$100 says they did!

Because I have have $250K riding the on the idea that we'll let them get away with it!

The battery "uses a non-toxic electrolyte" that is "as safe as tofu brine" which is to say, it's not actually tofu brine.

Source of original publication: https://www.scmp.com/news/chin...
Actual study: https://www.nature.com/article...

Agreed, however, its megalithic and heavily interdependent design is consistent with how Microsoft architects software which is why they hired Lenny.

Oh, I'm sorry, did Microsoft stop being a publicly traded corporate hellbent on profiting regardless of the cost it has to other people? I just want to be sure because you seem to be making that case.

So you're telling me that aren't using underhanded and deceptive tactics to push their own agenda? I could have sworn they were pushing the Edge browser really hard and integrating copilot into everything but, I guess if you say none of that matter, then it's all OK.

Let's be real, you're here waving a banner of naivete like they aren't plotting and scheming new way to try an take more money from everyone.

OH, I HAVE. These assholes have been trying to interfere with every facet of our lives. Do you think they give out free licenses to universities out of the kindness of their hearts? Did they try to get every school to require students learn to program because they think it's a skill they will honestly need? Are you truly so stupid as to believe such things?

You have deluded yourself.

No, I'm complaining that it's being reported as if a practice of releasing "PlayStation Exclusive" titles on PC has stopped. However, the reality is that it had never actually started. I thought my suggested title would have made it apparent but I think that would require you read my comment in the first place.

Close but incorrect. The primary function is to make it easy to obtain and read ebooks. Without being easy the device it is considered to be garbage to most consumers.

PlayStation exclusives have never been released on PC before, have yet to be released, and now plans to make releases have been canceled. There is no "anymore" in there because it never happened.

Here's a proper title:

They reduce particulate matter significantly but 20% of a shitload is still a lot.

You seem to be avoiding the point that it is release lead into the atmosphere.

Carbon emissions and particulate matter emissions are entirely different. Methane and propane burn clean but generate CO2. Wood is carbon neutral but significantly impacts air quality. Neither one is "slightly" anything compared to the other, they are polar opposites in these departments.

And you would lose that bet.

If you remove the primary function from a device then it follows that the device is no longer functional. The process of making a device non-functional is effectively destruction because it now lacks its functional raison d'etre.

Literal destruction? No.
Effective destruction? Yes.

Why would you presume the use of small scale when that's the least efficient use of the technology? Also, why presume you couldn't transfer power from a lower longitude? Most people are between 45 and -45 degrees. Also, your statement about geothermal energy generation is outdated as the technology has progressed.

You have pointed to the negative aspects of renewable energy and in turn completely discounted the negative aspects of fossil fuels by making an claim about the economics. Without looking at the the larger picture, you're just being a fool.

The situation is binary. You cannot be against one thing without intrinsically supporting another. It is analogous to In claiming amputating a gangrenous foot is "economically infeasible" because a prosthetic foot is not as good a the original and the surgery costs more money than doing nothing. However, you also refuse to acknowledge the costs associated with having to deal with a gangrenous leg. In doing so, you are promoting a more costly situation despite never explicitly claiming to do so.

Claiming a solution is economically infeasible needs to be weighed against the consequences of an alternative, which in this case is doing nothing about the problem. You are claiming that amputating a gangrenous is too costly and defiantly proclaiming there is no need to address costs associated with the alternative.

If you discontinue support for a device that prevents the user from accessing or modifying critical functions then it your company should be required to make a final update available that enables users to use the device as they please. Effectively destroying functional devices because it's not profitable is the worst kind of waste.

Do they want people to burn down datacenters? Because this is how you get people to burn down datacenters.

You have failed already if you are relying on a single form of energy generation. Try again.

No, I have redirected from your denial of suggesting wood burning to the alternative of renewable energy. fossil fuel in general. If not one then it is the other.

The nexus is simple: if you aren't using renewable energy then you are supporting polluting. Polluting has additional costs to it that you have failed to incorporate into your concept of economic feasibility.