Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down

> Europe will increasingly be ran by right-wing autocrats shredding the social state and blaming immigrants.

This does not:

> Ukraine losing the war will be the end of Europe

Both the question of losing (the war is somewhat stalemated, and Europe itself is rearming .. although still not breaking dependency on Russian gas!) and the idea that this will somehow "end Europe". If anything, Brexit pretty much demolished similar movements across the EU. The EU's squishyness is mistaken for weakness by too many people who are fans of "muscular" rhetoric.

Apple's total worldwide revenue for fiscal year 2024 was $391.035 billion. The Americas Segment (which includes the US) represented $167.05 billion of that, leaving $224 billion for the rest of the world.

Apple reports that their cost of goods sold was $210.352 billion, leaving 180.68 billion as so-called "gross profit". The majority of this gross profit will be used to pay salaries and other expenses (e.g., office space) of having employees, most of which goes to Americans. (Most of the rest will be "retained earnings", which means it either goes back to investors or is used to try to generate new streams of revenue.)

But only some of that gross profit will come from exports. Let's assume that exports are as profitable (per unit of revenue) as US sales are, which seems reasonable to me because competition (mostly from Android) would be the main thing keeping gross profit low, and Android is a major competitive force in the US market, so estimated gross profit derived from sales to the rest of the world would be 180.68 * (224 / 391.035) == $103.5 billion. That is revenue from all products and services, and Apple reports that revenue from the iPhone is 0.5145 of all revenue (worldwide) or about $53 billion per year flowing from the rest of the world to Apple (and to governments in the US in the form of taxes).

To be clear, that's assuming that zero of the hardware (more precisely, zero of what accountants call the "variable cost") that goes into an iPhone is bought from US suppliers (which seems a reasonable assumption to me).

If you believe they’re biased, removing them is removing false legitimacy from biased content — something the government has an interest in. And no different than a journal retracting a flawed paper.

And since you want to discuss “fair argument”: there’s an obvious difference between allowing discourse on a public forum and publishing as an institution.

Because they know that the vast majority of people advocating for climate change to be a high priority issue is because they want to use that to slow down capitalism - the system that made the US the country they love.

I never hear growth-minded solutions for climate change: Let's get rich enough so everyone (even European hotels) can afford AC? Drug companies make enough money so even poor Africans can afford medicines and theraputics? Deregulate the solar industry? Reduce regulatory barriers for autonomous vehicles? Fast track nuclear power? Stop the fight against ride-sharing?

If the problem was climate change & it was a severe existential issue, I'd assume you'd support all of the above?

The natural consequence of the worship of financial success, strong isolationist tendencies, and social atomization. When you "don't rely on anyone else" and managed to make billions with your "own wits" anything you think must be genius or at least correct, right? It's insane how our current socioeconomic structure has effectively let men with the social maturity of twelve year olds gain absurd amounts of influence and power.