It's pretty easy to offer consumers a great deal when you're willing to dump wheelbarrows of cash into a furnace to do so.

Oh noes politicians might have the power to prevent people from profiting from polluting our nation and planet unnecessarily, HOW TERRIBLE.

They ruled that how he was doing it was unconstitutional, not doing it at all. Got any facts to work with, or only things you don't understand and therefore shouldn't be pointing around?

Except that wasn't an example of overreach. Seasonal wetlands are still wetlands. Polluting them still affects both aquifers and the migratory waterfowl which use them.

Got any actual examples, not just more shitting on everything you don't care about, like other people?

Nobody with a brain believes in that shit anyway. How many examples do you want of the government shutting down businesses on bullshit pretexts? Or propping them up?

"TikTok owner ByteDance would prefer shutting down its loss-making app rather than sell it"

Yes, that's because its purpose is not profit, as it's a PsyOp. If the goal were profit, they would prefer to sell it. If they sell it, there is a risk that documents which prove its purpose will be transferred, and blow the whole operation even worse than being shut down.

"It's probably because you're asserting that the mod down process validates your "facts"."

If you want to claim what I'm saying isn't factual, the onus is on you to provide some counter evidence, or at minimum, counter arguments. When people mod down an opinion because they don't agree with it they have surrendered the point.

I suspect it has far more to do with price than anything. iPhones are just too damned expensive, even on the low end. You can get a decently built, solidly performing Android phone for $200 or less. If you're not an iTunes user, or iMessage devotee, there just isn't any real reason to pick an Apple phone over an Android phone.

"And nothing of value was lost"?

They also ruled that student loan forgiveness was (mostly) unconstitutional as well, and yet the President does it anyway.

We are entering "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" territory again.

That's not clear. One of the big problems with EVs is the ability to charge them. Lots of people don't have any way to do this at home, and the away-from-home chargers are often iffy either in access or availability. (Reports say they are often broken.)

FWIW, I won't be interested in a new car until full-automatic driving is included. So my observation of the market is a bit sketchy. But if I were to buy an EV I'd have no reliable place to charge it.

I wouldn't wager much that your last paragraph is correct. Apple is a large corporation, and different pieces of it don't necessarily talk to each other. This may have been a decision that the marketing department made without checking with legal.

Apple being in the music business breaks the court agreement that they made with the Beatles. Of course, that's probably expired by now, but they didn't wait for that to break the agreement.

I am disabled too but I still go out. It's strange but... I'm missing a few body parts, and the small degree of functional augmentation my implants provide my partially-failed biological body feels like fighting back disability through technology, if that makes sense.

It's hard to explain and most people don't understand, but my implants give me a degree of feeling like I can do something more than just endure the loss of amputation. It's entirely psycholofical, I know, but if you're disabled too, you understand.

I'm not at all sure it's beyond the limits of the technology, but I rather expect that properly training it would be more expensive than the call center.