Like electing far right morons hell bent on destroying the earth for a dollar? Positive feedback is the same as a negative feedforward right ;-)

Because the world doesn't need synthetic rubber, pharma, plastics, roads, and the shitton of other things you ignore from the oil industry, all the while ignoring the fact that the world isn't funding the Saudis for power generation at all since most of the world does not use oil fired power stations?

I'm all for a rant, but please at least have it make sense.

I would have gone with The Pentagon which was built back in the 1940s, but sure, let's give apple the credit.

Most EU decisions die on the table even when "implemented". That's one of the downsides of a system that relies on implementation among all member states, three of which seemingly wish they could be part of the USSR instead of the EU.

The EU politicians are no different than those of any other country. If they get enough morons to follow them, even some true dumbfucks can get elected. We've been seeing a lot of stupid proposals come through the EU parliament since the last election turned the EU government more conservative. This is what happens when the VP of the commission gets replaced by someone from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

Back then security didn't exist as a concept. Everyone supported embedding ActiveX and Javascript.

Who modded this informative? WebP isn't deprecated in the slightest despite how much you wish it were. In fact it was only formally ratified as a standard literally exactly one year ago. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc... The lastest revision to the primary library was done less than 3 months ago.

WebP remains supported by all major platforms, unlike JPEG XL, and is in active use, unlike JPEG XL.

Yeah I too wish it were different, but seriously come join us in reality man.

Who said this is to solve the decline? This sounds more like depreciating a button that not even your mum clicks while pooping. Remember Facebook is an AI company now. They want to feed you a steady diet of AI slop. No need to link any internet content anymore.

This is about the least retarded decision they've made in a long time.

This is a dumb take. You're implying that a country with 330million people are only able to do one thing at a time? Yeah okay the government was shutdown for a few weeks but it's open again. There's more than one employee and you can focus on two things at once. Airlines is still 2.5% of the emissions of the most carbon polluting per capita country in the west. It remains something worth going after, especially since the tiny penis brigade won't let you pry their monster trucks from their cold dead hands.

No. Most countries levy a passenger tax, but as far as I am aware none of those taxes go to targeted investment and all go back into the general treasury. Taxes aren't green simply because they are levied on airline passengers. They are green based on what they are spent on. The taxes from the UK was introduced back before we had an environment (yes this is a joke, but the point is in 1994 the word "carbon" was unknown in the the general vernacular"

No, individual airlines *OFFER* this. It is currently enforced by none, including Finnair. On the flip side if you travel through Singapore or from Singapore you're forced to pay the fee. That's very different.

Also Finnair's own page says they use less than 0.5% SAF. at present, quite a bit away from what Singapore hopes to do.

That investment won't come from tax, and won't come from airlines. Again this tax doesn't drive investment, it's not the point of it. The point is a flexible purchase agreement rather than regulation.

For your car there was a regulatory approach. The government said from day X you won't have more than Y amount of sulfur in the fuel. That fuel was already available so they can do that. SAF as you rightly pointed out does not have a lot of capacity (in fact the two largest SAF plants in the world had construction cancelled this year), so a regulatory approach can't be done. Instead they collect tax money and purchase what is available.

This is completely and fundamentally different from a carbon tax approach which looks at applying direct cost to polluters to get them to change their behaviour. At this point there is zero behavioural change expected by airlines and airports. The only behavioural change is expected on the consumer. This tax doesn't have a sunset date or a natural phase out through greening like a carbon tax does. It's not an avoidable tax through investment.

This has zero to do with investment, it has to do with eliminating insanely cheap holidays through taxation, and funding the purchase of SAF. It's a direct tax on customers, not on companies and it's not one a customer can avoid by doing anything other than not taking a plane. The duration of the taxes existence is irrelevant.

Because it simply wasn't a major card. If you didn't accept Visa or MasterCard you will find your business in a very different position. They have a virtual duopoly in the world. Bonus points in country where the Maestro network has been shut down, now you've locked yourself out of the most common form of transactions since you need to rely on Visa or Mastercard to process even debit transactions.

Oh now I know why you don't want to go back. You're sick and tired of the wait staff who you think don't deserve to make a living wage pissing in your soup.

Fun fact I think tipping is the worst, but I'm simply not enough of an unbearable arsehole not to tip in America. Go back to the early 1800s if you want slaves to work for you for nothing.