>Second, Apple just reduces it during "peak times" not matter what is actually used for production of electricity

The Apple support article says otherwise https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213323

>But your charging your iPhone is not enough, even all owners, to reduce expected demand.

I'm not sure why that is reason to not make a change? Most people most of the time charging at home don't need their phone topped up extremely quickly, and if you do, there's an easy way to override it.

Are we only allowed to make improvements if they're significant?

Sure I'd hate if Apple marketed it as a massive impact, just like when they marketed their "smaller boxes" after taking out chargers. But it is objectively an improvement, even if minor. Plus if Apple, Microsoft, Google and a host of others all incorporate energy saving features, it does have an impact.

That's just wrong. Obviously the electrical grid is built to support demand. Secondly, fast charging is more inefficient, that's just physics.

Also, Apple bills this as charging when the grid has more clean energy available.

There's a different feature for battery life, but this would set charging based on when the grid has clean energy

Except there are 100 million iphone users, which is what you should be considering, not just one iphone.

They asked him, he said no, that's what's getting reported.

The purpose of the clause is to avoid a surprise trade to a team the player doesn't want. In this case, it wouldn't be a surprise and the teams are known, so sometimes players can waive it out of goodwill.

So I guess it's a "doesn't hurt to ask" thing. Though Carr was probably pretty unlikely to say yes anyways.

In this case, the team can either trade him to get something, or lose him for nothing, since Carr is going to leave the team one way or another.

In general, teams would make a trade because each side of the trade fits a need. For example a team that's rebuilding may trade a high value player for a lot of draft picks to a team trying to win the championship. Or a team strong at one position trading with another to strengthen a different position.

A player would always benefit from being a free agent rather than a trade, so it's rare for a player to want to be traded. If a player is a free agent, they can choose a team and negotiate a new contract. If they're traded, they have no say to who, and their existing contract stays. (In this case, Carr has a "no trade" clause in his contract, so he can say no).

>Electric cars aren't the answer

I mean I agree, because I don't think cars are the answer in general. But compared to gas cars? Leaps ahead.

>And good luck if you charge at home. California is already contemplating charging you more if you charge your car at home and overnight.

Good luck with what? With paying an electricity bill?

If people could afford their gas bills, they can afford the electricity bill lol

Honestly, if your life is so busy that the 7-10 minutes extra time is a deal breaker, fair play to you.

For the vast majority of cases, people can just charge to full at home, or top up every few days, and these fast chargers work fine for that.

1. The Tozo don't have ANC

2. Lol. The Tozo is not going to sound as good as the Nothing buds.

>I know they cost more but my point is that I’m buying from companies that are well established in the realm of production and innovation. So you typically get what you pay for.

Sure, I'm just not sure how that's relevant to discussing if Nothing earbuds are worth $99. Apple doesn't sell $99 earbuds, the Pixel Buds A don't compete with Nothing's feature set.

Airpods Pro costs more?

I'm not here to tell Nothing how to run their business, if they lose sales that's on them, I don't really care. Maybe for their customer base, the Nothing name brand is strong enough to justify the premium.

I'm just talking from the perspective of a consumer who has seen the reviews and has a basic idea of the specs, I disagree with people who think at $99 this was a bad deal

>Tbh sound wise I bet they are worse than Anker buds that are like $30 (which are better than Samsung Buds + which are one of best in the $100 category from the reviews I've seen).

I can't really comment on this from personal experience, but I'd be pretty surprised if Anker buds sound better than Samsung buds+. I've not had good experience with Anker music items in the past, and the Samsung Buds+ are universally acclaimed. (Audio preferences can be subjective though).

>but for me it's absolutely not worth the difference in price.

That seems pretty subjective. IIRC, Anker's cheapest noise cancelling buds MSRP at $100, so I still don't see the Nothing earbuds as being overpriced at $100.

That's a sale price, if we're talking about sale prices the AKG N400NC for $50 was still the best deal in Bluetooth audio.

At the Earfun's regular price they're around $89-99. I haven't listened to either so I can't talk to differences in audio, ANC, or build quality. I do know a lot of reviews for nothing praised the build quality at $99.

Eh, how many $99 buds are available on the market with those features today?

Audio technology has a different pace from other technology, it being two years old in this case doesn't really negatively impact it.

I agree $150 is too much, but I disagree with saying they're generic earbuds that aren't worth $99, since imo that's false.

I'm pretty sure the reviews were pretty good, I don't think they were overpriced at $99, considering you get Bluetooth 5.2, decent ANC, wireless charging, and average sound quality. $150 does make it a stretch