> See the trick there? A universal tariff that is not a tariff, just the US abandoning the self-defeating income taxes.

Workers in the USA pay lower income taxes than in China, but somehow you believe lowering them further will make us more competitive?

Yeah, that totally tracks.

https://www.xandyadvisors.com/blog/is-the-individual-income-tax-higher-in-china-than-in-the-us

>I have a MacPro with 64GB of RAM.

I am typing this on a MacPro with 12 GB of RAM.

> If I have "normal" multitasking going on (MS Office, a few browsers, music app, personal and work messaging, Outlook) - I'm using up 25GB right there.

I have Safari running multiple windows open, Preview with two >100 page PDFs open, Xcode with two projects, Terminal with two windows, Mail, Messages and FaceTime. I am using (checks Activity Monitor)... 7.1 GB of RAM. Apps are using 4.3 GB of that. On top of that I often have larger games running, like WarThunder, or one of the Office apps, normally Excel. I have never spooled even once in the decade I've owned this machine.

If you are hitting 25 GB, I suspect you have a leaking app. Let me guess, by "a few browsers" you mean "some windows in Chrome" perchance?

The entire argument is based on a single example. Chrome eats memory, so it's the Mac's problem.

OK.

> You’re trying to include secondary sources connected with the plant such as CO2 from construction, employees driving to work etc etc.

No, the source clearly states they are talking about the parts of the plant. You apparently couldn't be bothered to read it.

Concrete has a lot of CO2. Nuclear plants use a lot of concrete. Let's not pretend that doesn't count, because you immediately follow that with:

> Yet you just ignore the massive amount of CO2 involved in building solar panels (let alone the toxicity), wind turbines and EV's

So **you** are talking about **construction**, which is precisely what the article was doing.

> Your problem is you haven’t realised what everyone else has.

This should be good...

> You build nuclear

But they aren't. Nuclear is going out of service at about the same rate it is going in. Meanwhile, PV and wind are the fastest growing sources of electricity in history.

> The only chance we have is with SMR reactors which luckily can avoid the red tape you lot created for no good reason

Yeah, NuScale really proved that one. ::rolleyes::

> It's people like you

Way to sell it...

> We don't have anything else for that 'right now'.

Ring ring, hydro calling.

> is sufficiently complete to allow for conclusive comparisons.

Oh, I think it's perfectly safe to conclude that there is perhaps one order of magnitude separating these, compared to three or four for fossil power. And that's good enough. Splitting hairs over the last 25% is a waste of time and effort.

> CO2 emissions from nuclear power is lower

So, not zero. Got it.

> is lower than "zero emission" wind and solar.

The only people who called those zero emissions are nukebois so they can say "So, not zero".

> Arguing that nuclear fission isn't a "zero emission" energy source... ... is just the sort of thing that distracts people from actually solving problems. Like the problem that you can build 12 watts of PV for every 1 watt of nuclear and do so in 1/10th the time. THAT is the actual problem, and lots of actual people are working on that problem, but so far there simply isn't a proven solution. NuScale's woes were predictable, we'll have to see if GE does any better at Darlington.

> ... solar is expensive and fragile. Last week here in Texas, a HUGE solar farm was mostly destroyed by hail

Was it? The system is still operational today.

Oh sure, if you read right-wing news sources they all say it was completely destroyed and all of them quote that one guy going on about cancer chemicals.

But if you read real news outlets you find the number is "thousands", and given the plant is 400 MWdc that's about 1.2 million panels in total.

And this system represents about 1/10th of Texas' utility-scale installs, and I don't see any news of any damage at the rest.

As to expensive, PV is the cheapest form of power in the history:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/

So, no.