chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Sept 16, 2023 5:50:02 GMT -8
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Sept 16, 2023 10:47:26 GMT -8
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Sept 16, 2023 13:42:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Sept 16, 2023 15:00:13 GMT -8
After the Apple Event last week, there were several contemptuous comments on AFB regarding climate change and Apple’s effort to help minimize their contributions to it. I believe in the research I’ve read supporting mankind’s responsibility for climate change...although I realize many people do not.
In, what I considered a very well-written comment I saw during the week, which supported Apple’s effort, this paragraph in particular stood out to me:
“Does it cost more? Yes. Does it take a lot more work? Yes. And does it make a difference? Yes! Because if Apple is wrong, they are still making an environmental impact and showing it can be done. And if Apple is right, they are making an important contribution to reducing man made or corporate made climate change and carbon emissions, especially at Apple level volumes and scale worldwide.”
The most important idea in the discussion about climate change, IMO, are the *consequences* of being wrong. If the folks who are concerned about our responsibility to climate change are incorrect, *huge* amounts of money and effort will have been wasted. However, if the climate change deniers are wrong, the disastrous effect climate change will have on our world may be irreversible.
Humanity can’t afford to take that chance, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Sept 16, 2023 15:18:43 GMT -8
I am fine with Apple’s commitment to this initiative and I agree with the sentiment. BUT, I thought that Mother Nature segment was total cringe and self indulgent. Hated it. I guess someone at Apple thought it was funny. It wasn’t. I sure hope we don’t see anything like it again.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,648
|
Post by 4aapl on Sept 16, 2023 16:53:17 GMT -8
The most important idea in the discussion about climate change, IMO, are the *consequences* of being wrong. If the folks who are concerned about our responsibility to climate change are incorrect, *huge* amounts of money and effort will have been wasted. However, if the climate change deniers are wrong, the disastrous effect climate change will have on our world may be irreversible. Humanity can’t afford to take that chance, IMO. While I like the idea of that logic, using it in another way makes a whole mess of the logic. Few of us have access to the guts of a jumbo jet. If a Chem Trails conspiracy theory were true, we just wouldn't know. Can humanity take that chance? Not to get religious, but the same can be said about not believing in God. If you're wrong... OTOH, even without knowing the specifics of research or doing it yourself, you can look at the overall global energy balance. Energy has come in from the sun, some converted to plants, some ate by animals, some made into an energy dense gas, liquid or solid form. This has happened over a long time. If suddenly, in earth time, we use that energy and create heat in the process, things are going to heat up. And that's without worrying about putting things into the air that cause more heat from the sun to be kept on the planet. The only real question then is the ratios, and the exhaust rate. If the added heat from all this is tiny, it might not matter. If it's decent, but that heat escapes into space, it might not matter. But if it's decent, even if in single digits, and it doesn't escape...then things heat up. Especially if it is multiplied by throwing stuff into the air that retains more of this heat and more of the energy from the sun. I guess I don't know why we don't look at mitigation efforts, but it probably depends on those overall ratios or comparisons. How much energy headed to us from the sun would it take to bounce away, to balance or partially balance with the heat we are creating? Would it be feasible to instead of just putting a solar array on a satellite, to put a reflective sail, that keeps some of the sun energy away? Would a reasonable amount on every satellite even make a dent, or is it several order of magnitudes away? At the orbiting altitude it would just slightly lessen an area, instead of being an eclipse, so it should even be possible on satellites that stay above the same location, like the SpaceX ones, GPS, etc. I'm torn on Apple with its Mother Earth bit. Looking back, it's more of what Apple has been doing for at least the last 2 decades. I do feel it is the right thing to do, but I'm also worried about Apple spending too much doing it, and so I wish they gave a few more details for those of us that wonder. Because right now there are some things that are breakeven nearly right away, some things that make sense when looking a few years or even a decade out, some things that look ok looking multiple decades out, and then probably some things that just don't get close to breakeven. I trust Apple to try to do the right thing, both environmentally but also financially. Investing in chip manufacturing tools or quartz watch face tools is just looking more years out with an initial upfront cost. It's not always easy, but I would