I’m going to extend Shiftitious’s point to add... Apple doesn’t NEED Fortnite, but there are a lot of young Fortnite users that care MUCH more that they can play Fortnite than what they play it on. Get these youngsters into the Android ecosystem and certainly a significant number are never coming back. Apple needs to…

It’s still nonsense because Apple don’t apply this same restriction to physical goods and services. Imposing the 30% cut only on digital goods and services is completely arbitrary.

Valid argument. Directly translated, the vaccine should be given to the New Zealanders and Germans first.

And ...

That argument would make a lot of sense if the ability to produce vaccines is at risk of being disrupted by the spread of the virus. But I imagine that the countries that produce the vaccines would probably be able to do so regardless of whether or not they are prioritized.

It’s certainly okay for the people producing the vaccines to be immunized first, but that doesn't mean that the entire country where said vaccine is produced should be vaccinated first. There definitely needs to be a prioritization structure in place. 

Good line of thinking - and far more than a philosophical argument, an actual exercise in triage. I suppose, to maximize the greatest good, vaccines should be made available in this order:

I read Franzen’s piece yesterday morning and found its main thesis (that we probably can’t stop the world from hitting +2 °C, we should be honest about that, and we shouldn’t let that prevent us from trying to prevent +3-6 °C) to be a good thesis. As you said there are parts of Franzen’s article that aren’t good, and…

This is a pretty bad take for a few reasons- first and foremost it doesn’t seem like Brian Kahn read the piece very closely. In response to quoting Franzen as accepting the climate disaster is inevitable, Kahn responds that, “[i]n fact, accepting that disaster is coming is the exact reason to try to cut emissions.”

Kah…

This is the first thing I thought of:

I'm not saying it's "automatically outdated" (whatever that means). I'm saying that the very idea of working to change it presupposes that there is some moral criterion that takes logical precedence over the constitution itself. If you allow for the idea that it ought to be changed under certain circumstances, then…

"Report: The NSA Collects Millions of Facces[.]"