We converted my offices (legal industry) about a decade ago... no chance of going back. We're happy.

Well that's a way to find an even more niche use than even I've ever heard of before.

On 1 - yes, moving to a totally different hardware device is a little more difficult with an eSIM, but like... barely. You go to a website instead of switching the hardware. 2 - That's an incredibly niche case. You have more than 2 *active* SIM's? The iPhone 17 can hold 10 eSIM's... 2 active and 8 in storage. I don't know of any hardware-based SIM phones that have more than 2 active. I'm sure you'll find some random phone somewhere that does 3, maybe. But again, that's *incredibly* niche.

Because..? What can you do with a SIM you can't do with an eSIM?

Huh? You'll now do this without having to deal with keeping track of multiple physical SIMs.

Or in most cases they could just ask me. But just remoting in? No way.

I honestly can't tell if you're ranting about paywalls or sourcing here. The answer is, of course, both. But the two arguments keep getting mixed up. And then you throw in ad "blizzards" as well. What is it you want sites to do in order to make money, if not paywalls or lots of advertising?

I'd argue this just created a ton of waste. You were formerly able to continue using those cables. Long term maaayyyybe it reduces waste but history tells us that cables are going to change over time regardless. Even if they use a similar design connector doesn't mean they do the same things (just look at the advances in HDMI cables despite the same connector for a couple decades). I'm not anti-this law but I don't see it as really helping much when it comes to waste.

Who said they did? Like, what is your point? That the earth will go on? Yes, it will. But we only care how it'll go on vis-a-vis *us* and the species and uses we have for it.

Except that's only one example in the article...

Yeah I find it one thing when 15 year olds do this kind of stuff. When grown ass adults do it I just wonder wtf we're doing as a society that people think that's acceptable.

Sort of. That is true only if no one else is willing to pay them anything. Otherwise is $20B minus X (which could be more or less).

I mean... yes, it is too much to ask that. Because it's 2024, not 2004. Based on what Apple's saying, though, data is not accessible to 3rd parties and is mostly locally processed in the first place. But if you're not even using siri, none of this is relevant to you.

Microsoft Cloud services are the largest generator of income in the company.

If you're saying there's a mix of monetization methods, sure, I don't disagree with that. Just like cable or streaming has both ads and subscription revenue. I'm not sure what your point is. If you want less monetization of you, where "less" is anywhere from 1% to 100% less, then you have to pay an amount more.