like to see some more details so that we could understand what choices Apple is making. Some of that should be in their environmental review that they do each year. At the same time, Apple is the largest company, and can push some of these trends. Some of these pushes might not make total sense if just looking financially. And that might still be the right thing to do, both in general but also with the goal of getting others to join in. Longs story short, while I'd like to see some more details so we can understand, I also trust Apple and see that they have been doing this for at least the last 20 years. This isn't a new thing. It's probably the right thing for them to do. But it's been going for so long that we, as investors or product users, can't really say that this is a change we are blindsided by. Instead this is like going to Whole Foods and being surprised that they sell so much good looking organic product at higher prices than other grocery stores. It is what they are based on, and what they have done for decades.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,648
|
Post by 4aapl on Sept 16, 2023 17:05:01 GMT -8
We have an SE, SE3, 12 mini, and had a SE3. I think they were all about the same size, smaller than the non-pro full versions (12, 14, etc). The article says the SE4 will have a larger 6.1" screen, but it seems like it wouldn't be bad to keep it a little smaller, basically combining the mini and SE line. We only have the choices of what Apple offers, but I hope they keep a smaller one around. There are some that want that size, and our kids have liked them though I haven't asked my son about how he liked going from the SE2 to a 14. But the financial side is that if Apple continues to offer the SE line at a much lower price (just over 400 vs 800), then it's good to have an obvious difference in the device. We'll see what happens.
|
|
benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,318
|
Post by benoir on Sept 16, 2023 18:29:09 GMT -8
I am fine with Apple’s commitment to this initiative and I agree with the sentiment. BUT, I thought that Mother Nature segment was total cringe and self indulgent. Hated it. I guess someone at Apple thought it was funny. It wasn’t. I sure hope we don’t see anything like it again. agree, it was a little overdone. But support this initiative 100%
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Sept 16, 2023 18:30:32 GMT -8
The most important idea in the discussion about climate change, IMO, are the *consequences* of being wrong. If the folks who are concerned about our responsibility to climate change are incorrect, *huge* amounts of money and effort will have been wasted. However, if the climate change deniers are wrong, the disastrous effect climate change will have on our world may be irreversible. Humanity can’t afford to take that chance, IMO. While I like the idea of that logic, using it in another way makes a whole mess of the logic. Few of us have access to the guts of a jumbo jet. If a Chem Trails conspiracy theory were true, we just wouldn't know. Can humanity take that chance?
Let me try to understand this...are you suggesting the scientific studies of the dangers of *climate change* are equivalent to the scientific studies of the dangers of *chemtrails? I don't believe that's anywhere near being true...so I don't believe it "makes a whole mess of the logic" at all. If you do, I'm fine with that. But when I did a quick search on "Are chemtrails real" I got 2,400,000 results...one of which was a Scientific American article: What Are Chemtrails Made Of? I think I'll stick with the Scientific American article when it comes to chemtrails...and you can stick with believing the dangers of chemtrails may be on par with the dangers of climate change. Not to get religious, but the same can be said about not believing in God. If you're wrong... And I wouldn't be shocked to find out some people are religious for that very reason. The big difference is, in the case of climate change, it will affect *everyone*...not just the person who may or may not be religious.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,648
|
Post by 4aapl on Sept 16, 2023 21:25:39 GMT -8
While I like the idea of that logic, using it in another way makes a whole mess of the logic. Few of us have access to the guts of a jumbo jet. If a Chem Trails conspiracy theory were true, we just wouldn't know. Can humanity take that chance?
Let me try to understand this...are you suggesting the scientific studies of the dangers of *climate change* are equivalent to the scientific studies of the dangers of *chemtrails? I don't believe that's anywhere near being true...so I don't believe it "makes a whole mess of the logic" at all. If you do, I'm fine with that. Sorry. I was just saying that using the "it would be really bad if we didn't believe it but it was true" wasn't the best reasoning, partly because it could be used as an excuse for a whole host of other things. Not the best example I guess, and I must not have even done too well at using it, instead distracting from the issue. I know what contrails are, and even though I was around with aerial spraying for medflies, I'm not one who thinks some of them are "chem trails", even if it is interesting to read about cloud seeding. Onward and upward!
