I genuinely don't understand the point you're making. I thought we were talking about framework's business model.

Eh by this cynical logic there'd be no companies selling hardwood furniture that lasts decades, or DE razors that you buy once and never replace, or Moka Pots whose only maintenance is a cheap rubber seal.

And yet all those things exist.

Are they niche? Maybe. But--and I know this is blasphemy to say in the tech industry--not every business needs to be a monopolizing decacorn.

>I would want a permanent MagSafe style charging port on there, not a module. I feel like they are trying to create something around these modules but they are really just USB-C dongles that fit into the case.

Everyone who says that doesn't own a framework, and everyone who gets one realizes they were wrong.

How is the original 13 and the new 16 not minimalist?

Seriously, at some point you're just complaining to complain.

Good parts of the back country above tree line look like this. My first thought was the Tekarra camp site on the Jasper Skyline Trail during wildflower season, but looking closer that doesn't look like Tekarra peak.

Sorry, no. The way most people talk about this, it's horse shit, although that doesn't stop the myths from persisting:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hydration-myths-debunked-in-5-easy-sips-1.3155705

> Bottom line: for healthy people doing normal things under everyday conditions, nature has already provided the perfect tool, precisely calibrated to replace the fluids that are lost through exertion, perspiration, urination and other excretion. > >It's called "thirst." Use it, and you can stop sweating about hydration.

>Eventually, you could have enough renewables that you're pulling methane out of the air, made from carbon dioxide of the of the air instead of digging it out of the ground.

No way that'll ever be as profitable as just using nat gas pulled from the ground. So unless that's paired with a massive carbon tax to make nat gas financially infeasible, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

This isn't an either/or situation. If this catches on we'll just do both.

As a result, the problem is this creates a new demand source that will support and/or drive up prices for methane, encouraging further exploitation both of existing gas wells, reactivation of currently dormant wells, as well as exploration for new gas, right when we should be doing everything we can to reduce our use of petrochemicals.

We're already very good at turning oil into food through the production of ammonia. I'm really not excited by the prospect of finding new reasons to pull sequestered carbon out of the ground, and particularly nat gas given we're incapable of doing so without it leaking (and, between the two options, we are far better off burning methane than releasing it into the atmosphere).

Something tells me they aren't recovering methane from landfills or other renewable sources...