As a local, with friends and family graduating, I thought his speech was excellent. Despite the antagonistic headline, he said “in some ways”, which is obviously and irrefutably true.
Calling these demotivation speeches means you’ve just missed the point. Not surprisingly, since you’re not the target audience of the speech, and in all likelihood are used up and past the point of anything motivating you to do anything other than watch television. Shrug. College grads are different. They’re ready, and hungry, and can use the advice. As a successful southerner, Cook did not disappoint. I hope our new grads take it to heart and do some great things. (Tho anything will be better than bitching on a rumors forum!)
Common error when your young: you think you understand it all.
If anything, it's many universities that have failed us today.
Many of them have turned into lunatic asylums, centered around anti-free speech movements, they promote segregation, censorship, not open to free thought and different ideas and some of them are basically anti-American.
They're not preparing students for the real world. They're making a bunch of whiny snowflakes who need safe spaces and when they finally get out and step into the real world, some of those snowflakes are going to find that the real world is not going to be so accommodating and welcoming to them and their mental problems.
Gods, I wish people would learn to speak for themselves. Sorry Tim, you don't get to speak for me, even if you are four and a half months older than me.
Another apology...I guess it makes the person apologizing feel good without saturating themselves in alcohol. Cook, please excuse me from your we. I have not failed a generation nor do I buy into the fact that anyone has failed them nor will I ever. The world's population is exploding and has been for sometime. People who live in the hell holes where growth is out of control want the same basic necessities that we take for granted and of course the do-gooders want to protect them from themselves.
Do any of the climate change agenda people really believe that India and China care about global warming? Or that African countries will be willing to forgo 1st world conveniences to supposedly save the planet. I live a few hundred feet from the Atlantic Ocean and have been flooded multiple times with only one of them making it into the house (it is elevated to reduce the impact of flooding). When built in 1995 it was only a few feet above sea level and flooded for the 1st time in 2011 (major) and again in 2012 (very minor, no damage to house or loss of personal items). Prior to 1995 it was flooded in 1991, but there were only a few houses on the street and prior to that it was at a minimum prior to 1983. The point is flooding has always happened, but was not much of an issue until man moved into flood prone areas and built permanent structures.
I am willing to accept the risk of flooding, but am building a new house with an elevated garage. Minimum height will be 9' above sea level which is 5' above 100 year flood stage. If it were less than $80K to raise my house and I had room for a detached garage I'd stay, but I am not willing to risk losing any cars. There are other risks besides flood and in fact no one is immune. You just have to pick the one you can live with.
Actually, China is one of the world leaders combating climate change. Not only are they strongly promoting electric vehicles but are one of the strongest supporters of the world wide climate change accords from which the U.S. abdicated.
Timmy talks about green energy and recycling, but his corporation is one of the largest polluters on the planet. Their largest contractor, Foxconn, has suicide nets installed by the terrible conditions that they put their contracted employees in China over. Literally people die to be able to sell you a $1000 iPhone.
Soldering SSDs, ram, gluing batteries and not allowing the sale of parts to customers and third party repair shops is causing the proliferation of IT trash, so of which is corporation is partially responsible for causing more climate change.
Gods, I wish people would learn to speak for themselves. Sorry Tim, you don't get to speak for me, even if you are four and a half months older than me.
A philosophy which lauds groups over individuals logically leads to “we’re all to blame” instead of “I did this” or “I deserve credit for that”.
Timmy talks about green energy and recycling, but his corporation is one of the largest polluters on the planet. Their largest contractor, Foxconn, has suicide nets installed by the terrible conditions that they put their contracted employees in China over. Literally people die to be able to sell you a $1000 iPhone.
Soldering SSDs, ram, gluing batteries and not allowing the sale of parts to customers and third party repair shops is causing the proliferation of IT trash, so of which is corporation is partially responsible for causing more climate change.
Timmy talks about green energy and recycling, but his corporation is one of the largest polluters on the planet. Their largest contractor, Foxconn, has suicide nets installed by the terrible conditions that they put their contracted employees in China over. Literally people die to be able to sell you a $1000 iPhone.
Soldering SSDs, ram, gluing batteries and not allowing the sale of parts to customers and third party repair shops is causing the proliferation of IT trash, so of which is corporation is partially responsible for causing more climate change.