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Sept 16, 2023 21:58:39 GMT -8
Let me try to understand this...are you suggesting the scientific studies of the dangers of *climate change* are equivalent to the scientific studies of the dangers of *chemtrails? I don't believe that's anywhere near being true...so I don't believe it "makes a whole mess of the logic" at all. If you do, I'm fine with that. Sorry. I has just saying that using the "it would be really bad if we didn't believe it but it was true" wasn't the best reasoning, partly because it could be used as an excuse for a whole host of other things.Not the best example I guess, and I must not have even done too well at using it, instead distracting from the issue. I know what contrails are, and even though I was around with aerial spraying for medflies, I'm not one who thinks some of them are "chem trails", even if it is interesting to read about cloud seeding. Onward and upward! That's true...it "could be used as an excuse for a whole host of other things". But if someone used that reasoning with no scientific evidence showing that it was, or could possibly be true, I still fail to see how that would be equivalent to something that could mean the end of civilization...not in our lifetimes, but in generations to come.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,111
|
Post by Dave on Sept 17, 2023 2:24:19 GMT -8
I don’t have any answers concerning climate change but I do have a lot of questions.
- Why is it that when someone questions our responsibility for the climate the debate is not allowed? Scientific truth can only be found through debate. Question everything. History is full of examples where the scientific truth of the day was later revealed to be wrong.
- Has the earth ever gone through extreme swings in temperature before? What is normal? Does normal exist?
- How much heat and debris does one volcano produce compared to all of heat and debris that society produce? Should we outlaw volcanic eruptions?
- If the earth is warming, why are we not preparing for the new opportunities that it will bring? Such as land that was once too cold for crops would now be capable of producing food. Sea ports would now be navigable that are otherwise frozen.
- I remember when the climate change community was predicting a coming ice age. If the global temperatures should start to decrease should we start the return to burning carbon and try and heat the atmosphere so that we could stay warm?
- The climate change movement is a religion and should be treated as such. It meets all of the criteria. It’s been said that if you don’t believe in God then you will believe in anything. Is this where we are at as a society?
- Would the climate change movement still exist were it not for the large corporate and governmental contributions? There is just too much money to be made and too much power to be gained. Shouldn’t we tread cautiously?
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Sept 17, 2023 5:27:36 GMT -8
I support outlawing volcanic eruptions. They annoy me.
|
|
coma
Member
Posts: 522
|
Post by coma on Sept 17, 2023 6:07:09 GMT -8
I support outlawing volcanic eruptions. They annoy me. We need to tax them for any eruptions over the limit of one per decade !
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Sept 17, 2023 7:16:59 GMT -8
Not to get religious, but the same can be said about not believing in God. If you're wrong... I fail to see any logic in this, as it assumes that God rewards believers, and withholds rewards from those who don’t believe. One can believe that, and perhaps even cite examples which seem to confirm it, but there is no way to “prove” it. Now don’t get me wrong, I grew up in a typical for the times New England Catholic family, went to a Christian Brothers high school, and even had an aunt who was a nun. But faith is not science or mathematics, so cause and effect can be believed, but never proven. But we have let this topic get too far afield, so I’ll stop now.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Sept 17, 2023 8:08:55 GMT -8
In other news, Apple TV+ continues to get better with its singular focus on quality over quantity. I am about to start watching Season 2 of FoundationI am glad to see the acclaim here, considering that the budget for this series has to be massive. And the story will take many seasons to tell. Watching with the audio on AirPod Max’s makes it even better. Content like this on the Vision Pro would likely be next level. Season 1 seemed to be a modest hit, but Season 2 looks like a breakout. Really looking forward to Season 2 of Severance, whenever it shows up. We are in the Golden Age of TV.
