That's ex-post facto bs. Why is it that people are having such a ard time accepting reality on this? When people have to fight this hard over their "thing" to the point of demonizing anyone who thinks differentely or ask any questions about it it typically means they are wrong, don't actually understand their position and hold it as part of groupthink, or are straight up lying. Which one are you doing?

You are part of the problem. This attitude is not only damaging to your own preferred position/understanding but it's also not how science works or should work beause someone asked a question you didn't like.

Was "we're going to have an ice age because of pollution" in the 70s an outlier or broadly agreed upon "scientific consensus"? Yeah, I thought so.

There is very obviously something going on with the climate but there is also very obviously something going on with the peer review system. And a bunch of people green grifting, causing conflicts of interests and perverse incentives. It's very difficult for someone not in the field but with enough intelligence and intellectual curiosity to simply accept the current version of this consensus.

Add to that zealotry of the "correct" opinion-havers on this whereby you're literally hitler if you don't fall in line and believe unconditionally.

The overwhelming majority of those people are in poverty and can't afford an iphone.

They tried to do Jesus, but passengers kept calling security about a hippy boarding the plane.

You don't get to shirk your longstanding commitments just because "it's too hard right now." That's not how soft power works, a thing that took decades to build that your orange toddler has destroyed.

Don't have any facts to support your pet position? Toos out an ad hominem insult! Nobody will notice and they're think you're so clever. Oh wait.....no they won't.

The point is that history is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he was the sole creator of Arduino and the one who sold it to Qualcom. The only thing that matters is that Qualcom owns it now which means the only people with insider knowledge of qhat happens next are Qualcom employees, all absolutely definitely under NDA.

Baffling "defense here". None of what you knew or said matters: the point of the story is they have been bought by Qualcom, a company with a well earned reputation and history of what they do to acquisitions. Do you have some relevant and timely information to contribute or just irrelevant history?

They tried to include it but the number was statistically insignificant.

Nice cerative writing exercise.

I used to work for Sling TV, and you basically have that backwards. ESPN is the part of Disney's package that people are willing to pay money for. The shutdown and negotiations every year is just Disney forcing the various providers to pay for and carry their other channels. That's why Disney always holds these negotiations during football season, so if they have to shut someone down their customers actually care. Every year viewership on Disney's other channels (and non-sports channels in general) is lower, and the prices that the content producers require goes up. Scripted television is in serious decline, and Hollywood is using sports fans to prop it up.

As an example, If you don't care about sports you can get Disney+ without ads for about $12 a month. Disney will happily throw in Hulu for that same price if you will watch some ads. You can binge watch the shows that you care about and then switch to another channel. Heck, you can buy entire seasons of their shows ala carte. You can't get ESPN however, without paying at least $45/month, and that's with a package with no non-Disney channels and chuck full of ads. For the record, that's basically what the streaming services are paying Disney as well. When I worked at Sling the entirety of the subscription fees went to the content companies (primarily Disney). There is essentially no profit in cable packages. All of the profit has to be made up somewhere else.

People that aren't sports fans, especially if they are entertainment fans, tend to believe that scripted programming is carrying sports, but it is the other way around. That's why AppleTV, which has spent over $20 billion creating content for their channel has about as many subscribers the amount of people that typically watch a single episode of Thursday Night Football, the worst professional football game of the week. Amazon Prime pays $1 billion a year for that franchise, and it is a bargain compared to creating scripted content. Apple makes great television that almost no one pays for. The other content providers are in the same boat. You'll notice, for example, that Netflix's most expensive package is $25/month, and the revenue per user in the U.S. is around $16. That's ad free. The lowest promotional price you can pay for ESPN is basically twice that, and it always comes with ads. What's more, sports fans tend to actually watch the ads.

Sling is selling day and weekend passes to people because it knows that most of its customers only have their service to watch the game. No one is watching linear television anymore, but the content creators have built their entire business around the idea of having a channel that they fill up with content. Even with Sling's ridiculous prices they can typically watch the games they want to watch for less than maintaining a subscription.

I have spent most of my adult life in the sports world, but I don't watch sports. I personally believe that in the long run sports television is probably going to end up uncoupled from scripted television. I think that is going to be very bad news for people that like scripted television.

80 year olds didn't grow up with computers, and a lot of them never adapted. We know this, easy answer. Gen Z also did not really "grow up with computers" in the way most of us here did: they grew up using content consumption devices like phones. Gen Z by and large don't even know how a filesystem works because of this. It's worse for them than the 80s year olds because at least the old people remember the thing a file system is based on and know how drawers and folders work.

So it's really not a surprise that there is yet another way in which they aren't very good with "computers". They also don't care, likely beause most of these account aren't something to care about.

If this was a good risk they could get a loan on the same terms from a bank. Why isn't that happening? The most likely answer based on recent history is: because someone or many people involved bribed trump.