Why do you think there's something to be gained here? There are a lot of cheap and easy checks this content fails that it represents a well formed argument based on reality.
There is no rational basis for anyone else to expend any effort refuting anything when the author has not said anything in the first place.
The article contains no citations, and so may be presumed 100% false by default.
"may be presumed", as in, sure it might actually contain some other mix of true and false, but it doesn't matter what that mix actually is. That only matters in some other article written by someone else that citates any of it's assertions.
This piece is the same as if monkeys typed stuff at random and some of it could possibly happen to be the same as something true. It doesn't mean the monkeys made a valid point, and no one should spend one second either defending or refuting it.
To me at least this appears to be a smoking gun for the creator not being able to function in good faith. Whether that's intentional or self delusion, who knows.
From the page itself, "A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA." This point is trotted out and reframed multiple times on the page but it's literally self contradictory. It's not something you can't do in California, it's something you can't do without approval in the Bay Area Air District.
It's not a good place to be doing such an activity, as the area already can't successfully keep the air healthy enough to stay within federal limits due to environmental factors that trap particulate low to the ground. If you're at all familiar with the area you know concerns about air quality are not overblown and. Go further away from people or meet strict VOC regulations if you absolutely need to be doing that kind of work in the area, seems completely reasonable to me.
I think there’s a simpler explanation. Apple’s always uses a type of product metric that most companies don’t use. Those competitor products don’t care about phone battery drain, so they aren’t even trying to do anything about it.
Please re-read what you’ve written in these two comments with a critical eye. You’re speaking from a lack of knowledge without very much care and reaching incorrect conclusions that agree with your initial bias. When someone else does the work of helping nudge you towards reality you seem to be doing a poor job correcting. Sorry if this comes across as rude, it’s said with the kindest of intentions.
So I did quick excel math - I took just the US companies from top 100, sumed them and then I summed everything else (the entire list, not just top 100) - including tiktok - and the ratio is almost 3 to one against US companies in total.
In fact Meta alone is fined more than everyone else combined.
The fact that the EU just doesn't have big companies in the fields that are more likely to be abusive with customer data.
It's a bit like the sweatshop argument. If your company wins out by using sweatshops, yeah, you're going to end up with the billion dollar argument. But if a certain market doesn't want stuff produced by sweatshops, and they decide to dis-incentivize it by tariffing it, that:
Thats all a matter of perspective, not something I am willing to argue. EU has a history of making protectionist legislation under the guise of protecting its members, eg. the whole GMO story, and I can see how someone can make an argument here. If it is valid or not is up to you I guess.
But saying that the fines are mostly towards EU members when over 2/3 is fined towards US companies is misrepresenting the data and the opposing viewpoint.
You were demonstrably wrong three times in your comment, misrepresenting the reality of both sides of the argument and the prevailing opinion of humanity. The fact that one side doesn’t have the tools to confidently reach that conclusion is the problem.
You’re probably going to think I’m very presumptuous but I’m going to say this anyway in case it is helpful for you.
If people are frequently offended when you speak on a topic you’re probably being offensive somehow through content or delivery.
In my experience the thought “[they] feel threatened anytime something is expressed that differs from […]” is not accurate and it also turns off your brain on trying to figure out what is actually going on. I can recommend from personal experience a small apology and transition to more listening in that moment. If more feels appropriate, giving it some time and space and re-engaging gently to discover what went on for them in that moment can yield a lot of value for both sides.
i appreciate the response, this is something i have already considered and i agree there could have been some element to my tone or delivery that contributes to their reaction, though i also don't necessarily claim responsibility for their reaction.
i agree the wording on my post you're replying to comes across the way you're describing. i have more nuanced thoughts about this but it's a lot to type, but will end by saying thank you for the kindly worded comment
I think you're accidentally telling on yourself here. You're looking at somebody getting a result which is surprising to you but rather than being curious about how they might be on to something you're turning off your brain and assuming they're malfunctioning.
Something being in a category, such as "a study", doesn't tell you much about a thing. If you read multiple studies on vaccine safety critically and reason about them and what experts are saying about them, IMO most functional human being are going to reach the same general conclusion about vaccine safety. If you do the same thing on studies about seed oils or aspartame you're also going to come to the conclusion that they're safe! If you're not reaching these same results it doesn't necessary mean you're the one who is malfunctioning but you should seriously consider it and try again to learn what you might not know.
