Yeah, but they only delisted the evidence because an EU citizen demanded they forget it.

Not quite true. Up until the Notesplosion debacle, Samsung had been getting a good chunk of the high-spender market too, along with other manufacturer's Android flagships. Apple got half the big spenders, and Android got half the big spenders, and all the volume.

What even is "the dark web"? Is it just websites people don't know about because they aren't Facebook or Google?

And it's obvious that Uber disagrees. Because Austin and Uber can't come to an agreement, Uber doesn't operate in Austin. That's not "taking their ball and going home", any more than it is Austin kicking them out of the city - it's simply a "contract" whose terms are not suitable to both parties, and thus isn't taken up.

Sure. I dunno if it's the same in the US, but here in Australia, you can get a background check without needing to fingerprint someone. The problem isn't the background check, it's the collection (and presumably storing) of biometric information on someone. That sort of stuff usually needs a warrant.

I actually think they're to be commended for pulling out of a market rather than compromising their principles.

Mandatory fingerprinting just for being employed in a particular industry sounds horrifically intrusive. Kudos to Uber for sacrificing the potential profit of the Austin region in order to protect the privacy of their drivers. They're not punishing their customers - if their customers want Uber services, then their customers can not vote for bullshit, abusive laws.

Uh, by "secret, private email server", do you mean the server openly and publicly registered to the Trump Organisation?

Reading the article, it doesn't sound like this study is based on anything other than correlation. X happened, and Y happened at around the same place, at around the same time. There's no real description of mechanisms, or proposed experiments that could validate a mechanism, or predictions that could be validated against future events.

GP was pointing out that "John" is also slang for toilet.

You already posted that upthread, and were corrected. At least keep your fearmongering to once per thread.

Uh, the whole point of this article was that this practice was lowering prices in the short-term rental market. Providing a demanded service cheaply is rare considered "extortion". And just because a law was pre-existing doesn't mean it's a good law - just like the various taxi restrictions that Uber ran into, it was a service using governmental power to protect themselves from competition. If you want to talk actual extortion, start there.

He didn't say the USSR was ahead; he said the USSR took a chance at getting ahead, failed, and collapsed.

I'm not focusing on illegal immigration at all - Trump is. I was just clarifying Trump's position. To claim that he hates Mexicans because he's against illegal immigration is stupid and disingenuous. I can clarify his position without supporting it.

Specifically, illegal immigrants from the places that statistically generate the most illegal immigrants - Mexico is the source of the most illegal immigrants by an order of magnitude; Canada doesn't even make the top 10.

His flagship policy is a wall to keep illegal immigrants out.

You mean, people not voting the way they were told to?