I don't ever ask someone's pronouns, but I'm part of a community that happens to attract a fair few enbies and trans people. Without explicitly asking, I and my fellow longer-term members of the community make a very careful effort to get people's pronouns right. Usually I make a judgment call based on how they present, and if I'm unsure I'll use "they" until/unless corrected.

I think the important thing to remember is that the "culture war" we see exported from America is not people asking for or trying to use others' preferred pronouns. The culture war is the idea that doing the aforementioned (which is really just one specific example of "treat others with kindness"...it's not a big deal) is something to get angry about or to specifically avoid doing to make a political point. In other words, the culture war is not created by the left or by trans or gender nonconforming people; it's a war invented by the bigoted right.

I know this isn't the point, but ffs The Verge. "Add age verification to it is consoles"? Seriously?

I suspect that the thinking when he was appointed was that logistics was going to be key to Apple's future success. And at the time, they also had a number of high profile creative people in other roles, though they have pretty much all moved on since. And if you look at their financial performance in the years since Cook took over—which is the board actually cares about—it's hard to say that this was a bad approach.

I am surprised to see a non-trivial chunk of 18-29, compared to later age demographics

I suspect that "compared to later age demographics" is key to understanding it. My guess is that younger people are just more likely to be unbanked, and thus cash is their only option.

and a journalist likely knows better than to open an archive send to them by a stranger without running a scanner on it first

Right, but nobody here is suggesting sending it to any journalists.

Oh damn, I was just about to reply to your reply to @fishface@piefed.social (which is literally directly above this comment, on my screen) suggesting exactly this. Glad that Piefed initially failed to register my clicking "reply".

Cook's expertise was in the logistics. He's definitely not been a great leader for them putting out exciting products, but he's the reason they're so much less affected by things like global shipping crises or RAM prices exploding than many other companies are.

But even then, I haven’t had examples like this, where you’ve been able to utterly demolish their opinion piece like that

I'd suggest reading my reply. But the TL;DR is that the article doesn't really get "demolished" in quite that sense, because it's very careful to make sure nothing it says is actually wrong per se. It just brushes over its excuses for avoiding best-practice, creating the effect that a casual reader will likely come away with entirely the wrong conclusions, while having something like plausible deniability on "corrections" (because the real problem isn't with it being incorrect, it's undue emphasis on one particular point).

Most people will probably charge at home, but if you live in an apartment or are going on a long road trip, you might struggle to find one that's available.

Ok, that's not a bad point. But he's glossed over it far too quickly. The fact that 99% of the charging should be done at home is not an insignificant fact. A paragraph about the need to encourage apartments to be fitted with EV slow charging options would not be amiss, after emphasising the initial fact that if you can do it, EVs actually require way less effort to charge than ICE cars do.

There’s no tap-and-go option

You mean this? https://evie.com.au/autocharge/

FWIW he's pretty clearly talking about that particular charging station at this part. Though once again, the lack of contextualising does the article an immense disservice. He should have explained that other providers are plug-and-pay, and perhaps advocated for more of them to be done that way (or, dare I say it, suggested the possibility of a legislative requirement of such?).

So what did he do? Like a typical petrol driver he:

But for this experiment, I charge from 46 to 100 per cent. It takes about an hour.

This is immensely frustrating. Once again, he explains it away in a way that seems reasonable on its face. "Oh yeah, I know you're not supposed to do that too much, but I wanted to see what would happen if you did. I told you that, so it's fine." But it fails to properly contextualise. Unless you're driving between two chargers far enough apart (with no other chargers between) that you need to go all the way to 100% to be able to make it, you should never, ever, ever charge to 100% at a public fast charger. Charge to 100% at home, maybe, before starting a road trip. But charging to 100% is bad for long-term battery health, in addition to taking an order of magnitude longer to do. It's literally slower to fast-charge to 100% than it would be to have two separate stops where you charge to 80%. And the two separate stops are better for your health and safety while driving long distance anyway! Why does the article not explain any of this‽

This is the thing, if I know he’s done a shit job on something I know about, how badly are they writing about topics I don’t know about?

Nah don't worry about it! I'm sure they're absolutely fine in every other subject.

The ABC is a master of right-wing propaganda. They're nowhere near as blatant about it as other media sources, such that they're able to retain their undeserved reputation for being leftist. They cleverly promote right-wing talking points through articles like this one that just conveniently leave out (or even more sneakily, touch upon just enough that an ABC editor can say "yup, we fulfilled our editorial policies 4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective and 4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another" by pointing to the technicalities that they did indeed add those one-sentence caveats while failing to properly provide the due weight of context.

It's the same, for example, with all their articles about anti-Israel protests. They'll throw around terms like "anti-semitic" and "hate speech", and hide behind claims that they're just quoting the Government or quoting some Israeli lobby organisation. But they won't properly contextualise the history and meaning behind phrases like "from the river to the sea", they just let the pro-Israel lobby's opinion stand unchallenged, or (when forced to correct themselves) barely challenged. I also vaguely recall having some criticism about their coverage of Queensland's ebike laws, though I can't remember anything too specific.

Ah, comics. Never change.

Or do. Actually please do. Let Peter Parker grow old and have a happy family, damn it!

No, Magneto is still canonically a victim of the Nazi regime. But he's also canonically perpetually in his middle age/early old age. How? 🤷‍♂️ Don't worry about it.

Too much pollution? Release wolves ~~in factories~~ in boardrooms

FTFY