You probably looked over it, both are used.

Want to stop something from starting? Well, it used to be that you just move it out of the init directory, but now you have to know to “systemctl disable something.service”,

That is still the case, nothing stops you from manually moving a file and its dependencies into or out of /etc/systemd/system/

init scripts were so simple they could be understood just by looking at the name: the computer is Initialized by Scripts. Systemd was much more complex and allowed many more tools to interact with the different parts of the computer, but people had to learn these tools. Previously all a person had to understand to deal with the computer was how to edit a text file and what various commands and programs did.

It’s complex because it solves a complex problem. before people had to hack that together with complex init scripts, now they can let systemd do the hard work.

A comment from an Arch Linux’ init script maintainer: https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/4lzxs3/comment/d3rhxlc/

I’m not against legalization of prostition or drugs, but the only thing The Netherlands figured out is that simply legalization doesn’t make the problems go away. Both drug crime and human trafficking are still a big issue.

I never said that. Of course you pay for everything that’s in your car, but it’s certainly possible it would cost you more not to have them put it in there, that’s the crux of the matter.

Yes, and no. Imagine it costs $20/car to install seat heating in every car, but by making two assembly lines, one for with and one without it every car becomes $25 more expensive. Software disabling costs $1/car. In this scenario it would cost more to make a car without physical seat heating than one with. This is just an extreme example to show the problem, with other costs it can be more complicated, but the principle stands.

But instead of passing the economic gain to the customers, they arbitrarily lock it to maximize profit.

In a perfect market those things are the same, that’s the beauty of capitalism. By software disabling features they can lower prices for customers who don’t want them and asking higher prices of people who are willing to pay for it.

Obviously perfect markets don’t exist, but cars are a super competitive market.

People were objecting to the subscription, but they should have been objective to the locked features.

Why though, if it’s cheaper? Do you rather pay for features you don’t use or pay to remove features?

It’s not so simple. Often these costs are without storage and we currently don’t even have the capacity to create so much storage.

Most of the cost for nuclear is designing and building the powerplant. Keeping working plants open is not so expensive. Building new ones will get cheaper if we build more of them.

The dimensions and weight has been reduced ever-so-slightly compared to the predecessor.

I think they meant the company, not the phone

Hydrogen itself is a strong greenhouse gas and leaks from everything, so it wouldn’t necessarily be better.

Yes, I think you underestimate Siberian summers. Here are three places with (fairly) similar latitude and identical summer temperatures, but nearly 20°C difference in winter: https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/84156~146168~148978/Comparison-of-the-Average-Weather-in-Stockholm;-Gillam-Man.;-and-Surgut-International-Airport

Winters are warmer, summers not so much.

Don’t worry, there is also a Linux version.