a consumer may easily misunderstand the consequences of canceling and it may be imperative that they learn about better options
See, if it’s easy to cancel, then a consumer can leave your service, try something else, and then cancel that and come back if they don’t like the alternative.
Also, imperative for who? Your bottom line?
The actual quantity of radioactive waste generated is tiny, and even combining the storage space for waste products with the footprint of the reactor plant itself, nuclear is by far the most energy-dense and space-efficient form of power generation we have.
The frustrating part is that it’s just a giant fucking advertising billboard when they aren’t hosting events inside.
I think it’s intended as a tongue-in-cheek comment about phones already tracking you, and the OEMs selling that data.
Also they’re completely ignoring the immense personal safety benefits that come with knowing if, say, an abusive ex has slipped an airtag into your car somewhere. This is actually a responsible move for once (assuming it works as intended) because it addresses an unintended but dangerous use for the product, and attempts to prevent it rather than just killing a useful product.
We benefit from the bottomless DoD budget for sure. We have the ability to spend as much as it takes on material and training to ensure reliability and safety for the crew. And it shows. We’ve had several undersea collisions (SSN-711 in 2005 and SSN-22 in 2021), and while both incidents were extremely serious, both boats made it safely back to port for repair.
SUBSAFE was implemented in 1963 following the loss of USS Thresher (SSN-593). It’s a remarkably strict QA program for systems and components exposed to seawater/operating pressure. To our credit, we’ve only lost one submarine since 1963 (USS Scorpion, SSN-589, and she was never SUBSAFE-certified), so the program works.
Similarly stringent controls for the Titan would have either caught all the manufacturing defects in the carbon fiber, or prevented anyone from thinking it’s a good idea to begin with. A big part of innovation is learning what rules you can reasonably bend/break, and which should never be touched. I tend to think pressure hull construction falls in the “never touch” category, at least not without a mountain of testing, data collection, fatigue life calculation, etc. along with communication with regulatory bodies to ensure you meet the principles of the regulation, if not the exact words (again, innovation has it’s place).
I work on submarines. Everything that company was doing gave me a panic attack. The SUBSAFE program exists for a reason. Like, there’s a time and place for innovation, and when people’s lives are on the line is NOT it.
Let’s also not forget that there was no way to exit the submersible from the inside. The door was bolted on by the surface team. So if they had just lost power (instead of being crushed), they would’ve been floating on the surface with no way out. That’s the another obvious horrendous design choice.
it’s a solution looking for a problem.
That’s basically the story of Apple in the last decade or so. They create a “solution”, realize it doesn’t actually solve anything, and then they break some other things to make their solution actually work.
So I’m anticipating that the next iPhone won’t have a screen unless viewed through a Vision Pro.
In contrast to the rest of the commenters, I don’t think so. I’ve got the Z Flip 5, and the battery life isn’t great, after a year of use, the hinge is a little looser than I’d like, and the phone is just slightly narrower than the last couple phones I’ve owned, which means I’ve somehow not managed to adjust to the keyboard size after a year, and my typing accuracy is awful.