|
|
|
Post by CdnPhoto on Sept 17, 2023 9:35:06 GMT -8
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,648
|
Post by 4aapl on Sept 17, 2023 16:34:04 GMT -8
I don’t have any answers concerning climate change but I do have a lot of questions. - Why is it that when someone questions our responsibility for the climate the debate is not allowed? Scientific truth can only be found through debate. Question everything. History is full of examples where the scientific truth of the day was later revealed to be wrong. - Has the earth ever gone through extreme swings in temperature before? What is normal? Does normal exist? - How much heat and debris does one volcano produce compared to all of heat and debris that society produce? Should we outlaw volcanic eruptions? - If the earth is warming, why are we not preparing for the new opportunities that it will bring? Such as land that was once too cold for crops would now be capable of producing food. Sea ports would now be navigable that are otherwise frozen. - I remember when the climate change community was predicting a coming ice age. If the global temperatures should start to decrease should we start the return to burning carbon and try and heat the atmosphere so that we could stay warm? - The climate change movement is a religion and should be treated as such. It meets all of the criteria. It’s been said that if you don’t believe in God then you will believe in anything. Is this where we are at as a society? - Would the climate change movement still exist were it not for the large corporate and governmental contributions? There is just too much money to be made and too much power to be gained. Shouldn’t we tread cautiously? A lot of this comes down to how resilient a system is. Does a butterfly flap over there cause a tornado of change here? Or does a tornado of change in one place only cause a slight change overall? Change happens, and changes have been huge in the past. Nevada used to be an ocean, which is why our state fossil is the ichthyosaurus, a giant fish. But the rate of change is really important. Is the temperature change that is happening in 100 or 100's of years something that naturally happened in huge amounts of time. Bring on the mega-volcanos, and outside stimulus like giant meteors, which changed things quickly, and dramatically. We as a species don't really want things to change quickly, and sometimes we don't want them to change at all, but part of that is how quickly we can adapt. But also how quickly we can see a change, positive or negative. Personally, right off the bat I agree with much of what Apple is doing. For anyone with good sun exposure, especially when talking about multiple sites or the ability to fund a high volume solar farm, we're past the point where with a decent timeframe it makes lots of sense, especially in higher electricity cost areas. My wife stopped off at Ikea in Sac when driving home, and pulling up Find my iPhone I got to see all of the solar they have there. Not only is the main building coated, but the covered a lot of the parking. In both cases, and in an area that is hot a large portion of the year, it doubles up by giving them electricity but also lowering the cooling needs in general since it stops the sun's energy from hitting the buildings and cars. But in other ways, I mostly just don't know enough, and would like to see more info in an easily digestible form. Maybe some reduce/reuse/recycle areas cost a bit more on the surface, but still seem like a good thing to do now or in the future depending on what variables you use. And that's fine, but I'd like to know. Likewise, what of Apple's other methods? I did not believe Apple would mill a chunk of aluminum to make the body of a MacBook Pro, but they did. That seems hugely energy intensive, both upfront and then having to remelt the leftover material. In both Apple's case and climate change in general, I'd just like to see a little more details and discussion for the normal or science oriented person. What makes sense to do today, what is a good idea to do today, and what doesn't make sense to do yet. And Apple must agree that there are some things that don't make sense to do yet, since they did keep pushing the "by 2030" date. They often said they were ahead of schedule, and I kept thinking they would thrown down an earlier date or at least an earlier date for some things. Interestingly, they jumped around that a bit (it seemed to me), even for things that they are doing well right now. That seemed strange to me, but it was almost that they wanted to minimize their accomplishments while the whole thing was both talking about their accomplishments and their overall aim. I know I don't know it all, and probably have many mistakes. But books like "Factfulness" remind us that things are improving. We don't have the smog in LA so that you can't see a mountain 3 miles away (Arcadia) or the black vs white moth adaptation on birch trees with soot in the Industrial Revolution (Biology class). That doesn't mean that all is fixed, just as we can't count on any one futuristic thing to solve all problems. Fission, even if having low emissions, is still getting energy and heat out of something on Earth, and we'll still have to deal with the affects of this excess heat and if it can emit into space in an overall way that balances. Or like Dave mentioned, if we learn to live with the excess heat in the future, while trying to find a way to minimize that extra heat. I'm sure I have some of that wrong, and I'm sure there are other ways to look at it or other things to prioritize. Breathable air and drinkable water are higher on the list that a complete sustainable heat balance. But if looking at the long term, whether that is the long term of one person's life, of many generations, the expected habitable timeframe of Earth, or of the lifetime of the Sun or Earth, it does change the priorities from what one might come up with when just looking at the current year, 5 years, or even decade.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Sept 17, 2023 19:01:20 GMT -8
