Additionally it's probably a rule that was written in blood and it also isn't an obvious feature that someone would know about and base their purchase decision on.
I'm fairly certain just about every single half decent parent is completely obsessed with anything that might even possibly be a choking hazard. Kids are surprisingly strong and capable of completely chimping things to shreds. If there's choking zone beads on a toy, it's not getting bought, regardless of whether or not if they have 'ventilation holes' in them.
And if it weren't a dominos app, but an otherwise identical or better third party app? Which through this now has a disadvantage compared to Apples app. Making it worse (regardless of how small or large that downside is) compared to whatever Apple offers, not because of having the worse product in the category, but because Apple also happens to own the otherwise unrelated operating system.
> Domino's doesn't have to ask twice. They're choosing to.
According to the article, the French agency believes they would have to ask twice:
> Third-party publishers "cannot rely on the ATT framework to comply with their legal obligations," so they "must continue to use their own consent collection solution," the French agency said.
I always thought it was because where you to deny in the Apple popup, that decision is “final”, whereas if they can gauge your mood before that, they can keep pestering you about it in the future.
I’ve seen confirm (app) -> confirm (Apple), but never deny (app) -> deny (Apple).
Is this just a count for America or Wikipedia in general. Because in that case it could also just be the rest of the world going "What the hell are you guys doing over there?"
It's for the entire world, for Americans are not really known to look up Indian Telugu-language films on Wikipedia, I presume. So your hypothesis sounds reasonable.
Not for America (or rather the US) specifically, but it's for en.wikipedia.org - the non-English-speaking rest of the world is more likely to use their own language versions of Wikipedia.
Also why does it have to be a subscription in the first place. If it is a non standard use that requires extra software you don't and you want to separate those costs from users that don't need it, then make it a one time payment at least.
Subscriptions make sense when you have ongoing costs like significant load on servers that are needed for the service provided. But not for some piece of software you write once and are more or less done with (minus some small patches)
That’s the really egregious thing. I think a bunch of programmers should be able to see the merit in charging money for software. It’s a bit of a bitter pill in a product that we mentally categorize as “device” rather than “computer” but it’s at least somewhat sensible. Software costs money to make, that money has to come from customers, and getting it from the customers who use it makes sense.
But requiring a subscription is such a blatant “fuck you, we want more profit without doing any work, and you’re going to provide it.”
I think another important issue is how the societal and cultural evaluation of university degrees compared to alternatives like apprenticeships in crafts has shifted.
The former is held in much higher regard as far as social standing goes even if we probably need many more of the latter, it requires lots of training as well, and you can even earn pretty good money.
This has not been true in my experience, I can't say I did it on purpose but I'm very thankful my primary profession is as a knowledge worker and I took on a trade as a side-hustle after the fact. A professional carpenter around here makes about $18-25/hr for what is a fairly time and labor intensive job with tight margins since customers are usually really price sensitive.
I think right on calling me out on that statement as it was likely a bit to broad. One differentiation that probably has to be made is whether you work as an employee or go self-employed/own your own small business, where you can earn significantly more.
Also my first thought was more towards craftsmen like electricians, plumbers or basically anyone working within the field of renewable energies/heating (espeically heat pumps)/insulating older houses. And at least those are in such high demand where i am at that they can demand high prices.
I think (as already mentioned in other replies) it is usually less about chargers along major highways, but about charging at home/work. Which is especially relevant in places like Germany, where people primary rent rather than own their home and electricity costs are relatively high.
If you can't charge over night for cheap and maybe even combine it with your own solar installation, then EVs are losing a good part of their value proposition.
Many supermarkets had fast chargers in their car parks on my route, as well as chargers along highways, and in cities.
Charging overnight as far as I understand is a bonus proposition of EVs but given I could charge the car in about 10 minutes in a fast charger and have more than enough for a day staying in some cities I don't see much difference from ICEs stopping to fill up gas. It's a tad slower but not that much that bothered me and would make me choose an ICE car instead.
Even with paying fast chargers' fees it was still much cheaper than paying for petrol.
> Charging overnight as far as I understand is a bonus proposition
I would disagree with it being just a bonus proposition, since it imo is part of the inherent advantages.
And while i do agree with you that in many cases it will still be an overall favorable comparison for EVs vs ICE cars, i think there is no denying that between being able to charge at home for cheap and having to rely on public chargers there's a value (and convenience) difference.
I am not really up to date with how pricing looks (so feel free to correct me), but i think in Germany electricity at home is on average like 27ct/kWh, and on public chargers you pay between 40ct on the low end (possibly with some monthly base cost) up to 80ct on the high end for some DC fast chargers.
> > why China installed 217 GW of solar last year, but only 1.2 GW of nuclear
> > And 114 GW of coal [1]. Don't do nuclear, and that becomes 115 GW of coal. Nuclear and renewables aren't competing for market share.
That is true for China, since their overall energy demand is growing massively. But is that also true for other parts of the world like the US or EU? Because looking at the electricity production [1] this doesn't seem to be the case. So in those markets they would compete for replacing existing fossil power plants. I think we can expect some growth, but not on a level even close to China.
We should see some increase in electricity consumption due to displacement of direct uses of fossil fuels. For example, use of heat pumps in place of natural gas furnaces, electric cars in place of IC engine vehicles. Add to that the ever popular AI and general data center consumption motivating this announcement (but I wonder how much of that is going to move to places with cheaper electricity.)
Yes, these and other innovations will defivinitely increase our overall electricity consumption, but i imagine that it will be a gradual shift as it is aleady happening, since vehicles and heating has long life cycles. It also helps that energy wise these technologies are more efficient, so that offsets some of the increase.
Probably hard to judge right now where AI is heading and if the pace of increased energy consumption remains this high. But i agree that they'll probably end up moving closer to sources of cheap electricity.
The efficiency would decrease primary energy use, if the electricity were being produced from thermal sources, but the amount of electrical energy used would increase.
I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say that the rest of the world is a footnote to China's emissions. Europe's emissions are already dropping fast, though. Presumably if China can decarbonize its economy at the rate it's going, then we presumably the rest of the world (even poorer nations) will be able to fast-follow them due to the learning curve (or else just because China will have so much excess manufacturing capacity that they'll flood the world with cheap renewables.)