So, a little background to that is that Foxconn has somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 employees. From a statistical standpoint, the number of suicides at Foxconn is lower than the population at large. Early media reports neglected to mention that in favor of sensationalism.
The conditions at the Foxconn dormitories are not bad at all. You must understand where these workers come from and the difficult conditions their families live under. A Foxconn job is a saviors dream for many that come from subsistence farming. Many of these workers are simply lonely and miss their families and loved ones.
One other thing. While you do not have to like or agree with Tim Cook, calling him Timmy is rather juvenile and reflects poorly upon you rather than Tim Cook.
That's the part that is the subject of debate; i.e., how much of the current climate change cycle, which are always occurring, is caused or changeable by man. We know so little that we can't answer that question yet.
Nope. We already know the answer and ended the debate. Real scientists did, anyway. Only American conservatives pretend “we can’t know!”
Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard': scientists
Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday. [...]
“The narrative out there that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” he told Reuters. “We do.”
Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.
The real tragedy is that this was called out a long time ago. In school science classes in the 70s and 80s for me, the greenhouse effect was taught. The impacts of overpopulation was taught. It's sad that this is even still a debate in this day and age. Somehow flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and religious zealots can make noise and gain a platform to stand on. The projections were always really far off for things worst-case scenarios like desertification but I wouldn't be surprised if that word starts rearing its ugly head. Meanwhile politicians in the US squabble.
Another apology...I guess it makes the person apologizing feel good without saturating themselves in alcohol. Cook, please excuse me from your we. I have not failed a generation nor do I buy into the fact that anyone has failed them nor will I ever. The world's population is exploding and has been for sometime. People who live in the hell holes where growth is out of control want the same basic necessities that we take for granted and of course the do-gooders want to protect them from themselves.
Do any of the climate change agenda people really believe that India and China care about global warming? Or that African countries will be willing to forgo 1st world conveniences to supposedly save the planet. I live a few hundred feet from the Atlantic Ocean and have been flooded multiple times with only one of them making it into the house (it is elevated to reduce the impact of flooding). When built in 1995 it was only a few feet above sea level and flooded for the 1st time in 2011 (major) and again in 2012 (very minor, no damage to house or loss of personal items). Prior to 1995 it was flooded in 1991, but there were only a few houses on the street and prior to that it was at a minimum prior to 1983. The point is flooding has always happened, but was not much of an issue until man moved into flood prone areas and built permanent structures.
I am willing to accept the risk of flooding, but am building a new house with an elevated garage. Minimum height will be 9' above sea level which is 5' above 100 year flood stage. If it were less than $80K to raise my house and I had room for a detached garage I'd stay, but I am not willing to risk losing any cars. There are other risks besides flood and in fact no one is immune. You just have to pick the one you can live with.
Actually, China is one of the world leaders combating climate change. Not only are they strongly promoting electric vehicles but are one of the strongest supporters of the world wide climate change accords from which the U.S. abdicated.
This isn’t a race to see who can burn the most coal. If China isn’t doing what they say, then carrots and sticks should be used to decrease their usage of fossil fuels inside the country and their promotion of coal outside the country.
They are one of the primary reasons why solar has become cost competitive, and they actually are trying a little bit of nuclear buildout. Our and the ROTW’s response to them building more coal plants is to get them build more renewables through win-win scenarios. OPEC has to be dealt with too.
The implied assumption is our emissions (the USAs) will be reduced to zero, and we should outrace everyone to that. What other countries do has little bearing on this.
Another apology...I guess it makes the person apologizing feel good without saturating themselves in alcohol. Cook, please excuse me from your we. I have not failed a generation nor do I buy into the fact that anyone has failed them nor will I ever. The world's population is exploding and has been for sometime. People who live in the hell holes where growth is out of control want the same basic necessities that we take for granted and of course the do-gooders want to protect them from themselves.
Do any of the climate change agenda people really believe that India and China care about global warming? Or that African countries will be willing to forgo 1st world conveniences to supposedly save the planet. I live a few hundred feet from the Atlantic Ocean and have been flooded multiple times with only one of them making it into the house (it is elevated to reduce the impact of flooding). When built in 1995 it was only a few feet above sea level and flooded for the 1st time in 2011 (major) and again in 2012 (very minor, no damage to house or loss of personal items). Prior to 1995 it was flooded in 1991, but there were only a few houses on the street and prior to that it was at a minimum prior to 1983. The point is flooding has always happened, but was not much of an issue until man moved into flood prone areas and built permanent structures.
