jSnively

clexman said:

[...]

Yes, those cow farts are so much worse than the forever plastics.

Cows are mostly raised for their meat and milk. Using their leather just means that there is less waste when the edible parts are harvested.

The leather industry is one of the most polluting and highly resource-consuming sectors. About 0.25 Mg of leather is produced from 1 Mg of raw material and requires 15,000 m3 - 120,000 m3 of water, finally generating 15–50 Mg of wastewater and 400–700 kg of solid waste (Hu et al., 2011), to say nothing of odors, greenhouse gases (CO2, H2S, NH3) and volatile organic compounds such as amines, aldehydes and hydrocarbons. The amount of chemicals emitted is influenced by the type of treatment and the technology used to process leather in a tannery (Fela et al., 2011). It is estimated that the global production capacity is approx. 15 Mt of leather per year, which shows the scale of the problem (Hu et al., 2011). Until now, landfilling and partial disposal were the only practices used in tannery waste management, mainly for economic reasons.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262102120X

https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/56179-114090-888-Detail-from-patent-xl.jpg

Me out here trying to figure out why my sleep paralysis demon is in an Apple Patent 

Now do BeOS 

It is amazing how many times we have to re-run this article in response to some new thing that pops up, lol 

jdw said:

Stabitha_Christie said:

On the contrary, I haven't complained about you at all. I have poked fun of your lack of self-awareness.

Not "at all"???
"On the contrary" indicates you disagree with me.  So let's ponder what you wrote earlier in response to me...

[...]

We run negative stories about Apple all the time, whether that be bad keyboards, overheating laptops, workers rights, etc. We are not a PR arm of Apple. The main focus of our job here is to report accurate and up-to-date information on the largest company in the world. When we veer off that focus slightly, it's because the content is Apple adjacent and it affects our user base. We are also (as far as I know) the only Apple focused publication willing to stamp rumors with a score to help keep people informed. We like talking about crazy Apple rumors too, but the context of "this is real fun to talk about" vs "hey, this is probably real" is important. 

We wrote that article, in large part, to capture search traffic because it surfaced as something people are looking for... a lot. As Mike said earlier, it has been on our list for a while. The Twitter saga itself has been ongoing for a while now. I do not see that as us pushing an agenda so much as responding to an existing demand. I understand you take issue with the tone of the piece, but I guess the question I have for you would be what you think our responsibility is to Twitter? Should we be sanitizing our content for an external company? That kinda spits in the face of a lot of journalistic ethics. Personally, I would rather run with the author's original intent and text intact than tell them to "clean it up" so as not to upset some people. Will we always get that balance right? no, we're human after all. If we whiffed on this one, we will take the lumps.

All that said, I do not see anything that is factually incorrect inside this article. If you think there is something please let us know and we will address it.