I don’t have any answers concerning climate change but I do have a lot of questions. - Why is it that when someone questions our responsibility for the climate the debate is not allowed? Scientific truth can only be found through debate. Question everything. History is full of examples where the scientific truth of the day was later revealed to be wrong. Why you would make the statement that debate about "our responsibility for the climate" is not allowed? It's obviously still being debated...hence the negative comments on AFB about the Apple Event commentary regarding climate change. People used to believe the Sun orbited the Earth…perhaps some still do. Others believe COVID-19 vaccines are being used to inject tracking chips…the people sentenced to prison terms as a result of their January 6th activities are patriots…and that TFG actually won the election in 2020. I have no problem with people debating any of these things. I just don't care to participate in those debates because I've seen and read enough to consider it a waste of my time. - Has the earth ever gone through extreme swings in temperature before? What is normal? Does normal exist? Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now? - How much heat and debris does one volcano produce compared to all of heat and debris that society produce? Glad you asked. The answer to the first question is here.. What do volcanoes have to do with climate change?"Annually, human activities produce about 100 times the carbon dioxide (CO2) of Earth’s volcanic eruptions”Should we outlaw volcanic eruptions? No. - If the earth is warming, why are we not preparing for the new opportunities that it will bring? Such as land that was once too cold for crops would now be capable of producing food. Sea ports would now be navigable that are otherwise frozen. Perhaps you can educate me about "new opportunities that it will bring”. So far, I just see articles like this one: Let Venice Sink"The impulse to save everything no longer makes sense. It's time to leave the city as a monument to the dangers of global warming—and rethink our relationship to heritage"- I remember when the climate change community was predicting a coming ice age. If the global temperatures should start to decrease should we start the return to burning carbon and try and heat the atmosphere so that we could stay warm? It would probably be best to deal with the present situation...and if " the global temperatures should start to decrease”, decide what needs to be done. - The climate change movement is a religion and should be treated as such. It meets all of the criteria. It’s been said that if you don’t believe in God then you will believe in anything. Is this where we are at as a society? It’s your *opinion* that “the climate change movement is a religion”. I just see it as a strongly held scientifically-based opinion. - Would the climate change movement still exist were it not for the large corporate and governmental contributions? There is just too much money to be made and too much power to be gained. Shouldn’t we tread cautiously? The answer I would give is “Yes" to the first question and "I think we already have" to the second.
|
|
platon
Member
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom.? Tolstoy
Posts: 3,944
|
Post by platon on Sept 17, 2023 22:32:16 GMT -8
I've got well over 200 of such stories as this in my files but I will only post one, since 4aapl is involved in the discussion and since I know this discussion doesn't belong in the daily. Anthropogenic global warming is not settled science, it is a theory pushed by many scientists, Countries, businesses, politicians, and others. Some who who stand to make a lot of money from a government enforced crackdown on hydrocarbons. I am not saying that some AGW is not happening, unlike the rest of you I am not a climate change expert, but I read both sides of the debate and it is not settled science in the minds of many of the scientists who debate it. I will point out that there are some telltale signals that one side of the debate (among the experts) has became totally incapable of even debating the issue, resorting to censorship, threats, blacklisting, firing, and threatening those scientist who are dubious that it is happening. That means something to those of us who debate a wide range of topics on multiple forums across the web----they are hiding something.
This will be my only post on this as I know 4aapl will shut it down' because as always one side demands consensus here much like the climate alarmists. If 4aapl moves it to the Dungeon I will post more, if I can respond.
Here is a fairly recent article that showcases what I say happens when you you deny any part of the "changers" theories.
Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate change crisis is ‘manufactured’ By John Stossel Published Aug. 9, 2023 Updated Aug. 10, 2023, 7:24 a.m. ET
We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.
She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”
She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.
The media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry.
“This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”
“So, this hysteria is your fault!” I tell her.
