You do know that all those rhyming suspects are members of UN, and can just log in to the server and see what's there, right?
UN is short for United Nations, so these "state backed actors" already have accounts in the damn system...

You could start from John Maynard Keynes and proceed from there to Galbraiths and Stiglitz and others. Or look for Mark Blyth in youtube, if you can handle thick scottish accent.
To keep long story short, that was the "mainstream" economics thinking from 16th century until 1970's, when the hoodoo men from Chicago took over and reality-based economics was shunned to make way for unhindered greed.

I'd like to point out that it was petite captain Georgiou who was fighting the klingon, and in the end lost mainly due to the mass/power difference. Burnham shot the klingon from behind to her captain, so differences in mass, power, gender or race did not really have any effect in that regard.

One way to look at the same story is that this allegedly superb Star Fleet officer accidentally killed the klingon she was trying to make contact with, and then in haste shot the klingon she really needed to capture alive. So, instead of being all-powerful, unbeatable hero she actually messed everything up and turned a solvable confrontation into a war.

Otherwise you're correct, but third biggest killer in this case doesn't mean 33%, but something between 0.3-0.6% of yearly hospital visits. In other words, one patient out of 200-300 dies because of misdiagnosis, the rest actually survive the ordeal, and some may even regain their health...

There's not that many animals around willing to pay good money to these for-profit folks.

Ithink the US corporate law doesn't even mention things like "shareholder value" or "maximizing profits". Management should work for "the good of the company", not shareholders.

The idea that unrestricted greed would be good way to run corporations came, unsurprisingly, from Chicago School of Economicsin the 1970's. By 1990's the rules governing business were changed to allow for more predatory and short-term behaviour, and rest of the society be damned.
Still, to this day, corporations are not required to put profit before everything else, like breathable air or working economy...

Because you agreed to that in the 50's? Anyway, in this particular case, it is because the UK court of appeal (nominated by lawyers) asked for an opinion from European Court of Justice (nominated by governments). ECJ is of the opinion that the law as it is violates the human rights and privacy of EU citizens.
If the UK court agrees, and rules accordingly, then it's possible to challenge the snooper's charter in UK courts. Case by case.

That's all it is. Self-nominating bunch of layers asked the opinion of representative-nominated lawyers about the agreement of two sets of rules. Hardly the unelected overruling the hapless britons...

No, according to him we're already slaves to corporations... at least ever since 1987 when the "global government" banned CFC's because of that "ozone hole" thing. While the said ozone hole is actually closing now, this horrible, communistic global action has destroyed our very lifestyle.

No, wait. It hasn't.

Here's the man's dissertation: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/hand.... Check that first, then jump to conclusions...

Because a service like that would be sued out of existence or forbidden in the next "free" trade "agreement", since it might hinder profits of somebody.

The odd thing in this case is that great majority of the Finns do not want to join the NATO. Only one in five actually would like to join, so the less they influence the public opinion, the better. Provided that the aim is for Finland to remain outside of NATO.

Frankly, the cynic in me wonders if this (article) is an attempt to reframe the discussion in a way that it's more difficult to oppose joining NATO, " 'cause only Russian trolls do that"...

The report actually said that there was no proof that modified food is harmful to people, because that's difficult to assess for any new food at all. And there's no studies post-commercialization about the possible allergenic effects. Oh, and that the GE-stuff should be labelled as such. And that glyphosate is probably not as safe to use as claimed by big agri.

And they also state that GE crops don't have bigger yields than non GE (so there's really no point to use them...).

The main advantages GE crop provides seem to be monocultures and vendor lock-ins. And we all love those, don't we?

But the point is, that the report was much less beneficial towards GE crop that it appears in the news story.

As the GP said, we (the people) grant them copyright, and they use it to not allow us to have a copy. So why should we grant them that right again?