You also have to consider that the US has a long way to go before its even remotely competitive with China, if we're talking about total tons of CO2. They produce 2x what we do, and that's not including how much they breathe - which puts it more like 4-5x the total of what the US produces, for both India and China.

That's largely dependent on relative oxygen concentration in the air, which is the biggest reason indoor air quality is poor/low in oxygen - not CO2 directly. CO2 is the second order issue.

These are generally people with poor cardiovascular health in the first place.

With higher oxygen levels (as naturally happens with increased CO2) due to increased plant growth, people will/are able to withstand much more CO2 before its problematic.

Don't be silly. If you wore a mask during covid as all the doctors said you must to flatten the curve, you were breathing 2000-5000ppm CO2 all day long.

Meanwhile, that's about half of the low end of what plants prefer - 800-1200ppm.

Their alarmism about (the 180ppm) of the last Ice Age, meanwhile, was almost low enough to kill all plantlife on the planet (and with it, most animal species that depend on said plants). We were dangerously close to global annihilation.

For context, 1000ppm is going to be a stuffy office space, and 800ppm a well ventilated indoor space.

A well-fitted surgical mask like so many medical professionals insisted was necessary some short years ago? Those have been measured to result in a CO2 of 2,000-5,000 (with peaks up to 8,000ppm when its actually fit properly) for the air being inhaled. (But don't worry, that's still under the 8,000ppm 8-hour OSHA maximum.)

If plants like CO2, they're going to grow more rapidly and prolifically. That means, in turn, they'll be producing a lot more oxygen. Let's assume a moderate increase in O2 to 25% ambient... which is more than safe, and even preferable. The result would be that humans could withstand significantly higher CO2 ppm.

I'm not sure why we've ever started talking about CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" when it's 0.0425% of our atmosphere, and the facts above (about it causing significant greening of the planet). That much is well established, and it's well accepted that greening an area will decrease, not increase, the temperature of the area. We've seen this play out significantly in the last decade or so in eg. North Africa. This more than offsets the "global warming".

More CO2 is not only not bad - its beneficial and preferable.

The big problem with the CO2 hysteria (such as in the OP) is that it's myopic and agenda driven. "You've got to consume less" - which is true, regardless, but bellies the point that such propaganda is directed at Western countries which produce both less CO2 per capita and in total vs countries like India and China, which have effectively zero efforts in place to reduce its production. It's clearly aimed at the Western countries to hamper them economically. Outside factors, like solar output, are never considered in these breathless press releases about global warming. Notice how "global warming" is conveniently replaced with "climate change" in the media during periods of low solar output? We're now nearing the peak of the ~11 year solar cycle with the solar maximum likely to occur this year. Expect seeing more "global climate change" in the news in the coming years...

Oh for fucks sake. Trump ran on pulling back from Ukraine involvement. It was loudly and clearly part of his campaign. Average people want less involvement with foreign conflicts, not more:

"TDS" is simply the reflexive response when you can't defend him.

MS is in no way hurting. They made a profit of $26 Billion in March, far ahead of Wall Street projections.

As other companies are also specifically targeting that mid-management layer, this is a possible sign that the Cult of the MBA may be waning.

And the tragic thing about this is that the possibility isn't really that far-fetched, and indeed is precisely the type of thing the climate deniers would do to thwart climate science.

Actual slavery involves forcing people to work, and your comparison depends largely on pretending you don't understand this.

I sampled your mother first.

Most of the people that go to Vegas know they're not going to win anything. My grandparents used to go every year, and that vacation was their annual highlight. They set aside a budget, enjoyed themselves blowing it on the tables, then enjoyed the hotels and the shows. This was the early 60's, mind you, the height of the Rat Pack era when Sinatra and Dean Martin were still playing there, and there was a mobbed-up mystique about the place to the WWII generation. My grands knew they weren't going to win anything. They just enjoyed the thrill of it all. It was the "adult" Disneyland, a bit of naughty fun for people that survived the skies and fields of Europe and Asia, and as far as they were concerned, "fuck you, I'll blow my spare money as I see fit".

The rumor I've heard from those who work at Apple or have worked at Apple is that Apple bit way, way too hard into the rotten apple which was/is DEI. They promoted and hired people completely unfit for the jobs simply because or their DEI checkmark credentials. This has had disastrous impact on "softer" disciplines specifically, like project/program management, release management, and so on - nevermind more creative/artistic disciplines.

You can see this in how milquetoast a lot of their later software releases have been, and how they fall short of being meaningful improvements or something a person would even be able to conceptualize a use for - like Apple Intelligence. The message/notification summaries are nice, yes - but beyond that, it's a nothingburger. iPhone Mirroring? Slow and inconsistent (while the more useful clipboard sharing feature is... intermittently broken, it seems.) Desktop widgets? Who even looks at their desktop?

So, I'd not be surprised if the result is this. The internal projects have been stagnant or making negative progress to useless people of one stripe or color, and they can't simply get rid of them outright. But they still need to deliver something for shareholders, so absent a new hardware release they need something to show for the money spent on fancy offices.

Depends on whether you buy video games for video game gameplay or high polygon ray traced titties.

Yep. I can't see why you'd want this over, say, a 2020 M1 with 16GB of RAM.... at 2/3 or less the price. NPU capabilities? In most cases, I can't see it mattering at all.

Most men still have a PC simply for gaming, if nothing else. Women don't give a shit about gaming. And the phone is the natural instrument for their Instagraming.

My wife has a nice laptop that she barely touches. She'll pull it out every once in a blue moon, but she and all the women she knows use two things primarily: their phones, and their tablets for reading. The smartphone was the perfect product for females. It fits the way they communicate. A lot of men would be fine with plain texting, email, and maybe some IRC. Women crave that constat, content-filled social connection.