Of course not. What we do need to admit, though is that this is an experiment that is nowhere near as beneficial as TFA seems to imply, unless this is scaled up and powered by some sort of carbon-free energy. Otherwise it's a gigantic hamster wheel.

.... but they're using electricity from the grid for this, which in and of itself puts more CO2 back into the atmosphere. Is this process net CO2 negative?

If you want to power this by solar, geothermal, nuclear, wind, or tidal, fine - but right now powering it with natgas is like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You paid $14.99 too much. You should not have to pay a dime for the privilege of giving the government your money. They purposely keep the tax code so complex and so difficult to navigate just to appease Intuit lobbyists, while billionaires don't pay jack shit because they're just taking out loans on assets instead of earning income like the rest of us.

Replace the whole damn thing with a 30% sales tax coupled with social safety net handouts for the low earners and abolish the IRS.

all the experimental ones of that type have failed in some catastrophic way

That's not true.

The truth is that reprocessing the fuel results in weapons grade material, which is a proliferation risk. Other countries not in arms control agreements are reprocessing just fine. This was a Carter administration decision back in 1977 during the knee-jerk "China Syndrome" / Three Mile Island scare.

Read more about it here:
https://www.gao.gov/products/e...

178,000 deaths, I can buy because there are way more alcohol users than there are heroin users.

There are 902,000 Americans who use heroin, annually (at least according to those people).

There are 14,000 overdoses from heroin annually.

That leaves heroin at a 1.5% death rate.

Now let's talk about alcohol.

In the USA, only counting those 18 and over, 215.6 million adults had a drink in the last year. Using your figures on alcohol deaths, that leaves the per-user death rate at .08%

Alcohol is FAR safer than heroin. Your numbers are lying.

178k perhaps.

But what about per user?

If we had the same number of people on heroin as we do who drink a beer every now and then, I'm sure the numbers would be vastly different.

POSIX in and of itself is not the only accepted definition of an OS. Windows is an OS but not POSIX compliant, for example.

Therefore attempting to use POSIX as the objective, formal definition of an OS is incomplete, and Xorg, Chromium, and KDE can certainly make up part of an operating system.

I think the real reason is that the self-driving car was supposed to be delivered 5 years ago and was not. Now we see that electric cars in general have plateaued in the market, that self-driving car is always "just around the corner", and consumers are getting tired of the inflation squeeze in the car market.

Apple getting into the car business now is a losing proposition and they know it.

Because developing countries are where all the emissions are located now.

They are emitting all these carbon emissions because people in developed countries are outsourcing their emissions to them via overseas production.

By increasing the amount of money those exported goods cost when made with dirty energy sources, we can incentivize the developing/manufacturing country to produce them with renewables while making it much more expensive for a western company to outsource their environmental damage to the third world.

Not true. China and India far outstrip the United States on a per country basis.

The first world has done more to reduce greenhouse emissions than the rest of the world. Unfortunately we are at the point where cutting first world emissions to zero would not get us out of the woods.

We need to enact carbon tariffs against "developing" countries like China (which isn't really a developing country anymore).

Technically you could send the guy a check....

That would help.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

They actively spy on their citizens abroad.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

It's good to 12 year olds.

That is the market Disney is targeting - you get them when they're 12 and they're customers for life.

How many 40-50 year olds are still into Star Wars after first encountering that universe when they were between 7 and 12? I know I'm one of them.

Fortnite is huge among 12 year old boys. It's one of the very few media franchises that still caters to 12 year old boys. All the rest have pivoted to girls - like Marvel.

So they can blame someone else for screwing it up by cost cutting?