Oh FFS - Apple is not a monopoly. You have many choices for phones, computers, etc.

Probably the area where smartwatches like the Apple Watch do best is in health and fitness monitoring especially as a background process over time. These are not the things for which people buy them, however, despite the fact they do actually work and there are plenty of anecdotal evidence they surface health conditions of which people haven't been aware of themselves. As I age I think more about actually getting an updated Apple Watch but I'm not big on wearing things on my body - clothing is a bit of a compromise that society forces me to make :)

I can see English is not a strength for you. The statement as written is completely correct according to what you say. "Half of the world's climate-heating carbon emissions come from the fossil fuels produced by just 36 companies" != "Half of the world's climate-heating carbon emissions come from the fossil fuels production of just 36 companies" Do you see the difference?

Wow - great example of a frog in the pan of water that's getting warmer. Can you give examples of scientific-based claims that have not been borne out?

Not every politician - there was 1 dissenter, Barbara Lee.

The one thing I have yet to replace is OneNote and its ability to be literally an engineering/science notebook with equations and notes. Unfortunately OneNote is tied to OneDrive so I am unable to use it any longer

The CCP is not communist. Please read up on how communism works.

That is partially true. You forgot the part about how the GOP forced any judicial nominations out of Obama's tenure and into Trump's tenure because the Speaker of the House refused to allow those hearings to occur. The hijacking of the government was well in hand by then but yeah we can blame it on the big egos everyone has as well to be sure (not disagreeing with you).

Nope - we stil lgo to the Avocado Festival in Carpenteria every year.

Please explain to us how Apple is a monopoly.

I _think_ I understand what you're saying but your phrasing doesn't help. "Hating on humans..."? No - but you go on to give us clues that really we're pushing back on what was created in the past and in that you're correct. It's not hating on humans - it's hating on a process that allows humans to do anything they like regardless of consequences and it's on those being harmed to prove harm in the first place. We can totally fuck up a place, cause all sorts of cancers because of pollution or whatever, but good luck trying to pin that on the company that was there. It got better with the EPA and superfund sites but only those with big pockets. Most of the time you end up with assholes like Elon polluting the shit out of everything each time he sends up a rocket and flaunting the EPA rulings and the FAA safety rulings. Normal people have no way to push back against this - this is not "hating on humans" but more like "hating unrestrained capitalism". Humans, especially americans (which I refuse to capitalize because...) would be up in arms if you required a business to prove what they do doesn't cause harm to others through a rigorous scientific process. That would hinder progress doncha know - but we kill other humans constantly as a result of lack of this mindset - we just piss all over everything and if anything bad happens, whatever.

I understand what your intent is but I have to push back because everyone is different and every family has their own considerations. Making simple blanket statements like yours is fashionable but do more harm than good. I often wonder how much different my life would have been had I been diagnosed and medicated and just better directed - maybe I had "bad" parents but honestly I think they all do the best they can with what they have. I found out much later my struggles in life were rooted in an ADHD and perhaps "on the spectrum" diagnosis but by then the personal damage was pretty extensive. Once I had the drugs I excelled at many things including relationships but the drugs also have side effects to be sure. So when I read a not even well intentioned statement like yours - not well intentioned because it comes from a place of ego and "I know better" attitude - it makes me cringe because far more good is being done when we are able to help people - but not at the expense of damaging those that didn't need that kind of help (misdiagnosed) or weren't able to get it in the first place. We would probably agree on the whole trans medication before puberty thing especially the not-telling-parents thing for sure so I don't think we'd be too far apart there but since your statement has a personal impact for me I wanted to take the time to explain myself a bit.

I'm always surprised at the black and white of such statements and their positioning as "normal people see it and so should you" as if it is apparent to anyone. Sure, most of the time things are strictly M/F but there are plenty of cases in many documented species where is a portion of the population for whom this isn't the case. Humans being what they are also provide a set of responses to these "edge cases" that span a spectrum, from "so destroy them as they are abnormal" to "omg we've got to nurture them as soon as possible to ensure they remain whole". Somewhere in the middle and is the correct response which probably needs to be tailored to an individual but I digress. So I wonder if you can agree that while yes - eons of evolution and all that yet there are still a percentage of the population for whom those statements do not hold true - we as humans are smart enough to evolve our knowledge and understand away from eons-of-evolution-induced knee-jerk reactions to variants in the population? Just curious...

And I would say this is exactly as predicted several decades ago - the political folks can't do it; it has to come from the insurance side - they don't lie.

That increase moratorium ended at the beginning of this year as this is when the insurers were going to be allowed in climate change risks.