Also, from TFA "Twelve electric motors powered by diesel generators and batteries...", so it's a hybrid, not even electric. Another gem: "I can’t see airships replacing aircraft,” he said. “But I do see a niche for airships to be part of the transportation architecture that reduces the carbon footprint of air travel.” How? They're huge, slow, can't fly in adverse weather, can't haul heavy things, and the list goes on. The only people who will be using this are rich people who are trying to make themselves feel better about their 10,000 sq/ft house.

It looks cool, but I don't understand what having a bendable phone would actually allow me to do. It certainly can't be worn as a watch like the picture showed. Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Multiple studies have shown that grass-fed beef emits significantly less carbon and has many other environmental benefits. Unfortunately, the US government heavily subsidizes certain crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, etc.) which have now come to dominate agriculture, and thus are used to finish nearly all beef produced in the US. The subsidies were instituted with good intentions in order to secure our food supply, but one of the side effects is that they push farmers to farm marginal land. This land requires more chemicals and fertilizers and suffers from more erosion.

.

If we instead put this land into pasture, we would still get meat from it, but in a way that was better for everyone. This article makes the assumption that corporate, monocrop farming is the only way that we can get meat and therefore meat is bad. The sheep I raise in my pasture and eat have an extremely low carbon footprint. We need to put more focus on how to raise meat BETTER, no just how to get rid of it.

Unfortunately, the only financial incentives for US companies are to keep us unhealthy. There's billions of dollars to be made treating diet-induced illnesses, while there is relatively little opportunity to gouge healthy people (with the possible exception of my overpriced gravel bike). They look at the rest of the world and see an untapped customer base.

The government also announced that Y2K is no longer a threat, details at 6:00.

Is disable emissions controls on their vehicles. It's the most common thing they do now, and it will become much more common. The second thing will be to increase the horsepower. Because the machines are made to balance engine horsepower with the drivetrain and all other components, it will increase breakdowns and warranties. But at least we stuck it to the man!

Please explain how most of our taxes are regressive and targeted at the working class. 40% of American workers pay no income tax at all. And billionaires have all kinds of loopholes, so they pay nearly nothing. It's people who make between 100k and several million who get fleeced. They're not rich enough to get loopholes written in, but they make enough to be in the higher tax brackets. I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but I think a flat tax on everyone is the only way a democracy will be stable long term. EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game when government does stupid things with our money. Whether you made $30k or $300k, you need to know that it's your money going to banana republic dictators around the world. One of the biggest problems we face today is that too many people don't see the tie between government money and the money taken from them, and so they see government spending like using someone else's credit card.

You need to provide a reference to make a claim like this. The bovine species most closely related to domestic cattle (water buffalo, bison, yak) all live in prairies and eat primarily grass. Deer and goats are generally more forest animals and will eat a variety of weeds and bushes. We have goats and they leave the grass till last, while our cows focus on the grass first.

Yes, I'm sure they'll open all the controllers in their autonomous vehicle to allow customers to screw them.

That was the exact thought I had when I read that sentence. How could a government who is in the process of exterminating an entire ethnic group within their country NOT abuse power like this?

I would be interested to know how many billions of dollars (or euro....) are wasted on stupid mandates like this around the world. The problem is that special interests lobby for them and make a case that somehow technology X is too important to be left to the market, but no one sees the hidden cost that we all have to pay. The market largely moved on from fax machines 20+ years ago, but the British public has been paying for this the entire time. Every time someone makes an argument that a government needs to mandate that a technology be used or supported, we need to ask ourselves who is behind the request, who gains from it, and is it really so important that we're willing to force compliance at the point of a gun (because that's ultimately how the government enforces it's will.).

That doesn't seem like that much money, given how much is being made of this. If these people spent all the time and money they're putting into getting taller into getting better at their job (presentation skills, technical training, etc.), I'm guessing that the return would be more than $500/year. Based on that relatively small difference in salary, it seems like this has more to do with people's insecurities than an actual ROI. Of course, that excludes the dating side of it, which would be more difficult to quantify.

As a mid-level manager, my concern isn't "looking over everyone's shoulder" to see if they're working, it's making sure that the teams are executing at the highest level possible. If they can do that remotely, great. If they need to spend several days a week colocated in an office, then we should do that when feasible. It's possible that intelligent, well-intentioned people believe something different that you do, and it's intellectually lazy to assume that anyone who disagrees with you on this is just a Lumbergh. I cut my teeth as a manager about 10 years ago during the agile push into IT and one of the big things we were taught was that co-located, cross functional teams were the most productive. We were shown numerous studies to prove that point. Now some studies that seem to indicate the opposite. I don't pretend to know who's right. From personal experience, I know that every person and team is unique, and trying to say that no team would benefit from colocation or that every team should be colocated would be equally wrong. I've had multiple employees tell me that they saw a team productivity increase since they've started coming back to the office. I've also had individuals tell me that they miss the uninterrupted time they got remotely. Like most things, I suspect the answer isn't a simple binary yes or no, it's dependent on the role, person, team, office location, and many other variables. Our company instituted a "3 day per week in the office" policy, but left it up to individual managers to determine if it fit their team, and I assume that Apple will do something similar. I see moves like this as changing the default from home to office, but probably not eliminating a large portion of the work force who truly need to be remote.

Then why are you commenting on a story about an Apple product? Please don't comment unless you have something useful, thoughtful, or witty to add to the conversation.

A few years ago I read the book "What To Expect When No One's Expecting" and one of the key findings of the author was that it was relatively easy for a government to reduce fertility of its population but it was much more difficult to increase it. Russia has had some moderate success in this area but is still in a demographic hole. China was late in recognizing this and is going to have a much more difficult task. However, given how much control the CCP exerts over the lives of its citizens, they have more levers to pull than most other countries. It will be interesting to watch the measures they take going forward.