“Not really,” she smiles.
“They would have picked up on it anyways.”
But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.
“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star,” Curry recounts.
“Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”
Curry claims scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune” regarding climate change.
But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research — years with low levels of hurricanes.
“Like a good scientist, I investigated,” says Curry.
She realized that the critics were right.
“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”
Curry adds, “This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”
Curry was the unusual researcher who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded: “They had a point.”
Then the Climategate scandal taught her that other climate researchers weren’t so open-minded.
Alarmist scientists’ aggressive attempts to hide data suggesting climate change is not a crisis were revealed in leaked emails.
“Ugly things,” says Curry.
It made Curry realize that there is a “climate-change industry” set up to reward alarmism.
“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.
Some United Nations officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”
They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”
The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change.”
“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding . . . assuming there are dangerous impacts.”
The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about “man-made climate change.”
This is how “manufactured consensus” happens.
Even if a skeptic did get funding, it’s harder to publish because journal editors are alarmists.
In regards to the Climategate scandal, it taught Curry that other climate researchers weren’t so open-minded.
“The editor of the journal Science wrote this political rant,” says Curry.
She even said, “The time for debate has ended.”
“What kind of message does that give?” adds Curry.
Then she answers her own question: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”
That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.
John Stossel is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,111
|
Post by Dave on Sept 18, 2023 2:09:08 GMT -8
Thank you Platon for your post.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,648
|
Post by 4aapl on Sept 18, 2023 7:47:02 GMT -8
This will be my only post on this as I know 4aapl will shut it down' because as always one side demands consensus here much like the climate alarmists. If 4aapl moves it to the Dungeon I will post more, if I can respond. While I appreciate your restraint, you might want to know that in the last year there was only one deleted post by someone other than the poster. It looks like I deleted one from eastbaybob, and if I remember right that was one of those times where someone said "opps, I made a duplicate post. Please delete it" (For the record, you can always delete your own post. For instance Lstream deleted a post of his from this weekend thread) We had the problem before that some users were only posting on the site with off-topic items. And that might have been ok, but it was taking away from the board by sometimes getting to the level of name calling, but mostly just being a repost of stuff from elsewhere and not having any discussion or debate about the off-topic topic. This board is for posting and discussion of ideas. It is specific around Apple, AAPL, and finance. But as is often pointed out, that can touch just about everything. Politics seems to be a consistent area that people get too worked up over and can't help but calling people names, and so we seem to have to stay away from that and instead use other places on the internet if we feel compelled to talk about politics in any way that strays from Apple at all. Apple has pushed some environmental issues for at least the last 20 years. It's not a new thing for Apple. For investors that don't like that, there has been ample time to switch investments. There's really no excuse to owning AAPL directly if you are unhappy with their stance. But it seems at least somewhat on topic, since at least some subset feel so strongly against Apple's position that they think it could directly affect their investments, either with the money that Apple uses for this or by feeling that a non-trivial number of users won't upgrade due to Apple's position. Personally, I think Apple mostly tends to be fairly responsible with their/our money, but I do wonder about their intentions. But I also question the ROI on specialty curved glass at the campus or Apple stores, or the stage with the fancy colored glass at the campus. Not everything is easy to quantify, if you try to look at it with a very wide view. Feel free to discuss Apple's environmental actions or even climate change in general. Let's put it all in this thread, and not have it be an ongoing thing for months. Be civil and discuss. That said, if you really have 200 articles queued up that doubt climate change as a whole, it seems you could have done much better than a story about someone who found a correlation, gained popularity and funding through it, found that a different timeframe or dataset didn't show the correlation, and is now selling a book about it. Weather is a strange thing, though not entirely different from the stock market movement. It never goes in a straight line forever, but that also gives you short term trends, medium term trends, and long term trends. We can cherry pick or accidentally pick timeframes where AAPL went down a lot, was flat, went up nicely, or went up extremely. Likewise, we can look at analysts and articles, and expect that those we see are making money by producing those articles. There are plenty of ones at the extreme, especially those that are saying that Apple is doomed. DOOMED!!! Are there any articles or wide datasets that look at say the last 50 years, and find that the trend matches other non-cataclysmic (meteor, very abnormal mega volcano, etc) temperature changes in the past? Heating up and cooling off has happened before, and there is some eventual balancing on a global basis, but it tends to happen slowly. Gotta go