I am willing to accept the risk of flooding, but am building a new house with an elevated garage. Minimum height will be 9' above sea level which is 5' above 100 year flood stage. If it were less than $80K to raise my house and I had room for a detached garage I'd stay, but I am not willing to risk losing any cars. There are other risks besides flood and in fact no one is immune. You just have to pick the one you can live with.
Actually, China is one of the world leaders combating climate change. Not only are they strongly promoting electric vehicles but are one of the strongest supporters of the world wide climate change accords from which the U.S. abdicated.
This isn’t a race to see who can burn the most coal. If China isn’t doing what they say, then carrots and sticks should be used to decrease their usage of fossil fuels inside the country and their promotion of coal outside the country.
They are one of the primary reasons why solar has become cost competitive, and they actually are trying a little bit of nuclear buildout. Our and the ROTW’s response to them building more coal plants is to get them build more renewables through win-win scenarios. OPEC has to be dealt with too.
The implied assumption is our emissions (the USAs) will be reduced to zero, and we should outrace everyone to that. What other countries do has little bearing on this.
Here’s the rub to all that. When US companies use Chinese suppliers they transfer CO2 emissions from the US to China. So while it all looks good on paper, the reality is that there are no net decreases in emissions globally.
While Apple has done a great job moving to renewables at home, their Chinese supplier base has been, and likely will continue to be, powered by fossil fuels. Now, I do recall reading something about Apple moving their supplier base to renewables but I don’t know where that stands currently.
Another apology...I guess it makes the person apologizing feel good without saturating themselves in alcohol. Cook, please excuse me from your we. I have not failed a generation nor do I buy into the fact that anyone has failed them nor will I ever. The world's population is exploding and has been for sometime. People who live in the hell holes where growth is out of control want the same basic necessities that we take for granted and of course the do-gooders want to protect them from themselves.
Do any of the climate change agenda people really believe that India and China care about global warming? Or that African countries will be willing to forgo 1st world conveniences to supposedly save the planet. I live a few hundred feet from the Atlantic Ocean and have been flooded multiple times with only one of them making it into the house (it is elevated to reduce the impact of flooding). When built in 1995 it was only a few feet above sea level and flooded for the 1st time in 2011 (major) and again in 2012 (very minor, no damage to house or loss of personal items). Prior to 1995 it was flooded in 1991, but there were only a few houses on the street and prior to that it was at a minimum prior to 1983. The point is flooding has always happened, but was not much of an issue until man moved into flood prone areas and built permanent structures.
I am willing to accept the risk of flooding, but am building a new house with an elevated garage. Minimum height will be 9' above sea level which is 5' above 100 year flood stage. If it were less than $80K to raise my house and I had room for a detached garage I'd stay, but I am not willing to risk losing any cars. There are other risks besides flood and in fact no one is immune. You just have to pick the one you can live with.
Actually, China is one of the world leaders combating climate change. Not only are they strongly promoting electric vehicles but are one of the strongest supporters of the world wide climate change accords from which the U.S. abdicated.
This isn’t a race to see who can burn the most coal. If China isn’t doing what they say, then carrots and sticks should be used to decrease their usage of fossil fuels inside the country and their promotion of coal outside the country.
They are one of the primary reasons why solar has become cost competitive, and they actually are trying a little bit of nuclear buildout. Our and the ROTW’s response to them building more coal plants is to get them build more renewables through win-win scenarios. OPEC has to be dealt with too.
The implied assumption is our emissions (the USAs) will be reduced to zero, and we should outrace everyone to that. What other countries do has little bearing on this.
Here’s the rub to all that. When US companies use Chinese suppliers they transfer CO2 emissions from the US to China. So while it all looks good on paper, the reality is that there are no net decreases in emissions globally.
While Apple has done a great job moving to renewables at home, their Chinese supplier base has been, and likely will continue to be, powered by fossil fuels. Now, I do recall reading something about Apple moving their supplier base to renewables but I don’t know where that stands currently.
