Or maybe he's cool with cheating strangers but not friends. Behavior is not fully described by extremely simple statements. It's a bit like saying "if your grandfather would kill a Jap he'll kill you too."

Which is irrelevant to what the thread is discussing (whether content is good, not whether Netflix-made content is good).

As an aside, not that it's terribly important, but PB is called "Original" on the Netflix service itself, so a cord-cutter in the US ought to be forgiven for not knowing it was on the BBC before.

the dull nature of Netflix original content

LOL so dull with all their recent Emmy nominations and legitimate critical acclaim.

UT is one of the best law schools in the nation according to the only ranking system that matters (USNWR).

You're pretty fucking dismissive of UT when it's one of the top universities in the world, let alone the nation.

Citation needed for "all" these "wins" for not maximizing profits to the exclusion of everything else. I do this for a living; you're absolutely full of shit. For one thing, the business judgment rule makes it very hard to do such a thing. Courts routinely defer to directors' and execs' individual decisions rather than let activist shareholders sue for something so insane as "earned a few pennies less than they could have if they'd done XYZ."

Here is a very liberal business law professor at one of the top schools for scholarship in the country explaining it for you:

corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price

and

the business judgment rule gives directors nearly absolute protection from judicial second-guessing about how to best serve the company and its shareholders

and

Delaware (like other states) applies the business judgement rule to protect directors of corporations that reduce profits and share price when directors claim this will ultimately help the corporation

It's actually the free market that is creating these perverse incentives, not government judicial interference:

it is . . . modern executive compensation practices — not corporate law — that drive so many of today’s public companies to myopically focus on short-term earnings

What she means by that is that execs get compensation based largely on stock performance, so they are incentivized by the free market, not be the law, to maximize stock value.

it states clearly in company's articles of incorporation, on penalty of the directors being struck off and imprisoned and/or the shareholders suing them, that they MUST maximise profits

As a corporate lawyer who writes and interprets the stuff you're talking about, I've always been confused where this myth comes from, that corporate directors can GO TO JAIL for not maximizing profits above all else. It's certainly not true no matter how many dumbass grunt paranoia weirdos think it is.

From a very recent Supreme Court case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.” (Hobby Lobby)

Probably because we've heard of the tragedy of the commons before.

Indians are a lower race for many white americans

LOL tell me about it. Remember that woman a couple years ago who was pretending to be black and the Internet went apeshit and got her fired? And what about the Harvard professor who was pretending to be Native American and the Internet went apeshit and got her—oh, wait, never mind. They demanded Hillary name her her Vice Presidential running mate.

Huh. Funny how that works.

Notably, Fred Phelps and his kooky followers have killed zero people in the name of their religion.

Basing critical life choices and morality on improvable nonsense

Literally all morality is based on unprovable assertions, which you have redundantly referred to as "unprovable nonsense" (technically you called it "improvable," which means "capable of being improved").

This isn't a robot gone amok and there is no ethical quandry.

Of course it is. Asimov's laws are intended to be adhered to by robot designers. This guy demonstrated that the laws are complete bullshit despite people always referencing them like "oh Asimov's laws mean robots can't hurt us."

For what it's worth, in Japan almost all road construction is done by the mob.

Dad brought home a Tandy 1000 he bought at Radio Shack for who knows how much money. I started fiddling around. Back then it was impossible to accidentally break things on a computer because it was all CLI.

Somehow I found some BAS files on the system and a BASIC interpreter. Put two and two together and started reading and modifying. I was about 4yo or so I think (I was reading by 3).

A couple systems later, QBASIC, AOL, and I was downloading games like Killer Pong or something like that, reading the code and modifying those. Then my dad brought home Visual C++ and books on it that he took from work. So I did that. Then C++ classes at the local community college.

Then in college, PHP to make dynamic websites. Then SQL and Python. JavaScript was somewhere in there, too.

Now I'm the rare corporate lawyer who can code well.

That's actually not the case with obese patients. It's only true for people who are, shall we say, chubby at most.