Incredibly bizarre take. You can build more capacity without frying the planet. Many ai companies are directly investing in nuclear plants for this reason, for example.
Several companies investing in AI Have made commitments to renewable and clean energy. However at most half of this increased energy demand is expected to come from renewables through 2030 and fossil fuels will continue to be heavily utilized for the massive data center build outs occurring beyond that, according to the International Energy Agency’s April 2025 report. Nuclear energy has long build outs of 10+ years. For the forseeable future the AI industry will continue to contribute to climate change, at a point in history where immediate drastic action is needed to mitigate the impending climate catastrophe.
To remedy Apple’s unlawful unreasonable restraints of trade, monopolization, attemptedmonopolization, and unfair competition, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter injunctive relief,including but not limited to the following:
(a) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first orexclusively on the Apple App Store;
(b) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer not to launch a version of theapp with enhanced or differentiated features on a third-party iOS app distribution platform orstore;
(c) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)or carrier not to preinstall an iOS app distribution platform or store other than the Apple AppStore;
(d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice;
(e) Require Apple to permit the distribution of rival iOS app stores through theApple App Store on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms;
(f) Enjoin Apple from requiring developers to use Apple’s IAP system as acondition of offering subscriptions, digital goods, or other IAPs;
(g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality andaccess to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allowsfor its first-party applications;
(h) Require Apple to allow developers to fully disable Apple’s IAP system;
> (c) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)or carrier not to preinstall an iOS app distribution platform or store other than the Apple AppStore
Let carriers pre-load apps and app stores on Apple's products? That's insane.
> (d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice;
Wait, what? They want access to Apple's App Store catalog? Also never going to happen.
> (g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality and access to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allows for its first-party applications;
As sympathetic as I am to this notion, I'm not sure how it's reasonably achievable. Putting aside the burden of every SPI having to be supported, documented, public API, it would also mean opening up all security-sensitive SPI to the world.
People like “science” and “research”, but then fight tooth and nail for removing evidenced backed pedagogy like tracking and gifted programs or phonics; or forcing bad economic ideas like rent control.
Good thing all these absolutely terrible ideas only exist in one party.
I was in a gifted program. But it ends up often being segregation by another name where the well connected can get there kids into them even if they aren’t “gifted” to keep their kids away from “those kids” and you end up giving funding and the best teachers to those kids.
Something similar happen to me. I was smart enough to be in gifted programs in high school. But I got into magnet school in middle school (which was supposed to be to be based on a waiting list) because my mom tutored the child of the admission officer years before.
It’s just like people being against affirmative action for college admission but never say a word about legacy admissions.
And it’s not liberals who oppose research based education, common core, etc. Trump just basically dismantled the department of education and conservative states are mostly concerned with getting rid of books that teach American history including the bad parts and forcing the 10 commandments to be posted and teach that the election was stolen in 2020.
Are you really trying to argue that conservatives want fact based education and not Christianity, Creationism, “The Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it wasn’t about slavery”.
> But it ends up often being segregation by another name
This is an outrageous claim, and you haven’t justified it at all, only suggested that you personally benefitted from nepotism; despite the fact that gifted programs have a history of greatly elevating minorities in this country.
And again, you’re ignoring evidence based pedagogy so you can feel better about yourself and chase a false equality
> Are you really trying to argue that conservatives…
Please call me when you’ve met a conservative more recently than 1990
Again let’s take two examples. I had the highest SAT score in my high school and the second highest in my county the year I graduated. Yes I was kind of smart. But I also had a parent who was not only a high school math teacher who never pushed me to study advanced math and do SAT prep in middle school. But as a person who proctored SAT tests, volunteered to do SAT training and had dozens of books about it before the Internet was a thing, don’t you think I had an advantage?
The second example is my stepson who raised his ACT scores enough to get into the college of his choice after we spent $100 per session for 10 sessions to be tutored one on one by an ex school teacher with a masters.
As far as modern conservatism, today there are states that forcing teachers to display the 10 commandments in school, the Florida education commission (where I live) wanted to teach that slavery was good for Black people.
But you can also look statewide - which states have worse education outcomes - Republican leaning states or Democratic leaning states?
I gave you a citation of one state that is pushing to teach that the election was stolen in 2020.
But again today the Republican administration has department of health and human services run by people with no medical background and are anti-vax.
I am looking at the evidence that you are ignoring.
And in your first reply you mentioned “rent control”. How is that any different from the president imposing tariffs and then telling companies like Walmart and car manufacturers to not raise their prices? That is a form of price control.
If I'm reading that first study correctly, "Ideation" and "Ideation with plan" are lower but "Ideation with plan and attempt" is higher and "Attempt resulting in inpatient care" is almost twice as high.
Neither the discussion nor the conclusion mention this, so maybe I'm misinterpreting something?
The results for attempts are underpowered and they acknowledge this (note the p-values too), but not for ideation. From the discussion:
> We did not detect a difference in the odds of lifetime or past-year suicide attempts or attempts resulting in hospitalization. It is possible that we were underpowered to detect these differences given that suicide attempt items were less frequently endorsed than suicidal ideation items (Table 3). Given this study’s retrospective self-report survey design, we were unable to capture information regarding completed suicides, which may have also reduced the number of suicide attempts we were able to account for. Given that suicidal ideation alone is a known predictor of future suicide attempts and deaths from suicide, the current results warrant particular concern.
reply