They are whittling away with their suppliers. They have long terms goals of even going closed circuit for materials (the materials in their products won’t come from mines, but will eventually come from recycling). You can see them boasting about it with saying this or that plastic is recycling or this or that aluminum or metal piece is made from filings from CnC work in every product intro now. It it is up to you whether you believe what Apple is doing. I believe them.
Apple does renewable energy credits as a last resort. Since their energy usage is high, they work with the local utility and have solar, wind or hydro plants built. They do this by having long term power purchase agreements with Apple such that the new renewable energy generation is a profitable enterprise for the utility. This is not hard to do in China as solar is so cheap there. So net-net, it’s a real emissions reduction and displaces fossil fuel usage for electricity generation.
That’s just Apple. China as whole requires some statecraft to management. That’s where the win-wins in trade have to occur. Saying that since India or China won’t do it, and by implication we shouldn’t, is a point to nowhere. Makes zero sense. We should be winning the race and helping other nations keep up.
"In some important ways, my generation has failed you"
They grew up to become erratic and weepy snowflakes – so yes, my generation failed.
Speaking of snowflakes take a gander at this article in the NYT. The respected Harvard law professor who is defending Harvey Weinstein is upsetting students because he is, well, defending Harvey Weinstein. The want him removed as dean of the college because they are enraged he agreed to join Weinstein's legal defense team. This professor is responsible for reversing over 6,000 convictions in his career. Guess what? Harvard sided with the students. And these are the future leaders?
Gods, I wish people would learn to speak for themselves. Sorry Tim, you don't get to speak for me, even if you are four and a half months older than me.
A philosophy which lauds groups over individuals logically leads to “we’re all to blame” instead of “I did this” or “I deserve credit for that”.
Exactly. The dilution of individual responsibility for what one has oneself done is gonna kill us yet.
Comments
We in Europe call this ‘left thinking’.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/amp/
Soldering SSDs, ram, gluing batteries and not allowing the sale of parts to customers and third party repair shops is causing the proliferation of IT trash, so of which is corporation is partially responsible for causing more climate change.
So, a little background to that is that Foxconn has somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 employees. From a statistical standpoint, the number of suicides at Foxconn is lower than the population at large. Early media reports neglected to mention that in favor of sensationalism.
The conditions at the Foxconn dormitories are not bad at all. You must understand where these workers come from and the difficult conditions their families live under. A Foxconn job is a saviors dream for many that come from subsistence farming. Many of these workers are simply lonely and miss their families and loved ones.
One other thing. While you do not have to like or agree with Tim Cook, calling him Timmy is rather juvenile and reflects poorly upon you rather than Tim Cook.
They are one of the primary reasons why solar has become cost competitive, and they actually are trying a little bit of nuclear buildout. Our and the ROTW’s response to them building more coal plants is to get them build more renewables through win-win scenarios. OPEC has to be dealt with too.
The implied assumption is our emissions (the USAs) will be reduced to zero, and we should outrace everyone to that. What other countries do has little bearing on this.
Here’s the rub to all that. When US companies use Chinese suppliers they transfer CO2 emissions from the US to China. So while it all looks good on paper, the reality is that there are no net decreases in emissions globally.
While Apple has done a great job moving to renewables at home, their Chinese supplier base has been, and likely will continue to be, powered by fossil fuels. Now, I do recall reading something about Apple moving their supplier base to renewables but I don’t know where that stands currently.
They are whittling away with their suppliers. They have long terms goals of even going closed circuit for materials (the materials in their products won’t come from mines, but will eventually come from recycling). You can see them boasting about it with saying this or that plastic is recycling or this or that aluminum or metal piece is made from filings from CnC work in every product intro now. It it is up to you whether you believe what Apple is doing. I believe them.
Apple does renewable energy credits as a last resort. Since their energy usage is high, they work with the local utility and have solar, wind or hydro plants built. They do this by having long term power purchase agreements with Apple such that the new renewable energy generation is a profitable enterprise for the utility. This is not hard to do in China as solar is so cheap there. So net-net, it’s a real emissions reduction and displaces fossil fuel usage for electricity generation.
That’s just Apple. China as whole requires some statecraft to management. That’s where the win-wins in trade have to occur. Saying that since India or China won’t do it, and by implication we shouldn’t, is a point to nowhere. Makes zero sense. We should be winning the race and helping other nations keep up.