Close but incorrect. The primary function is to make it easy to obtain and read ebooks. Without being easy the device it is considered to be garbage to most consumers.

PlayStation exclusives have never been released on PC before, have yet to be released, and now plans to make releases have been canceled. There is no "anymore" in there because it never happened.

Here's a proper title:

They reduce particulate matter significantly but 20% of a shitload is still a lot.

You seem to be avoiding the point that it is release lead into the atmosphere.

Carbon emissions and particulate matter emissions are entirely different. Methane and propane burn clean but generate CO2. Wood is carbon neutral but significantly impacts air quality. Neither one is "slightly" anything compared to the other, they are polar opposites in these departments.

And you would lose that bet.

Microsoft took enshittification to the whole new level, where you can't even pay them to go away. Gaming is the last reason I have Windows in my household. Everything embedded is Raspberry Pi OS, anything causal use is MacOS or iPadOS,

Money buys power. Money buys control. Money buys countries.

If you remove the primary function from a device then it follows that the device is no longer functional. The process of making a device non-functional is effectively destruction because it now lacks its functional raison d'etre.

Literal destruction? No.
Effective destruction? Yes.

Why would you presume the use of small scale when that's the least efficient use of the technology? Also, why presume you couldn't transfer power from a lower longitude? Most people are between 45 and -45 degrees. Also, your statement about geothermal energy generation is outdated as the technology has progressed.

You have pointed to the negative aspects of renewable energy and in turn completely discounted the negative aspects of fossil fuels by making an claim about the economics. Without looking at the the larger picture, you're just being a fool.

The situation is binary. You cannot be against one thing without intrinsically supporting another. It is analogous to In claiming amputating a gangrenous foot is "economically infeasible" because a prosthetic foot is not as good a the original and the surgery costs more money than doing nothing. However, you also refuse to acknowledge the costs associated with having to deal with a gangrenous leg. In doing so, you are promoting a more costly situation despite never explicitly claiming to do so.

Claiming a solution is economically infeasible needs to be weighed against the consequences of an alternative, which in this case is doing nothing about the problem. You are claiming that amputating a gangrenous is too costly and defiantly proclaiming there is no need to address costs associated with the alternative.

If you discontinue support for a device that prevents the user from accessing or modifying critical functions then it your company should be required to make a final update available that enables users to use the device as they please. Effectively destroying functional devices because it's not profitable is the worst kind of waste.

Do they want people to burn down datacenters? Because this is how you get people to burn down datacenters.

You have failed already if you are relying on a single form of energy generation. Try again.

No, I have redirected from your denial of suggesting wood burning to the alternative of renewable energy. fossil fuel in general. If not one then it is the other.

The nexus is simple: if you aren't using renewable energy then you are supporting polluting. Polluting has additional costs to it that you have failed to incorporate into your concept of economic feasibility.

Yeah. If it looks like a spy, and quacks like a spy, it's not a spy.

"Nobody would be interested in some generic spy movie that is James Bond in name only. Or would they?"

Unfortunately I expect that a lot of people would prefer that over something that might make them think too much.

Heh. Scanned that as "James Bond robot" and thought, "That'll tie it in with the GP's comment".

It has nothing to do with the technology, the technology is entirely sufficient, the problem is people. Just because people are refusing change does not mean there is a problem with the technology, it means they are ignoring the external costs. When the consequences finally bear fruit, the whole lot of you will wail about how wrong it is and that it needs to be stopped, not for the sake of other people but because you will feel inconvenienced.

And you are basing this on what exactly?

Then by all means, factor in the consequences of climate change. It only becomes more expensive to deal with as times goes on.