To a large degree, yes.

You don't annoy people into submission. There is a societal contract where we all have to live together at some baseline level of cooperation. There can be disagreements that don't affect that, but when you start interfering with societal level functioning (blocking traffic, etc), then the rest of the public just becomes angry at the protestors.

Societal controls are what keep those other people from mowing you down wholesale with their cars. You can't expect to benefit from those parts of organized society while trying to halt others, because eventually the people in the cars will start "protesting" in their own way by running you over.

If you want society to keep them from running you over, then you also have to expect society to clear the road.

A long time ago, people realized progress depended on energy. If you have enough energy, you can do almost anything.

Best to get to it. If it needs to be "clean", so be it, but conservation AKA Spartan lives, is of very limited conceptual value.

Get to it making more.

I'm sure some branch of the government will cover the damages. Realistically on a governmental scale the cost to repair the damage is peanuts so even if they COULD argue their way out of legal responsibility, the PR just isn't worth it.

In some states, they might be protected for off the job political opinions and activity. But this was on the job, speaking as Google workers agains their employer.

It's the difference between "I don't think company X should do this." And "I work for company X and don't think they should do this." You can't speak on behalf of the company outside the official mouthpiece, as you don't own it.

Cherry picking endpoints. Palestinians have been bullied around the mideast for a lot longer than that, mostly by not-Jews.

Their plan was to get the useful idiots to cow down Israel. This "opposed to Israel's actions, not their Jewishness" was integrated into the plan. Of course, that's for the West. Everywhere else it's classic antisemitism.

They were quite happy to see Saddam ended and see the US. Several years later, when it became apparent, as with Afghanistan, that a neo-dictatorship had formed and was hunkering down waiting for the US to leave, that they had a fatalism.

The one I refer to in my original post went through an extended period of time where it was very obviously anti-government, and covered a lot of negative stories about the then current government.

So the bias isnt always "pro-owner" - and in this case anyway the funding doesn't come from the government, just a mandated license fee (which kinda lets the cat out of the bag as to whom Im talking about).

Regardless of which way you want to push it, the BBC at its height was both more independent than most other media outlets in the UK and was higher quality.

It has fallen a long way since then.

De todos modos, aquí está Wonderwall

Worse, unless the company is going out of business, which Ubisoft afaik is not, is it really a drag to spend a hundred a month keeping a server for ancient stuff running just for goodwill?

Some of these games needed many servers just for all the zones of one shard, a decade later that can be tucked into one computer.

Well, does it really need a server, like an MMO, or is that just some BS extra the software checks once in awhile becauae reasons?

Airbus has assembly plants in the US.

We just have to catch them before they merge with those damn Chenjesu.

He mentions why it looks old on the home page, point number 12.

Mitigation like this doesn't get in the way of business, and so bears little fruit, waggle-finger-wise.