You of course are a fan of throwing good money after bad? If it was so crap then it wouldn't be a bug worth fixing. Yet it was fixed.

It's not a surprise I don't get the rubbish logic you apply. No one does.

Correct, but supporting both is the most expensive. This is why many shop owners would like to eliminate cash.

The phrases "almost never" and "imaginary" in that sentence are conflicting concepts imaginary means "always never". Can I ask you which you think it is before we move on? And I have run out of gas on a trip across Canada. No need to imagine it.

Phones and tablets have supported rudimentary multitasking from the beginning. Some 15 years ago both iOS and Android introduced features to keep multiple apps active and running even if they weren't displaying anything. Split screening multiple apps were introduced on Android 7.0 in 2016.

There's nothing in the hardware preventing this. By the way iPadOS 26 introduced a full window manager.

Yep, that is unrealised potential. Apple being the limiting factor is what the entire story is about.

No a recession is a decline in the economy. You can cut one industry without going into a recession in a country. But yeah China has in part produced less steel and cement. Now do you want to discuss the everloving fuckton of solar, wind, and storage they are building out along with the fact that there are nearly 40million EVs on Chinese roads compared to close to zero in 2014?

But yes one must focus on cement and steel and ignore the words "in part"

And yet the results of the analysis align nicely with the amount of green energy they have brought online. It also is an analysis of all CCP statistics, the same statistics that had no problem pointing out emissions were rising in the past.

I don't know what your point is. Do you have any real criticism other than an ad hominem attack?

CO2 and smog are not related to each other. That much is evident at home where places like LA have *increased* CO2 emissions while eliminated the thick smog that used to blanket the city.

By the way China's air pollution in urban centres peaked back in 2006 but stayed steady for a few years after that while their CO2 emissions skyrocketted. However along with their greening ambitions they launched in a decade ago they also launched a clean air policy, and all pollution metrics have nearly halved in the past decade which is a HUGE DECLINE compared to their emissions.

There's lies, damn lies, and statistics. This one falls in the latter. The USA has a wonderful combination of a horrendous starting point, and a large population to distribute the problem across.

Absolute:
They've gone from 5.25bn to 4.62bn tonnes. Kudos. But let's compare them with say a comparable chunk of the western emitters: Europe went from 4.22bn to 3.52bn, bugger they loose to western peers on a similar scale. It's easy to claim wins in absolute emission reduction when you're such a big emitter. But wait, why not look at it in different ways...

Percent change:
The USA has had a -1.3% change in average annual emissions over the past decade. That places them 25th on the list of countries sorted by emission reduction percentage.

Pollution percentage of total:
The USA currently generates 13% of global emissions. That's a lot for a country which represents 4.2% of the population.

Maybe if the USA wasn't one of the abysmal countries who increased natural gas flaring emissions:
0.7% increase average per annum (even China has a -0.6% / annum) is horrendous for emissions that are tired directly to waste due to piss poor regulations and not tied into energy production or consumption.

Anyway not to shit on the USA completely their efforts have meant they are now only the 3rd worst emitter per capita in the west. They have successfully beaten out Canada and Australia. They are still miles ahead of every other western country without a rounding error of a population, but hey you can blame Canada and Australia now.

By the way Per the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, the USA achieved close to fuck all reductions last year. They did have a good effort in 2023 I'll give them that though. But I sincerely hope you're not on the start of a trend, but given El Presidente's Drill baby Drill mandate combined with scrapping anything with green in the name, I suspect people will be focused on the 2023 review of world energy like a 50 year old woman is focused on celebrating her 35th birthday for the 15th time.

Wait if it is CVE Slop why not just label WONTFIX and move on? Something doesn't add up here.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hire a student. I'm more worried about your workers that have families with costs that go up every year. I doubt you give them a 6% raise every time the cost of living goes up 6%. I praise you if you do, but if you don't, appreciate that you are technically complicit in paying them less every year because the money you pay them is worth less. Even if you do, there aren't enough companies that do to cover everyone, so it causes downward pressure on wages. Not only to support themselves but to pay taxes and cover their part of government services.

If I was going to go to the store to get groceries in that hour but then I realize that my car needs a charge, unless the store I want to go to happens to have a charger and I happen to need just the right amount of charge that the car will just top up as I come out then I am having to make time to tend to my car. I call that "going out of my way" in a general sense because then my day has been altered.

That's because you are only thinking about it in a simple way. No I'm not saying all jobs should pay a living wage. However, people can only get jobs that are being offered. If they are forced into a job market where there are fewer living wage jobs than people who need them then yes, it is maybe not slavery but certainly oppression for the sake of businesses and corporations.

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.