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,111
|
Post by Dave on Sept 19, 2023 5:23:08 GMT -8
ModeratorsWhen looking back to the early years of this board we see that it was full of discussions about the company that we were invested in. Interesting discussions about trading styles, market indicators, basically clues that may give some indications of the future. It was always something that I looked forward to each morning as did many others. The question is, why would anyone want to join this discussion board today? And after joining, why would they want to stay? Anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Sept 19, 2023 8:00:27 GMT -8
ModeratorsWhen looking back to the early years of this board we see that it was full of discussions about the company that we were invested in. Interesting discussions about trading styles, market indicators, basically clues that may give some indications of the future. It was always something that I looked forward to each morning as did many others. The question is, why would anyone want to join this discussion board today? And after joining, why would they want to stay? Anyone. Is that link a shot at the moderators? Without them, we would be dead meat by now. I don’t think where we are at now is due to moderation policies. This place took a hit when Robert Leteo got all full of himself and started Braeburn, but that’s ancient history. I still find enough value to hang around.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,648
|
Post by 4aapl on Sept 19, 2023 9:32:10 GMT -8
ModeratorsWhen looking back to the early years of this board we see that it was full of discussions about the company that we were invested in. Interesting discussions about trading styles, market indicators, basically clues that may give some indications of the future. It was always something that I looked forward to each morning as did many others. The question is, why would anyone want to join this discussion board today? And after joining, why would they want to stay? Anyone. We as a board are what we choose to post about. If you currently wish to see interesting discussion about trading styles, market indicators, and clues that may give some indication of the future, then talk about that. OTOH, at least 2 posters, including Luckychoices and Chinacat, have stated that they just don't care about the shorter term trading. Most of us that post at least monthly here have held shares since this specific board was formed just over 11 years ago, and many have held since long before that. With today's prices, AAPL is 8.66 times as high as it was ~11 years ago, taking into account dividends. But the decade before that, Sept 2002 ($0.21) to Sept 2012 (~$20.55), it went up about 100x. I'm sure there are plenty of other good timeframes, but in that total 21 year period, for every $1 in AAPL it is now worth nearly $850, with a 37.8% annualized rate of return. A $5000 investment then is worth more than $4.2M now. Even with inflation that is pretty darn good. My general understanding is that most people here that invest in some shorter term plays or are interested in the shorter term movements are doing that more as a hobby. Each person is different, and not everyone was lucky enough to be able to hold AAPL shares over a 15-25+ year timeframe. But by and large there are just a much smaller percent of people here that are investing in the short term in a meaningful way. Or at least that is the impression that I get, while having the bias that while I used to have very large options positions (for me, but I think most non-pros would consider it very large. FWIW Turbo Tax doesn't like 8 digit positions, even if it is offset by another 8 digit position). I know some people here still trade options, but without enough people doing it and trading info and ideas, the posts become less frequent. Personally, I like to try to understand the AAPL and market movements, even if I generally do nothing about it. It's just interesting to me to see how mass psychology behaves, even if it seems illogical and might not always be very predictable (by me at least). And I probably have enough grasp on it that I could have the odds in my favor and make a little money. But the potential reward is just not great enough nor tempting enough to make the risk worth it. I've been down 90% or even 95% 3 different times in the last 25 years, and I have no desire to do that again even if I could add another couple zeros to our portfolio. That said, I think many here would be happy to see more discussion of trading styles, market indicators and clues to the future. Some have posted about this (like archibaldtuttle), though it's tough if something is never a sure thing, but maybe has 60% or more odds, enough to make it profitable in the long term. But if these are things you want to see more of, then post some thoughts or ideas about it. I'd suggest if you want to drum it up but don't think it has enough following to do daily, pick a day of the week and post about it each week, just as Luckychoices was of the tech stock comparison in the weekend thread. Wednesday's or Thursday's might be good, to not get swallowed up behind other stuff. On that idea, if people have other topics that they'd like to see consistently, maybe try that too. There's all sorts of AAPL/Apple/finance topics. "How's your newer Apple product doing" Thursdays? "Investment ideas outside of AAPL" Fridays? "AI thoughts and fears" Wednesdays? "Options ideas" Tuesdays? "Market Moving thoughts" on Mondays? From Dr Suess, Ahhh, the places we could go.
