51–60 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watch, Airpods, Homepod, Pencil, credit card next month, many services including Apple Pay.
How are those new products. Like I said those are just iterations of old ones.
> In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being too cautious]. We spent too much time debating. We've been too focused on the fight and not focused enough on progress. And you don't need to look far to find an example of that failure. Here today, in this very place, in an arena where thousands once found desperate shelter from a 100-year disaster, the kind that seem to be happening more and more frequently, I don't think we can talk about who we are as people and what we owe to one another without talking about climate change.
https://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2019/05/transcript-tim-co...
I get the feeling that Cook, like so many other public figures who bring up climate change post-2016, is really talking about removing the president from office.
Consider the last sentence here:
> When we talk about climate change or any issue with human costs, and there are many, I challenge you to look for those who have the most to lose and find the real, true empathy that comes from something shared. That is really what we owe one another. When you do that, the political noise dies down, and you can feel your feet firmly planted on solid ground. After all, we don't build monuments to trolls, and we're not going to start now.
Anyone who believes that climate change is caused mostly by human activity should be concerned about this trend. The deeply political nature of the conversation has turned what should be a deliberate discussion about science and policy into a shouting match.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are numerous ways in which Tim Cook's generation has failed the next generation (at least in the US). * Wages are flat, * Housing costs are up (in large part due to NIMBYism), * College is more expensive (in large part due to Cook's generation cutting subsidies that they got), * Environment is shot- that whole global warming thing isn't going away anytime soon. Generally speaking the baby boomers, as a…
What are you asking for? The world has changed drastically, culture and preferences have changed drastically, and new technological tools make the job and economic landscape entirely different than earlier. That's not Baby Boomers' fault. Are you really going to blame them for not predicting the future well enough? Baby boomers aren't forcing young folks to like living in cities more than suburbs. They're not malicio…
That's a depressingly low bar for "not failing".
Context is important. The qualifier at the beginning of the sentence is important: > In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being too cautious]. We spent too much time debating. We've been too focused on the fight and not focused enough on progress. And you don't need to look far to find an example of that failure. Here today, in this very place, in an arena where thousands once found de…
I guess I'm considered a millennial, but messages like this sound like misconceived pandering. Firstly, I don't think any generation necessarily "owes" anything to future generations. But, even if we accept the premise, I am the beneficiary of absolutely mind-boggling amounts of technological advancement, culture, progress, infrastructure, science, and on and on and on even just over the course of my own lifetime (ap…
Every generation owes the next generation a world that is in as good of condition as when they received it. Anything else is taking out a loan in the next generation’s name.
I'll take it a step farther: we are of the world. The world barfed you and me up, and we are made out of the stuff that makes the world up. The world is not "ours" or "theirs". We are it, and it is us. We are under the mistaken impression that we are separate from the world and that we "own" it. Until we realize this fact, we will continue to poison ours and each other's children.
Context is important. The qualifier at the beginning of the sentence is important: > In some important ways, my generation has failed you in this regard [being too cautious]. We spent too much time debating. We've been too focused on the fight and not focused enough on progress. And you don't need to look far to find an example of that failure. Here today, in this very place, in an arena where thousands once found de…
Maybe I am not sophisticated enough but I have a feeling that he is really talking about climate change.
Watching talks like this is what helps me keep my sanity in the face of climate change and have hope we will do something about it. My take-away phrase of the speech is gonna be "do something". I know my doing something will not even register in the global scheme of things but I'm gonna do it anyway.
...the problem is, I'm not really convinced that we really know of a specific "something" that we can do that wouldn't backfire and make emissions even worse by creating perverse incentives elsewhere in the economy. The only idea I've heard that would likely help in a meaningful way would be to simply make all domestic oil and natural gas extraction 100% illegal and try to convince some other nations to do the same.…
While climate change seems like a daunting and unsolvable problem at an individual level, to be honest it is fairly easy to solve with political solutions provided you could unblock the political machinery. I used to be fairly pessimistic about this, as a researcher, but now I think it's mostly a matter of getting political interest to align at the same time.
In our society, the simplest and most effective way to get something done is to just make it profitable. You can try to do things by fiat, but if you make something profitable it tends to encourage massive innovation and is usually faster.
For climate change, the easiest thing would be to just add a carbon tax that ramps up over time (or cap+trade, they have the same economic outcome, though cap+trade is a lot more complex to manage). You can even make it revenue neutral, though you do need tariffs on any goods not meeting the standard (which eventually encourages other countries to follow suit when the tax increases past a certain point).
Anyway, this gives you price discovery, as it eventually becomes cheaper to pay someone to take the carbon instead of emitting it. From a climate perspective, I do not really care if natural gas+sequestration wins over PV+batteries, but with a ramping price we can be confident that at least one of those will win over dumping Co2 into the atmosphere.
There was actually a bill this year (DOA, presumably due to republican distaste) that would have done exactly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon_D...
... that basically would have solved the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool that you're out here deciding who is and isn't "dead weight."
The free market does that. People who can't generate more revenue than they cost are dead weight in a capitalistic system. It's not common to say that, but the US certainly works that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...the problem is, I'm not really convinced that we really know of a specific "something" that we can do that wouldn't backfire and make emissions even worse by creating perverse incentives elsewhere in the economy. The only idea I've heard that would likely help in a meaningful way would be to simply make all domestic oil and natural gas extraction 100% illegal and try to convince some other nations to do the same.…
http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank