Potentially, but not necessarily more than they're going to spend on the work.

Maybe Apple sees it as just the right thing to do. Apple has access to enormous volumes of data that they could monetize if they wanted, but they don't. They jumped through a bunch of hoops to make Lockdown Mode that, if the user screws it up, means that everything is lost. They are unlikely to be making money on that, especially since it limits some app installations and functionality, and they're not going to get fined by anyone for not having it. There is, in fact, a real risk that someone is going to fine them for being unable to recover the data.

It holds a legal and fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders. Tim Cook rather famously told off an Apple shareholder who asked him to commit to pursuing only programs that would be profitable, saying, "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI."

That's just one small example by a powerful CEO after a shareholder initiative was shot down 98-2, but most companies spend money on things that reduce profits or are not profitable. Look at the sprawling HQs with fancy buildings that are set up by so many companies when they could have gone with simple brutalist architecture. There are companies that pay well because it promotes long-term stability even at the expense of short-term profits.

I get that these big companies don't deserve blind trust, but understanding what their obligations are is much more helpful than oversimplifications.

Some industries do it. Most run on standard schedules year-round, at least in the US.

Business drive personal schedules. Bigger businesses won't shift because it complicates internal work. That means smaller, local businesses largely won't shift because they often need to match their customers' hours. The end result is that people who are expected to show up at 8:00 for work now will still have to show up for 8:00 then, even if it's two hours before sunrise.

More than 35 years ago, well before the Internet, BBSes ruled.

One I was a pillar of was nothing but a wall where you would post anonymously (or not).
The software was written to verify the typing rate to make sure that no text was uploaded

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

I wrote a special terminal program that would randomize the time between characters to foil that BBS's rejection of uploads...

(Oh, it worked, and the dude running the show never found out).

I credit most of SpaceX's success to CEO Gwen Shotwell. She keeps things going even when Musk is off on an irrelevant tear somewhere else.

Unfortunately, Musk seems to be on a path to sabotaging her efforts. The SpaceX prospectus showed that xAI (which bought Twitter, because why not?) was the reason they posted a loss in the last fiscal year. Even with all the expenditures on Starship, SpaceX would have been profitable. Like every other major AI company, it is not at all clear that xAI can reach profitability anytime in the near future, especially since xAI is blocked from so many enterprises and doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the big three at all. As Starship production scales up, the costs are going to increase, and they need payload revenue to offset those costs. There's so much focus now on the Pez dispenser and the lunar mission that I haven't seen any hints of the conventional payload delivery version (aka, "Chomper") in a couple of years. Maybe it's being quietly worked on. I hope so, because the big space station payloads that were talked about a few years ago will need it.

It seems like it should be just theming, but there's a separate architecture to it. Even the APIs are different, with new using a GraphQL-based API and old using a more traditional structure. The core data (users, posts, comments, etc.) is the same, but the pathways are completely different. New has links into capabilities that old doesn't have (especially around abuse and scraping), and old has capabilities that new doesn't always have (especially around mod tools, which new apparently breaks on a regular basis).

"Many users" is going to be relative. I saw some numbers recently that only around 1% of users go through Old Reddit, and in many of the largest subs, it's a fraction of a percent. I don't think it will have the impact that some people think. I prefer Old Reddit on desktop, but it's clunky on mobile, so I stick with the new interface (I don't use the app).

Uranus is filled with gas - I refuse to believe otherwise.

For global energy, that typically includes transportation. As more economies have expanded, there has been more use of cars, trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft, almost all of which are powered by fossil fuels.

Global electricity generation has changed. In 2000, 64.1% of global electricity came from fossil fuels, 16.7% came from nuclear, and 18.7% came from renewable. In 2023, despite overall electricity generation roughly doubling, fossil fuel generation was down to 60.1%, nuclear was down to 9.1%, and renewables were up to 30.23%. Looking at the renewable mixes, in 2000, it was 17.4% hydropower, 0.7% biofuels, 0.2% wind, 0.01% solar, and 0.3% geothermal. In 2023, it was 14.6% hydropower, 2.2% biofuels, 7.75% wind, 5.4% solar, and 0.3% geothermal.

That's still a lot of fossil fuel electricity generation, but it is declining by percentage and their growth curves are flattening. Renewables are up by quite a bit and still growing. Nuclear is declining, and isn't likely to recover in any meaningful numbers. This program is a lot like past programs meant to encourage new nuclear power plants. Odds are that maybe one will get started, and it might not get finished.

Construction isn't expected to start until 2030 at the earliest. From TFA:

By that time, the AI bubble may have burst, or the grid may have gone even further into renewables, or both.

We need more power, but nuclear isn't the way anymore. I was a supporter of nuclear until around 2020, when I saw how fast solar and wind were gaining. Both have consistently shown enormous growth because they are not as specific in their land requirements, can be installed in small numbers, and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for them has plummeted to become profitable even without subsidies. Storage is still a challenge, but we're seeing rapid improvements in that, too, with sodium batteries rapidly catching up in capacity.

TFA says that construction on these won't start until at least 2030, and if they make that, it would be amazingly fast for how reactors are built these days. In that time, wind is expected to expand by almost 50 GW and solar by 40 GW. Battery storage is expected to almost quadruple in that time. By the time the reactors are built, they will be a tiny fraction of the new power generation installed and they will probably be the most expensive part of it.

IAI hasn't build a fighter since the Dagger/Nesher that Israel sold to Argentina after the IAF was done with them. They tried to build an F-16 competitor, the Lavi, but stopped when the US refused to allow any funding to be used towards its development.

Israel likely has the technical capability to build a modern fighter. Whether it has the money to do so on its own is an entirely other matter.

You mean this ancient herbal medicine isn't going to make my manhood bigger? /joke

A good rule to auger your list is:

I am reminded of some source code for a company-specific program that I saw in the late 1990s. I don't remember why I was perusing it, as I was in IT and absolutely not a developer. But I remember being tickled at one of the comments before a block of code. It was something like, "I have no idea why or how the following code works. But every time someone tries to change it, everything breaks, so please don't touch it."