wearling0600

So then... continue using exclusively Apple's store then?

If you consider Apple to be the gold standard for security, you have just keep going as you are.

I don't see how giving other people the freedom to choose infringes on your security.

Probably to continue getting 'Gulf Region'-rich off the back of the oil it found in an area that is internationally recognised as their territory.

Even Venezuela recognised it as part of Guyana's EEZ until very recently.

After Maduro mismanaged one of the most resource rich countries into basically a failed state, he's now trying to cling to power the tried and true way: stoking a pointless war with its neighbour.

Best case he's trying to rally support for a 2025 election, or use the threat of as an excuse to say the election. Worst case he's gonna do a Putin and actually start a war. Not a bad time for it either, whilst the world is already distracted with Ukraine and and Gaza.

Here's a decent video summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ7fTSirNDs

I don't know, your #2 reason doesn't seem to stand up to reality.

I don't know where you are, but where I am (UK) you can go on any high street (in most towns there will be an area where most shops are, think strip mall in the US) and you will find at least a couple shops that fix and sell electronics - primarily smartphones, but also vacuum cleaners, TVs, computers, games consoles.

Pretty much all of them are locally-run and are, I assume, profitable in spite of every electronics manufacturer trying to run them out of business.

I say I assume because they wouldn't be everywhere if they weren't.

I've had phones fixed by them, they offer warranties, reasonable prices, only had an issue once and it was put right after a tiny bit of back and forth.

I think by "we can't afford it" you mean "capitalism hasn't yet found a way to centralise the profits and run the small business owners out of business".

Oh you mean debatable because it's one of the cleanest, cheapest, and safest sources of electricity we have?

Which allows France a degree of energy independence which has helped it not suffer the same amount of pain other countries have now that they're having to kick the cheap Russian gas addiction?

And through huge cross-border interconnects it allows France to sell electricity to neighbouring countries at a huge profit?

Nuclear is not always the answer, but as France has shown, as long as you invest in reliable infrastructure and don't put it in earthquake/tsunami-prone areas, it can be a huge positive for your country.

And you don't have to rely on antagonistic petrostates for to power your homes with gas, or on strip-mining huge swathes of land by equally-antagonistic China for rare-earth metals for your wind turbines/solar panels/battery storage.

I assume that you're talking about the Dacia Spring which got 1 star (though the Renault Zoe got 0 stars recently and a few others did too in the past).

So whilst you're not wrong that these cars currently hold the lowest ratings of cars tested with the new post-2020 procedure, I'm sure a lot of older cars would fare far worse.

And it's fundamentally flawed to subject a tiny 970kg EV city car to the same tests as a 2-3 ton towering SUV. Besides the vastly different use cases, bigger and heavier vehicles will have an inherent advantage in most of the tests - hint none of them are adjusted for the weight of the vehicle.

I'm not saying this is somehow wrong, they're simulating crashing into an average car or a stationary immovable object, just we're automatically discounting small vehicles which have a genuinely valid reason to exist.

The new NCAP ratings only makes sense if we're saying affordable, small, light cars don't need to exist. Like everything automotive nowadays, it's designed to gently nudge us towards big lumbering swollen hatchbacks as the holy grail of the car industry.

I'm not sure how they got to that conclusion, but we can kinda guess.

The tongue is PACKED with blood vessels, so in case of any damage it can get tons of nutrients to fix itself. But this takes a very energy-intensive.

So if the rest of the body would have the same density of blood vessels, we'd need drastically more energy to feed all of that.

And I guess they're asserting that all else being the same we wouldn't be able to ingest or process sufficient food to keep that going.

It's a bit of a strange argument though, I'm going far outside of my physiology understanding, but you'd have to imagine that had we evolved such advanced healing capabilities, we'd have also evolved the means to feed them. And OP underestimates just how much food someone can eat. As someone dealing with an ED, I can tell you that you can easily triple your calorie intake (though whether that's sufficient I wouldn't be able to say...).

All in I'd look forward to OP defending their assertion.