I can see it now: whereas in the past you'd have a support engineer and their manager working with the customer and standing by their word, we'll soon see a world where you're accepting an EULA for using a support bot disclaiming the support bot's interactions as the use of the software. Bonus points to companies who offer the support agent experience to customers for free, and then use the product of that interaction to gather and sell personal details.

What a time to be alive.

Is it much different than the people concern trolling that, unless they can take a 10,000KM road trip to go hunting, EVs are useless?
Here's the thing: EVs are perfectly suited for most day-to-day commuter trips. Unless you drive three+ hours to work and back every day, in which case you still have your petrol-based options. And some of those will be eventually outmodded by extended range and PHEVs for flexibility.
Ten years ago, an EV was a useful headache for a single person or a couple; charging was slow, standards were poor, and chargers were uncommon.
Five years ago, you'd start to see racks of chargers outside of certain malls and even airports.
As of last year, they're in many mall parking lots and can get you to 80% in the time it takes to find and eat a meal. And 80% can be about 400KM, depending on make and model.
There are grid considerations, sure. But to dismiss them as dead in the water even as the market and technology develops is wishful thinking. The biggest challenges with EVs right now are sensitivity to cold, repairability, and safety concerns with regards to batteries; it's still a new industry. But as new technology like solid state batteries take hold, and as we get a better idea of the maintenance profiles (i.e. oil changes, brakes, etc), we're finding that many of the problems are being addressed.
ICE vehicles aren't going anywhere tomorrow. But it's inevitable that EVs will displace them and relegate them to construction and hauling, and much like the horse, we won't do a mass culling, but we will wind up creating fewer of them.

Because a political leader has never used a current or upcoming event to retroactively justify unpopular or poor policy.

Tu quoque fallacy.

A rust developer asks for filesystem documentation. A C developer enters a rust presentation from left-field, and responds by calling the rust developer the purveyor of a new religion.

WHY ARE RUST DEVELOPER SOOOOO DRAMMMAATTIICCC??!?!?!!

Irony dies off-stage; C developer exits stage left; the fiefdom is saved.

Not to mention that you can run Teams in Linux as a native client.

I know that in my department, I won't be recommending Dell devices if they can't be trusted to support a remote-work arrangement.

He's already sold two NFT "trading card" sets. He (and Elon "DOGE" Musk) have a vested interest in the success of their Ponzi products; they're the upline.

If they buy Apple Records, they could produce a line of record players called the Apple McIntosh.

Well, y'see, by moving to this structure and realizing savings, the CEO was really the one who found those savings. So you see, the employees had comparatively little to do with it.

Imagine that you're now encouraged to eat your co-worker's lunches so that you can get a slice of a smaller bonus pool than when you were paid more and didn't rely on shafting people around the desk.

Magic has been a hobby of mine for decades. I love the game, I like playing it with friends, and treat it like an occasional beer night. But if they're going to start blasting it with AI, then they've killed the charm.

My spark went out. Just like that.

Forest fires are natural; ergo it's natural for humans to dump gasoline into rainforests and set them all on fire.

Dogs can't eat chocolate, ergo chocolate exists outside of harmony with the universe as an unnatural, digital substance that we must eradicate to restore harmony.

Fair. As an unironic democratic socialist, I'd rather put my best years towards doing something fun and meaningful that other people can derive joy from. I even have a list.

Because Photoshop doesn't do the work for you. One can argue that it displaces the jobs of people who make paint and build canvasses, except it doesn't as a canvas maker to show them a series of different canvasses in order to understand what a canvas looks like, nor does it ask a paint mixer what blue looks like. Photoshop doesn't try to replace a medium, it is it's own medium.

Generative AI is derived from training data created by thousands of pictures either created digitally or photographed from physical pieces. It is inherently dependent on the work of people who are trying to earn a living. If one consumes art once in a gallery, they may pay in some form to access the gallery, and, unless it was seized by colonialists, the artist was probably paid. If one consumes it for a second, an hour, or for days, you still probably paid something towards the artwork. And most generative AI training falls well within a second of viewing; the artists that feed the system deserve something for there work existing in derivative works.