> Irreparable, over-priced, under performing, short-lived, impossible to dispose of properly.
I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning.
Uncounted tons of cheap phones enter the waste stream every year, but somehow its the 10-gram set of AirPods which is the ecological problem.
You can return anything Apple back to Apple, either in person or via mail, for proper recycling.
A.
> Apple has a monopoly on brokering sales of apps on iDevices
These devices are Apple products. As people much more knowledgeable in the ways of anti-trust than I have pointed out, defining a single companys product as a market is absurd on its face. The word monopoly does not apply.
A.
> It's the fact that Apple is using its popularity among mobile device buyers to control app developers - that's what's not sitting well with the EU.
What makes you say that this is not sitting well with the EU? Spotify made a complaint, the EU is obligated to investigate. Do you think there is more to it than that?
A.
> If Apple is making 95% of all mobile profits, as I have seen that number thrown around, I can see the case for monopolistic misuse of their market position.
Forgive me for pointing it out, but you have casually redefined the word monopoly to be about profits when in reality it is about markets. Apple is not a monopoly in any market.
Even if it were, becoming a monopoly by simple doing a better job than everyone else is perfectly legal - even if you drive every one of your competitors out of business.
A.
"However, trying to make "7 billion people are miserable" my personal, relatable problem, is a fool's errand."
Sorry, my cowardly friend, but I never said anything about 7 billion people. That's your straw man, you can keep it.
A convenient small-town example of 'not in my backyard', this reads like a whole lot of suck to me:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/...
The tl;dr summary quote (paraphrased) is "they [the homeless] really would be better served in the next town over.
A.
"Your medal's in the mail."
Well aren't you helpful.
Look, if I could go delete the entire sub-thread, I would. It was clearly not useful for anyone, and I try not to get dragged into such things.
I was, at least, sincere.
A.
"It sounds very similar to me."
Except in one case you'll die within minutes, and in the other you can survive for weeks*.
Attempting to equate the two does nobody any favors.
A.
"What you don't get is that you got off easy."
So you claim.
I suggest that it is just as hard for me to lose weight as it is for you, I simply do not succumb to the 'fail mentality'.
A.
( who is, make no mistake, several pounds over 'target weight' )
"But you don't seem to grasp that for many it would have to be a lifelong practice, not just while you drop a few pounds."
I can't comprehend why you believe this.
"You seem quite willing to have others live that way, but you object to even a short period of that level of denying a biological drive for yourself."
I do not know what delusional affliction you have to think this: reaching and maintaining a target weight for me is an ongoing challenge.
What I deny, categorically, is that this is something outside of my control. Gut flora, heredity, environment, you name it, are *all* secondary to my own personal drive and motivation.
A.
"If anything is stupid, it's expecting someone to be successful at denying a basic drive for the rest of their natural life even while giving in to it just enough to be somewhat functional."
I am sorry, but I maintain that living 'just a little bit hungry' (a temporary condition necessary to reduce weight) is not the same - in any reasonable measure - as not breathing. To attempt to equate the two things is to venture into the theater of the absurd, and there is no point in going there.
"Since you seemed unable to comprehend keeping yourself hungry"
What possesses you to think that this is the case? This is *exactly* what I described as 'not easy', but 'doable'.
A.
So you deny that eating is a basic biological drive?"
Are you deliberately trying to look ridiculous?
"Name anyone who died because they kept forgetting to eat."
You're demonstrating your own foolishness. Nobody dies because they forget to eat. Forget to breath (silly as that may be) and you're dead. Attempting to equate these two things is just *stupid*.
A.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to claim that the biological need for calories is the same as breathing. I think this is Absurd. Ridiculous. Stupid. Pick your word, I think it's silly.
A.
"Name any period of time in modern history that any society has found long or even medium term weight loss to be easy."
I at no time said anything was "easy". You're projecting. Again.
A.
You asked me to try something incomparable for a week. What you suggest is not remotely similar to the discussion at hand.
Moreover, I'm not asking others to do *anything*. That's a projection on your part.
Last, but not least, comparing caloric intake to oxygen intake is absurd. Stupid. Ridiculous. Dumb. Words fail me.
A.
" Meanwhile, the level of willpower needed for someone with different gut fauna may be more comparable to sjames' example - beyond that of the typical person."
I grant that it might be possible for the situation you describe to exist, but honestly I believe we have a "culture of failure", e.g. "math is hard", when it comes to personal health.
I read about endless reasons why we will fail to lose weight et al, and I cannot help but consider that we are the victims of our own expectations - we believe it to be hard or impossible so it becomes so.
A.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
