What does it have to do with his generation (born 1983, so I guess borderline Millennial)? People have been doing similar things for at least the two generations prior to his. Did you forget the '60s?

Weird, I've never run into that.

I keep hearing that editing Wikipedia is terrible, but I edit now and then, and somehow I haven't run into it. Maybe I should edit Israel-Palestine articles or something to see a more heated area. In archaeology (which is what I mostly write about) people seem nice.

The guy who wrote the linked article (Andreas Kolbe) is legit. He contributes quite a bit to Wikipedia and I believe is interested in making it better. He's also critical of many aspects of it, but not trollishly so.

Much of the rest of Wikipediocracy is indeed filled with unsavory characters who're angry they weren't allowed to push various agendas on Wikipedia, though. What seems to have kicked it off initially, among other things, was one of its co-founders getting banned because he tried to expand his linkfarm business into Wikipedia.

Recall here that in the English Wikipedia, a company employee who registers a User:AcmeLtd. account and then proceeds to edit the Acme Ltd. article is instantaneously blocked for violating the user name policy, and politely asked to come back with another account carrying some innocuous name like RedRider12.

Although I think this policy doesn't make a lot of sense even as it is, it's not quite that strict. The English Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against company names in usernames, but against shared "corporate" usernames not run by an individual. So you can't have an official "corporate account". You can however you use corporate names in your individual username, if you want to identify both yourself and your affiliation. In that case the suggestion is to pick a username that has both the organization name and some individual identifier, like User:AcmeLtdJohn or User:John@AcmeLtd. See here. The goal seems to be to ensure that accounts are operated by individuals rather than by press offices. Although I'm not sure policing the actual name is a particularly effective a way of enforcing that.

Yes, thinking of Uber and Lyft as taxi businesses rather than tech businesses makes it a lot clearer what's going on. The taxi business has long been shady, and it still is even when the taxi company has an app.

Gas, electricity, etc. are typically regulated monopolies though, while Comcast isn't. A company like Georgia Power can't raise its rates without legislative permission, while Comcast can set its rates to whatever it wants.

Generally no; them providing notice to you that they're recording isn't the same as you providing notice to them that you're also recording.

1983 was over thirty years ago, just for the record :)

I actually have studied it; some of my colleagues work directly in this area. It's a fairly big interest here in Scandinavia, because some populations can be identified with relative genetic stability over significant periods of time, which makes some kinds of studies easier. Iceland has particularly good records and genetic isolation, but much can also be done in other parts of Scandinavia. And it is quite difficult to correlate societal changes with genetic changes even with these detailed records. For example the major shifts in Scandinavian society from warlordish violent societies to peaceful egalitarian societies don't appear to be related to genetic shifts.

and those traits which are successful in a specific society will then go on to build the society that those traits are best adapted to. like a feedback loop.

The evidence for this is actually pretty inconclusive, which is where some of the disagreement stems. It's easy to hypothesize this, but hard to prove it. In particular, many evolutionary biologists are skeptical that historical-timescale social changes and changes in genetic makeup are closely tied.

You can complain about literally anything? So it's the superset of all reviews sites/forums on the internet? How accurate do you expect the results to be?

Yeah, I can believe most of the calls are either accidental or fraudulent. I'm surprised the location part doesn't work though. Shouldn't Phase II E911 be able to report an approximate location based on the tower that's receiving the call?

It's a special case written into nonprofit law by Congress specifically for the NFL (not even sports leagues in general). The more familiar nonprofit status, 501(c)(3) charities, include amateur sports leagues but not professional sports leagues. But then there's 501(c)(6) status, which is basically a grab-bag of industry/trade organizations that would probably not otherwise qualify as nonprofit, but are given that status anyway:

(6) Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

Yeah it's actually kind of common for charities to collect donations of old phones without service, to give to people who they worry might be at risk of needing an emergency call (women at battered-women's shelters, etc.). Any phone with a functioning radio that dials 911 has to be accepted by the carrier it tries to connect to, even if it has no valid account associated. Even applies to GSM phones with no SIM at all (as you mention), and to phones with blacklisted ESNs.