There were already "alternatives" to meat. There are literally thousands of traditional vegetable recipes that you can eat.

The problem comes from all the artificial processing that goes into turning vegetables into something that tries to resemble the taste and texture of meat. The end result is expensive to produce, and often far less healthy than the meat it sought to replace.

If you want to eat a vegetarian diet - stick to traditional vegetarian recipes. Don't try to make fake meat. If you want to eat meat, eat real meat.

Exactly this...

Vegetables in their natural form, cooked in traditional ways? Absolutely. There are thousands of delicious traditional recipes made entirely using vegetables and no meat.

Vegetable matter highly processed to make it try to resemble meat? Very offputting...
Details of the processes involved are usually not transparent, and often some of the ingredients are things we would not normally consume. Heavily processed foods have also often proven to be extremely unhealthy - for instance heavily processed vegetable oils can have high amounts of trans fats.

Windows 10 already had optional features that relied on specific hardware. With 11 these features are no longer optional.

Users do want disk encryption even if they don't realise it. Apple has enabled their equivalent for several years.
People don't want their devices stolen leading to identity theft, account compromise and draining of bank accounts etc.

That said relying on TPM without pre boot authentication is a terrible idea. There are various attacks against this setup including sniffing the keys from the bus, or just booting the system and attacking it over the network.

Because selling a product and then supporting it for free indefinitely is inherently incompatible with a for-profit model.

Either you pay for a subscription, or you buy a one-off version and then have to pay again if you want to fix any bugs or security holes.

You're lucky to get the current situation where support is provided at no extra cost for a few years, and this is largely down to consumer protection laws in various countries requiring them to repair serious defects for some period of time.

For x86 yes...
It still runs on some older cpus such as the m68k series, theoretically back to the 68020 from 1984.

Not exactly..
The last Itanium 9700 shipped in 2021 and was dropped by the 6.7 kernel, with most distros having already abandoned it.
Microsoft dropped Itanium support much earlier (2008 R2 only had partial IA64 support for certain roles).

The last new intel model macs were 2020 models, and the last one being sold was the 2019 mac pro which was discontinued in 2023.
These last generation intel macs are still supported by the current version, and will be supported by the next version. Their support will be dropped by the version which comes out in late 2027.
Security updates for macOS 26 will continue until macOS 29 comes out, so users will still get security patches but not the latest features until late 2029.

So worst case someone who bought a mac pro in 2023 will receive security updates for 6 years. That said it was pretty foolish to buy an intel mac after it became publicly known that they were dropping the intel line, especially buying a model that had already been on sale for 4 years. Anyone who bought such an older model was either buying it because it was cheap, or had some specific niche requirements.

A tv set can run for years, i know people who had a clearance recently and threw out a monochrome set that still worked.
There are radio sets still working today, as well as all kinds of kitchen appliances. There are also plenty of classic cars on the roads today.

The difference is that Apple produce both the hardware and the OS. They provide a well understood support lifecycle for both.
A manufacturer of random hardware which bundles a given version of windows with it has no control over microsoft's support lifecycles. Even if the hardware can run the latest version, the manufacturer may not support upgrading and drivers may not be available or fully compatible etc.

A significant pain point here is support for WPA3. For Apple devices any device that was still supported when WPA3 support was introduced will have support. For windows you need both a version of windows new enough for WPA3, but you also need drivers for your individual wifi chipset. There are various corner cases where older drivers still work with win11 but no WPA3 support is available so networks will simply fail to connect, and the error messages given don't indicate why. This leads people to turn off WPA3 and go back to WPA2 which is less secure.

Why? They came up with 2500 MWh produced and $80/MWh with no difference in price for electricity used directly and electricity used from the battery. There is also 1200 MWh capacity on the battery storage.
Consider:
2500 MWh - 1200 MWh = 1300 MWh during the day and 1200 MWh in battery storage. If you sell that at $80/MWh, that's $104K during the day and $96K at night from the battery, which adds up to $200K.

If you store only 600 MWh from the battery during the day that's:
2500 MWh - 600 MWh = 1900 MWh during the day which is $152K and then $48K during the night from battery. That adds up to... $200K again.

If you store nothing during the day that's:
2500 MWH - 0 MWh = 2500 MWh during the day, which is $200k and then $0 during the night from battery. That adds up, curiously again, to $200K.

Now, I get that there are more complicated models for this where there are different day and night rates and there are some losses from storing power to battery and using it later versus using it right at once, etc. However this was presented as a back of the envelope calculation with ballpark figures and those factors would pretty much just be a rounding error in such a thing. Otherwise, if we're just looking at a simple model of a set amount of electricity per day and a set price, there is no point in subtracting the electricity used during the day to charge the battery. Just like there is no point in subtracting inventory in a 24 hour store that you keep in a back room and restock around evening and then sell overnight.

There is, of course, overcapacity as a consideration. Do you end up producing more electricity than you can sell? However, that's not really a consideration of the model at this point either. The assumption is that the amount of electricity generated is close enough to the amount sold that the difference is pretty negligible.

No actual disagreement with that as a general statement, but the GP pointed out just how low the usage actually is. Statements like the above have to have a point of diminishing return standard applied to them. With just about any effort you have to recognize that the last tiny bit may require a lot more effort or difficulty to achieve. As an example, consider the goal of removing 100% of the water from alcohol. You can approach that goal with multiple rounds of distillation, but the azeotropic limit will still leave at least 4.4% water no matter how much distillation you do (and it will still be almost impossible to reach even that just through distillation. There are other methods to go beyond that, but it gets more and more complicated.

So, for any such effort, there's a point you can label as good enough. That does not mean that you actually completely stop trying, just that if you have a list where you plan to complete one task before another, it does not make a lot of sense to pour massive amounts of effort into completing the last few percent of the first task before picking the low hanging fruit of the second task... I can use a fuller fruit picking analogy there, in fact. It does not make a lot of sense to let all your pears rot because you have your dozens of fruit pickers still working in the apple orchard because every few hours they manage to find three or four apples that were missed the first time.

Linux users generally don't want to run 10 year old versions of anything because the new versions are available for free.
The cut off for dropping old hardware support is also very long - support for the 486 has only just been dropped recently.

While your point is quite correct, technically speaking they are also correct. That "annually" is not actually wrong, it's just completely pointless, meaningless, and extraneous.

I was shocked too. Planned to comment on that myself. Don't worry though, we still have cause to be pedantic. Notice that the summary criminally does not capitalize "Watt" when it writes "megawatts".