rfurlong

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by rfurlong 14y ago

   Never said they were lying. I am saying its a purely PR number that doesn't accurately depict the amount of energy that is used for them thrive as much as they have.
2. 2.▲
   by rfurlong 14y ago

   In the linked article Apple also states that the entire company runs on 75% renewable energy. This is the figure I am criticizing.
3. 3.▲
   by rfurlong 14y ago

   I am saying Apple makes physical products and its probably the biggest part of their business and its not represented in their renewable energy numbers. I don't think wrong to want more clarity and less PR when it comes to the environment.
4. 4.▲
   by rfurlong 14y ago

   This is great, but I bet apple's suppliers and manufacturers aren't anywhere close to this level of renewable energy.
5. 5.▲
   by rfurlong 14y ago

   I agree with your real point, however, I would not say the current model is the traditional or even universal model. Countries other than the US have much better models. I just get tired of the discussion not focusing on the problem and ins
6. 6.▲
   by rfurlong 14y ago

   This article, like many articles on Hacker News equates the value of education into dollars. Education, intrinsically, cannot be solely measured in dollars. The problem isn't people getting useless degrees, its degrees that don't correspond
7. 7.▲
   by rfurlong 14y ago

   HN, Pinboard popular and recent, New York Times, Reddit