So the intel era is not Apple products? Butterfly keyboard is not an Apple invention?
They have the highest product quality of any laptop manufacturer, period. But to say that all Apple products hold value well is simply not true. All quality products hold value well, and most of Apples products are quality.
I guarantee you that if Apple produced a trashy laptop it would have no resell value.
It's expected Intel-based Macs would lose value quickly considering how much better the M1 models were. This transition was bigger than when they moved from PowerPC to Intel.
One complicating factor in the case of the Intel Macs is that an architectural transition happened after they came out. So they will be able to run less and less new software over the next couple of years, and they lack most AI-enabling hardware acceleration.
That said, they did suffer from some self inflicted hardware limitations, as you hint. One reason I like the MBP is the return of the SD card slot.
I have. I was a 0-2 beer/ day drinker, usually when cooking dinner, so hardly problematic. Lots of “empty calories” and a growing tide of evidence though. I reasoned: if it’s easy to give it up, then it’s a no-brainer. If it’s _not_ easy to give it up, all the more reason.
Price anchoring, I suspect. Apparently, people simply won't accept mobile games at "game prices" ($20-60) instead of "mobile prices" ($0-3). I am the opposite, refusing to engage with anything freemium, but I am also in the clear minority.
I am not an expert so this is just my gut talking, but I suspect that the effect of emissions on the energy that the planet absorbs from the sun dwarfs the heat that our machines produce by some very large multiple.
Yes, and that’s been the line of thinking taught in schools and every discussion I’ve read on this topic for at least 20 years. Yet, there never seems to be any concrete proof that heating is being caused by excess energy being trapped inside the atmosphere because “emissions”. Again, it’s all very hand wavy.
I’m not saying that’s NOT the method of action, it totally could be, but I would think there would be more evidence nowadays compared to 20 years ago but there doesn’t seem to be. Everyone just parrots everyone else.
I’m just thinking of Occam’s razor. Perhaps the planet is getting hotter because were just producing a fuckload of heat. It doesn’t need to be anywhere near the energy the planet captures from the sun. But day after day, over decades, surely the minuscule amount of heat being generated by activity on the surface has SOME cumulative effect. Or maybe not, i dont know.
It’s not right to use power here and energy should be used instead because that wattage will be lower each previous year, but, even at that peak, it’s not enough (by two orders of magnitude) to account for even just the ocean warming, let alone land or atmospheric heating.
Using total energy consumption (not just electricity) and redoing the calculation using entire incident solar flux, I get that they are within a factor of 4 of each other. I agree that the sun currently dominates and the co2 capture is the dominant mechanism. It's also interesting that our consumption is so close to the same order of magnitude. It suggests that if we were to heavily invest in e.g. nuclear to solve our carbon issue that the heat alone would be on the same scale of excess energy and heating would continue. It also says that for solar to solve the problem we would need to cover something like 5-10% of the land mass in solar cells!
> But day after day, over decades, surely the minuscule amount of heat being generated by activity on the surface has SOME cumulative effect. Or maybe not, i dont know.
What if you apply the same logic to the sun? Shouldn't we be getting hotter and hotter every day from the cumulative heat from the sun until we all cook? The reason we don't is that the earth is constantly radiating heat out into space. [1]
This is connected to why carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the current warming trend: it absorbs some of the infrared that would go back into space and sends it back down again. We know that this happens, we know that carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing due to fossil fuels, we know that temperatures are increasing.
>But day after day, over decades, surely the minuscule amount of heat being generated by activity on the surface has SOME cumulative effect.
No it doesn't, because the heat escapes out into space, so the minuscule effect is only an immediate one, not a cumulative one. That's why the greenhouse effect, being cumulative, is much stronger. If I put on an extra coat every day, it's not the heat output from my muscles in putting the coats on that is making me feel hot, it's the increasing number of coats that I'm wearing. Likewise, if I burn a tonne of coal, then that heat will have essentially disappeared overnight, but the global warming-causing CO2 will stick around in the atmosphere for another [very big number] years.
To address the cumulative effect, this is the same as the sun. There is a balance of heat radiant on the earth and then earth radiates to space. The amount coming to earth is set by the distance to the sun and how reflective the earth is. The amount leaving the earth is set by its temperature (blackbody) and how much is trapped by various mechanisms (reflecting back to the earth again). Therefore, one way to think about it is the excess energy on top of the ones accounted for, like the sun.
