> Because they lobby against advancement of renewable energy?
Almost the opposite, look up the "solar not nuclear" campaign by oil heat institute.
> More likely because others lobby against nuclear energy.
Exactly this. Oil companies know nuclear is their greatest threat, and that fossil fuels conveniently fill the shortcomings of intermittent renewables.
"As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power"." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
I find it ironic that Google TV still does not have this feature, it is the one "computer" that people probably still share regularly.
Sure you can login to multiple accounts and have different "profiles", but that just changes home screen recommendations, all the apps and their sessions are shared. So since I share it with a few roommates, we're constantly having to logout and in to our accounts in different apps to access our watch histories, our plex servers, etc.
On the other hand, my android phone does multiple accounts perfectly, why can't it work the same way on the TV?
But if you want to live like someone from 30 years ago, you would need to work 100 hours/week. I don't think I'll ever be able to afford a home even half as good as the one I grew up in (in Canada).
Yep, for me Plex is the solution that "just works".
I eventually got annoyed that my 4 subscriptions costing $80/month only having 2-4 of the shows I wanted to watch every month, with the other 1-3 not being available to legally purchase in my country or on yet another service with an even lower hit rate.
Since Plex worked so good for these other shows, even better than my subs (e.g. crunchyroll) I decided to do away with them completely. I kept some like crunchyroll for a bit as a sort of "donation" while I used Plex for the exact same shows available on crunchyroll for the better experience.
Once I found out how little of my "donation" went to the creators of those shows I cancelled that subscription and try to make up for it by buying manga/official merch instead.
I agree with not trying to over penalize low income people in the absence of damage, but I think the other purpose is to act as a sort of insurance for the ones that were unlucky where the same act did cause damage larger than they can afford to cover.
Exactly, landlords will be working 0.5 days and renters will be working 5-6 days. So I guess they were actually right if they meant 3.5 days on average.
I rent a very basic one bedroom in an awful location which costs more than half my after tax salary, and a round trip to my office in Toronto takes 3 hours and $45 of public transit. The price of this unit has also increased by more than my salary every year for the past 3 years.
The exaggeration isn't even necessary, this is like a $1 fine for someone who makes $100k/yr and $30k on hand. I've had parking tickets which cost more for things which weren't even my fault (missing signage) but had to pay anyways because it's even more costly to take it to court.
> Comparatively, immigrants don’t have the purchasing power to compete
What makes you say that? As someone who's currently dating a Chinese immigrant I have been made aware of an entire world I didn't know existed. They often have much better family support so their parents will send money from home to help them buy a house.
From her masters program at university, which was all immigrants because universities here seem to be taking advantage of the fact that this is an easy path for immigration, everyone in her class (80 people) already have a house. From my group of friends at university, only 1 of them has a house, and 1 a condo (out of the ~50 people I loosely keep in touch with, all with good careers). We would too if my parents had been willing to meet her parents partway and give us a 50k loan, but they preferred to buy a 100k luxury car for themselves instead (they also refuse to acknowledge the current housing situation).
She also found out from WeChat that there are a number of Chinese landlords in Toronto who own blocks of houses by investing money on behalf of friends and family back home to get around foreign investment regulations, and nothing is being done to stop it.
edit: I'm not sure why this was downvoted, it may be anecdotal evidence, but nothing I said here is untrue, nor did I make any claims other than there being immigrants who are able to compete in the current housing market.
I've been on Google phones since the first nexus, with the exception of a single Samsung before swearing them off due to bloatware and awful performance degradation, despite being twice the price of the nexus, and am finally tempted to switch to an iPhone as well.
The main things drawing me to the iPhone are:
Live voicemail - don't have to deal with my carriers awful voicemail anymore, and it's way more practical than Android's Call Screen, because the Call Screen prompt is way too tedious to sit through, unprofessional if you're being called for an interview, and they know you're there. Live voicemail I can see it, optionally answer in the middle, it gets saved after, and the other party has no idea if I'm available or not.
Apple Photo Memories - My girlfriend shows me them on her iPhone, they're cohesive and actually really enjoyable to watch, they look like they were professionally done, like what you'd pay someone to make or see an social media influencer post. Google Photo Memories look like random assortments of photos in a powerpoint presentation you made back when you were only 8.
The apple watch is also better than the google watch.
I still have to see what features I care about that I'll be losing before making the switch though. I still remember having to fight my iPod where the internal music db would always get corrupted and need to reset because I used MediaMonkey instead of iTunes since it was faster and had better transcoding and library management features.
don't forget about household debt exceeding GDP, with the housing market just being a ponzi scheme held up by a combination of foreign investors, immigrants, and a lack of new construction.
I find it perplexing that some people can accept the 2-million-year recovery time for coral reefs, yet outraged due to Chernobyl's 24,110-year recovery [1]. If we had switched to nuclear we would be in much better shape.
I couldn't find anything for Greenpeace, but I did find Friends of the Earth (which like Greenpeace, also split from Sierra Club), was split off "because of the [Sierra Club's] positive approach to nuclear energy. The founding donation of $500,000 (in 2019 USD) was provided by Robert Orville Anderson, the owner of Atlantic Richfield oil company." [1, 2, 3]
It's a distraction from the real problem by playing on people's fears in a way they can better understand. I see some parallels with how the fear of nuclear power was used as a distraction for the real issue of CO2 and fossil fuels.
> Either branch name is a fine choice. It just completely doesn't matter and pretending that it has any positive impact or meaningful change on the racism and discrimination faced by Black people in America is insulting. It's purely driven by self-indulgent white people who don't want to make material changes to their own extremely comfortable lives while pretending they're fighting the good fight.
Exactly, and I agree with this completely as a Slavic person (from which the word slave is derived). I frankly consider this insulting as well as having a great grandparent used for forced labour in the Ukrainian Canadian interment camps during WWI, and a grandparent in the German forced labour camps during WWII.
Exactly, and the reason why they're cheaper now is because it's easier to dump their externalities on developing countries with lax environmental policy, whereas nuclear has unreasonably strict safety requirements which drive up costs substantially, along with the lost expertise in the work force by pausing it for so long.
Almost the opposite, look up the "solar not nuclear" campaign by oil heat institute.
> More likely because others lobby against nuclear energy.
Exactly this. Oil companies know nuclear is their greatest threat, and that fossil fuels conveniently fill the shortcomings of intermittent renewables.
"As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power"." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement