Yes, I've noticed that climate deniers are highly allergic to reading actual science, and in particular will do anything at all to avoid looking at IPCC reports, so I'm not surprised that you want me to read the reports and summarize them for you, so you can argue with me instead of actually learning anything.

In fact, as a hobby I've been keeping a graph of the predictions based on the Manabe and Wetherald model (1967, the first greenhouse effect model using detailed CO2 infrared spectra and incorporating convection and radiation), as well as the National Academies of Sciences 1979 report, and comparing them to measurements. So far they've been tracking remarkably well. I'd post the graphs, but slashdot doesn't have that capability. However, here's an article from Forbes that does the same comparison: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...

For a more scholarly summary, here a paper from the American Geophysical Union: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

And I'll even help! You can find the predictions in the IPCC assessment reports, all of which are easily available on the web. Here's the very first one, 1990:
The scientific basis: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1...
The impact assessment: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1...

There aren't any "monopoly" laws per-se, and there never were. It's not against the law to have a monopoly, what is against the law is abusing a market position in a few different ways specified in the Sherman antitrust act, which you can do without even necessarily having a monopoly. While t It isn't and never was about pricing, though pricing (or really basically anything) can be used as a form of antitrust remedy.

You're probably thinking the ruling feels punitive, and that's because it is. The 9th circuit unanimously ruled that it's also fair. Like the judge said, once a party violates an injunction, there is no more negotiation. The reason for that is because the offending pretty is already negotiating in bad faith. They did this to themselves.

And no, apple isn't one of the "good" ones. I'd argue they're among the worst. They have a long, long history of negotiating in bad faith, anticompetitive behavior, malicious compliance, anti-repair, and a lot more. Apple, for a very long time, has been getting away with exactly what got Microsoft into trouble in the 90s, and a lot more.

What's funny is the appeals court ruling gives the judge wide discretion to do exactly that. Apple royally fucked up in assuming they could just brush off a judge, especially THAT judge considering her history.

Apple is already forbidden from requiring any special tracking links, or anything similar, and can't restrict outside links or add scare screens in any way at all. The appeals court didn't change any of the injunction, with the sole exception of saying that apple could charge a fee for whatever it costs them for a user to click a link.

What that amount is, is entirely at the judge's discretion. They've already done a pretty good job showing this judge that they're totally willing to blatantly lie to the court about what their actual costs are, they'll abuse any wiggle room the court gives them, they'll likely ignore any injunction handed down, and they'll likely delay injunctive relief for as long as they can if they do something wrong. What you (and apple) are doing here is asking the court for leeway that the appeals court said it's not even required to give.

This is a situation entirely of their own making. iFans tend to think that the judge is being unfair, but they need to remember: The 9th circuit unanimously agreed with all of the judge's findings and injunction, they only gave apple a long-term bread crumb to help ensure they're not effectively paying money each time a payment is processed, which they already weren't anyways, and they gave this judge sole discretion to determine how much it costs apple for users to click a link. If the judge finds that it's zero, then that's what it is.

If they wanted the same deal Google got, simply not lying to the court would have gone a long, long way.

You're already the slashdot granddaddy and undisputed champion of manufactured disinformation and comments that just plain age poorly. So why the need to compete with yourself so fiercely?

You're 20 years older than me. You keep trying to appeal to the youth, exactly like every bad communist and fascist dictator in history does, yet just like them, you're the old fart who has all of these grandiose ideas about how great an authoritarian government will be, how ending capitalism will save everyone from some nameless bad guys, only to kill everybody who merely disagrees with you.

First, you're a moron if you spend more than $50k on college, and you have no business going to college at all because you never were the kind of person who would ever benefit from it well enough to begin with.
Second, I don't need nor care about your life story either.

I never said nor implied that at all.

What I am saying is we don't need a police state just to help you feel a false sense of security. His idea is to literally ban this outright. All of these things are going to happen whether you like it or not. That's just a fact. China literally implements the death penalty over this, yet it still happens there. So get over this authoritarian bullshit already.

Prohibition doesn't work, don't be a fucking moron.

Just because you have no self-control doesn't mean the rest of us are in need a police state. Even if alcohol was illegal when you were conceived, prohibition showed us that you'd still have been born with FASD. At the same time, if there was no alcohol involved, it's unlikely you'd have been conceived at all.

People do as they will, for good or for worse. What other people do is none of your business. You claim they'll be desperate, yet at the same time you claim that people wearing nice clothes while using a nice car to run over a lady just to steal her Rolex means they did it out of desperation. That's not desperation for the same reason you're not desperate for that second cheeseburger you ate while that skinny hobo next to you had nothing at all. That emotion you're feeling is called greed. You feel that you don't have enough, so you want more. Even though you're already fat, you think it's only fair that somebody with more money than you pays for your third cheeseburger. It's not fair, it's just your greed getting the better of you and making you even fatter.

The whole reason these came about to begin with was WIPO was penalizing the US for not allowing online gambling within its borders. That's part of a treaty obligation, so federal law is going to win here. Nothing NY does can change that, the best they can do is delay it.

But conspiracy theory buzzwords are? Either way, I don't deal in conspiracy theories, nor will they get a dignified response.

I see you've never heard of Anheuser-Busch or Target.

If you read a history book, you'll find:

- The US has always been infighting
- Outsiders who physically attack us suddenly find all of that infighting energy channeled directly into their faces

That's sugar-coating it -- this IS a long-term decline for Hollywood. If this was a pandemic blip, it should have already recovered, just as everything else has done long since then. The film industry itself is fine, just away from Los Angeles.

They probably already wanted to do that anyways. Probably to Atlanta. I've lived in LA for the past 4 years, and pretty much everybody in the movie business is talking about how they can't really get any work here. Main reason why is it's cost prohibitive and overregulated, a lot of both having to do with FilmLA, but a lot of other reasons as well. California is very hostile to its bread and butter industries overall, and I think the government has it in its head that nobody will ever leave. The problem with that *ahem* theorem is many already have. Some have gone to other states, some have gone to Canada and Eastern Europe. See for example, Kobra Kai, which was done almost entirely in Georgia, yet the setting is present-day California. The main thing stopping a major tech exodus is the VC investment is still centered there. That could change after California successfully evicts its resident billionaires, which it seems hell-bent on doing.

One way or another, the problem will self-correct, either in California's favor...or...in California's favor.