|
|
platon
Member
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom.? Tolstoy
Posts: 3,944
|
Post by platon on Sept 19, 2023 20:23:36 GMT -8
This will be my only post on this as I know 4aapl will shut it down' because as always one side demands consensus here much like the climate alarmists. If 4aapl moves it to the Dungeon I will post more, if I can respond. That said, if you really have 200 articles queued up that doubt climate change as a whole, it seems you could have done much better than a story about someone who found a correlation, gained popularity and funding through it, found that a different timeframe or dataset didn't show the correlation, and is now selling a book about it. I used that article for one reason only. The person who penned it "claimed" she was a climate expert, who do to her research had posted an article that was pro-climate change, and that article was debunked by a couple of experts and she agreed with the data they provided and corrected her article. She went from hero to zero in the minds of the climate change crowd for admitting her mistakes. That is "her" story, not mine. As I indicated I am not a climate expert and I am not qualified to indicate that she was right, wrong or devious. My purpose was to show how there is just one side of the debate that uses threats, insults and firings to control the narrative, in the same manner these prophets of doom trying to accomplish political objectives always do---in my opinion only. I don't know if I said I had articles queued up, I have posted many articles on climate forums written by climate experts whose qualifications seem to be on par with the climate change proclaimers "until" they became doubters, questioners, deniers, and now they are nothing but charlatans, liars, zealots, and even criminals in the minds of the real zealots in the debates. I have thought about posting some of these articles in JD's thread "Climate Religion" but I thought it would probably cause you more headaches if the wrong people saw it, so I didn't. I posted here because I saw you contributed to the conversation (a very fair post I might add as most of your posts are) but I am opinionated and the above referenced post is about as fair as I can be, so unless the topic is moved to the Dungeon this will be all I contribute on the topic. Thanks for replying to me.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,648
|
Post by 4aapl on Sept 19, 2023 22:01:45 GMT -8
My purpose was to show how there is just one side of the debate that uses threats, insults and firings to control the narrative, in the same manner these prophets of doom trying to accomplish political objectives always do---in my opinion only. Most of the time in very heated arguments, some of the edge cases do start threats, insults, and other things. Often it's when one feels "the other side isn't listening". I really haven't followed along with detail to the arguments over climate change over the past 1-2 decades. But to say that one side hasn't made threats and insults is most likely wrong. One recent instance, when taking one's existing gas stove wasn't even talked about, was something similar to "you'll have to pry my gas stovetop out of my cold dead hands". People are often fearful of change. Climate change is no different, though it has fear on both sides. Fear of climate changing and causing bad things for people and the planet. And fear of having to change one's ways to help prevent climate change. Actually, most big society worries have this same sort of thing. I won't mention the ones I came up with first. But just like most things, the squeaky wheel at least gets some attention, especially in the media, which often escalates things.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,111
|
Post by Dave on Sept 20, 2023 6:18:37 GMT -8
ModeratorsWhen looking back to the early years of this board we see that it was full of discussions about the company that we were invested in. Interesting discussions about trading styles, market indicators, basically clues that may give some indications of the future. It was always something that I looked forward to each morning as did many others. The question is, why would anyone want to join this discussion board today? And after joining, why would they want to stay? Anyone. Is that link a shot at the moderators? Without them, we would be dead meat by now. I don’t think where we are at now is due to moderation policies. This place took a hit when Robert Leteo got all full of himself and started Braeburn, but that’s ancient history. I still find enough value to hang around. I'm glad that you brought up The Braeburn Group. I was a member there and I was a witness to what kills a discussion board. When it becomes nothing more than an echo chamber and if anyone tries to deviate from the script they will be attached until they leave the community. A one sided discussion is not a discussion. I've also witnessed it happening here. Enough said.
|
|