From what I understand their flyby is much easier (requires to power to come back) compared to orbiting around the moon like previous Apollo missions.
Unless their calculation is wrong and they miss the moon, they don't need any power to come back to the earth's orbit, they are pushed back using the moon's gravitational force.
It's a much greater technological accomplishment to be able to orbit around the moon and make a few turn, and then choose to turn on propulsion when you are ready to go back to the earth, even if you remain closer to the earth (because you are closer to the moon).

It's not as if Apple will leave China over that. They will prefer getting 25% of China than 0% of China.
Other countries should follow, in the end it would be a win for society as a whole if those fees were reduced to 5% or even less.

rewriting existing software kind of imply that it's the same organization switching from C to Rust and from GPL to MIT.
It's more like a clone here. And as far as I know, there is no major project of writing a Linux kernel clone.
Also if uutils end up good, the GNU project could always fork it and license it under GPL.

There are already non-GNU alternatives for these utilities with non-copyleft licenses. BSD use them.

GNU utilities will remain in C and licensed under the GPL. There is a competing project called uutils with the goal of re-writing clones in Rust. That project also happen to use the MIT license. But this project may fail or succeed (even if it works, it doesn't mean people are going to ditch the GNU utilities). But what matter is that this is a competing project.

The Linux kernel doesn't have a direct competitor using Rust as a programming language. Rust is being used inside the Linux kernel project for some new code/refactors. And that code is still GPLv2. So I don't see why you bring a uutils analogy. There is nothing in common.

Freedom to choose, fine. But others also have freedom to breath clean air. Polluters should always pay for their own polluting choices. Typically the best way to achieve that is to tax fossil fuels.

2026: Announce objective of 90% EV by 2040
2027-2035: Do nothing
2036: Announce that the 2040 objective of 90% is not realistic and must be scrapped. But all current politicians involved are going to be out of office/retired.

That's basically what they did with the 2035 objective.
How about they set a realistic objective for the next 4 years (one mandate)? It could be like having 15% EV by 2030.

You are getting it the other way around. More people buy an Apple device because it is a status symbol and/or it increases their sense of worth, compared to people (hardly any) who avoid Apple for that reason.

People avoid Apple for various other reasons, mostly price, performance/flexibility, being used to Windows/Linux, and to avoid vendor lock-in.

2025 world-wide data: Android has ~76% and iOS ~19% market share. Apple never had anywhere close to 28%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Every now and then, a manufacturer will try to make an open source phone, or a reparaible phone, or a privacy-phone. They all fail for the same reasons. Their volumes are two low, they get outdated components, which means they sell you something for $800 that would otherwise be worth $200. They don't have the same quality assurance as big corporations like Samsung. So expect annoyances that you can't guess from the spec sheet such as crappy microphone, software bugs (which they won't have the resources to fix), poor battery life, etc.
But I wish them good luck.

None of this is anywhere close to Trump stupidity. Pardoning war criminals and January 6ers in its first days in office, doing everything to deligitimize a free and fair election, threat to invade allied countries, stupid trade wars. Even his board of peace is a joke (lifetime Trump chairmanship, even after he leaves the white house, really?) This is doing long term permanent damage to the US reputation that will be much worse than any short term gain that may happen.

The car market is more competitive than the cell phone carrier market.
In a truly competitive market, there wouldn't be any SIM-locking. Because developing that feature cost money, and a carrier using it would need to pass the bill to customers, who would all flee to the competition and refuse to buy lesser phone for the same price or higher.

Poor people SHOULDN'T get screwed. They SHOULDN'T finance $1000 phones on 2 years. If you can't afford a $1000 purchase outright, you can't afford that phone.

Still, SIM locking should be banned. It works just fine in Canada.

That's how it works in civilized countries. I have a subsidized phone that I can use with a foreign SIM card when I travel. I still have to pay my phone. I'd have to pay it even if it stops working.
There is no valid reason for SIM locks. Just like if you lease a car from a dealer, you can still chose to fill it with gas from any provider. Are you suggesting it would be OK to lock it down to "Toyota gas" until it's fully paid for?

"tech sales professionals" isn't that a white collar job? And director of multiple car-repair shop locations as well.

I just read on that car because it's not available in my region. According to Wikipedia, it will have either a 38 or 56 kWh battery. The 38 kWh battery likely won't have that 450 km range. This is most likely with the large battery, and even then, they must be using the very optimistic WLTP test cycle to get those numbers. I expect more like 300 km real-world range in ideal summer conditions.