No, they didn't.

Roughly speaking, there are three levels of "greenness", for lack of a better word. "Off the grid" means you're totally self-sufficient; probably solar during the day stored to batteries for night, combined with ultra-efficient stuff. "Net zero" means you self-generate a surplus of power sometimes and a deficit others, selling your excess to the power company and buying your need. Being "fully renewable", like what Apple announced, "just" means you're buying all renewable energy. If you read the article you linked to, you'd see that Apple will only be generating 60% of its need, which means it's far from net zero.

I'm not actually sure how much the last means in practice, considering that it's not like they have dividers that say "this electron came from solar so it goes to Apple, while this electron came from coal so it can't." So really what it turns into is Apple giving the power company more money so that hopefully they'll build more renewable sources. Not to say that I don't applaud the decision, and even 60% generation is impressive, but it is indirect.

I recall reading somewhere that they specifically said that there will be a model to use with regular prescription eyeglasses.

The reason why companies abuse H-1B is that 1) it's so ridiculously easy to abuse, and 2) there's considerable benefits in doing so. The benefits primarily stem from the restrictions imposed by the visa, most importantly the inability of the visa holder to easily change jobs - since his visa is only valid for the original job for which he applied. This makes him effectively tied to that employer, since he can't change jobs without re-applying for a visa (and leaving the country in the meantime - or staying illegally). Which in turn makes it possible for companies to bring people in on low salaries without worrying that they'll leave for greener pastures as soon as they arrive to the country.

Fix that, and the good part of the problems associated with H-1B abuse goes away.

You missed the important part of GP's post:

Where do the cut costs come from in that scenario?

There are also plenty of people on H1-B who come to work, and eventually stay.

(H1-B is a "dual intent" visa with respect to intent to immigrate for a reason)

He probably didn't, he just doesn't buy into propaganda. How's that representative democracy working out for you? All I hear is whining about "wasted votes" etc, or at best voting for lesser evil.

Elected representatives seem to do it all the fucking time (it's even readily evident from the name of the laws they enact - what is "PATRIOT Act" if not a direct appeal to emotion to circumvent reason?). So what's the difference?

See above. Fully applicable here as well. If you want some examples, you can google up things about e.g. Bush and Harper dismissing experts when their testimony disagreed with the party line.

The obvious answer is, the value of accurately representing the desires of said constituents without bending it for the sake of his own ideology.

I love how it's modded insightful. I wonder if the mods also consider themselves to be too stupid to govern themselves, or whether it's always some abstract "people" that they aren't personally a part of.

The will of the majority can certainly be unjust, but so can be the will of the representatives of that majority, as amply demonstrated by any modern representative democracy - and especially the USA. You also failed to give any references for your claim that "representative democracy works better than a direct democracy" - and please don't try to pull crap like comparing, say, Athenian democracy to USA, because there's two and a half thousand years and countless other differences between the two.