magnuspaaske

Apple is providing 6 years of support for old phones. As the author notes that's more than in the past, where they offered 4 years of support. My experience has been that the first generations had a lot of difference year to year and so when I moved from the 3GS to the 5 it was a massive difference and it would probably have been hard for Apple to support phones for as long as they do today with those handsets. That doesn't mean it's easy to support those old models and if Apple did 8 years of support instead of 6 we would still get these articles (but with ... iPhone 6s?).

At the end of the day things have a design life and Apple does offer pretty good support – and if we do indeed see newer handsets receiving updates for longer the authors argument ends up kind of being negated. If people were willing to pay for software updates after a certain number of years it might be viable but ultimately the author kinds of expect everyone else to support his phone without offering much in how he'll pay for said support with something that can tangibly be used to pay rent. And so it's probably easier the author just buys a new phone and remembers to turn the old one in for recycling.

It's worth noting here that the root system of the tree remains and also that different trees/plantation systems have different carbon uptake profiles. There are ways to tune a production forest to have a lot of carbon uptake while allowing you to remove trees for production continuously, even to the extend where managed land is takes up more carbon than unmanaged land. Deserts are technically unmanaged land but they don't store more carbon and similarly a forest will stop being a carbon sink when the trees start decaying or the big trees stop growing while still outcompeting all the smaller, still growing, trees

Solar is being rolled out like crazy and the main constraint is not the available sunlight but rather getting a connection to the grid. In fact if you look at where there's the most solar power in Europe, it's north western Europe (Benelux + Germany) even though one might expect it would produce more in Southern Europe

Uber came in late 2014. We had had app-hailing for a year or two at that point. They certainly shook things up but it's hard to see what Uber got out of it

This is my experience too. The ride is only as good or as bad as the driver makes it and I have more trust in a system where a number of local taxi companies compete for my business than one massive far-away corporation that somehow can't geofence.

In Copenhagen Uber made a splash until they decided they didn't get all they wanted when the taxi legislation was liberalised and they left. My reading of it is that they didn't want to give other European countries ideas and they were losing money anyways, so it wasn't really worth it to subject themselves to the same kind of regulation that exists in London or New York.

And what did we get instead? 5-10 different taxi apps offering taxis at much the same speed it takes to get an Uber, but regulated locally and paying taxes. It's literally a question of installing a different (or multiple different) app and then the flow is the same.

The kicker: Uber came to Denmark late enough that the taxi companies already had apps (or at least some of them which was then the ones I used). Ultimately it was just a big fight over nothing and Uber left with red numbers and a bad image.

Fascinating. Do you have a link so we can read more about the mercenary fiasco?

I've read Ramit's book and Tony Robbins' book. Both mention entrepreneurship. The latter mention taxes. Don't really see the big lie here.

I'm most familiar with Ramit's work but he's also pretty clear that there's only so far you can go through savings but no upper bound on earnings.

It seems to me a bit like a strawman argument he's making when in fact some (or all) of the other gurus do talk about entrepreneurship and earning more.