"You're delusional if you think the USA has anything even near a "free market" to begin with."

You are just evading the question. Are you, then, against free market forces?

"Uh, a federal bill giving benefits for importing low cost workers isn't free market, dumbass."

No, it's a federal bill taking out limitations for importing low cost workers. It IS free market, dumbass.

"Here, in Lennart's own words"

No, *this* are Lennart's own words:
let's summarize what we are trying to do:
* We want an efficient way that allows vendors to package their software
* We want to allow end users and administrators to install these packages on their systems, regardless which distribution they have installed on it.
* We want a unified solution that ultimately can cover updates for full systems, OS containers, end user apps, programming ABIs, and more.
* We want our images to be trustable (i.e. signed). In fact we want a fully trustable OS

So my reading is: we want Linux ecosystem to disappear and be substituted by Microsoft's business model where there's just one OS (Red Hat) and a set of corporate software vendors.

"Why did they start going downhill so hard? "

Because they chose somebody coming from an airline (and a CFO on that) for a CEO. What else would you expect?

"Couldn't we port Emacs on SystemD and have a complete OS?"

You'd still lack a decent editor.

"Do the legislators really believe that, in doing this, US tech workers won't be negatively effected?"

Of course not. They really believe that, in doing this, they the legislators will be positively affected by means of their corporate patrons.

"And the business can get away with paying them half of what a local is worth."

A resource is worth whatever provider and consumer agree to be its price.

Maybe instead of "what a local is worth" you should say "what a local values himself", not the same thing.

"If you can bring anyone in with an "Advanced STEM" degree then India will just open more schools to rubber stamp 'em. Race to the bottom."

Are you, then, against free market forces? If the labour market wants cheaper workforce more than it wants quality workforce, who are you to interfere on this true example of free market in action?

"Did any of the other areas have a congress that was actively importing cheaper labor?"

What's the problem? Isn't America proud of their free market approach?

There, your free market approach.

"This is a classic example of Convenience Sampling"

Yes, it is, but not because of what you think.

"Guess where the researches were located, that all their test subjects were students?"

The fact of them being students or attorneys at law or plumbers is irrelevant. It is convenience sampling because they needed a sample that already were using language to communicate in order to deprive them of this tool (which is also the utter flaw of the experiment) and it happens there is only one tipology that already fits the bill: modern humans.

"Yes, this is how science works."

No, this experiment is as stupid as it can be. They take a group that *already* uses a "tool" (language) as the means to acomplish a goal (collaboration), then private them of the tool and find that they are now worse at acomplishing the goal.

In other words: for a man with a hammer, any problem seems a nail. Now you take him his hammer and you find he's worse at driving nails. Brilliant.

"Oh congrats on being too stupid to understand the reason that language developed over the use of it."

Ok: rewritten as per the experiment:
Animals already accustomed to talk as their main means to communicate find that talking to each other improves communication. Brilliant.

Now, for a different experiment:
The study involved getting a number of dogs to try to make their own primitive stone tools, some allowed to use language, others not. The team discovered that there were no difference in the dogs' ability to make effective tools related to language allowance.

Conclusion:Language May No Have Evolved To Help Our Ancestors Make Tools

"Because the manufacturer has lower costs. The price they give to dealers includes the manufacturer's profit. The dealer has to increase price over what they pay for it to make a profit. If the manufacturer sells directly in competition with a dealership, the manufacturer could undercut the dealership so the dealership can't make a profit thereby guaranteeing sales and killing the competition through forced losses."

Think of it a bit harder, please.

The manufacturer would have the same costs as the dealer to run the shop and also the same profit expectation for the investement. The only way for the manufacturer to beat the dealer is if the dealer is selling above a reasonable profit margin, or by reducing their own profit expectations, which would make no sense.

"This is an example of why you would want to expire a perfectly ethical message, since while you can control what you preserve you cannot control how much context someone else must use."

Ok, you win. I already deleted my own copy.

Oh! by the way, you put the message above out of context, I'll take my original copy out and I'll demonstrate...

Oh, wait!

"Only a fool would keep potentially dangerous garbage when she didn't have to."

Only a fool would throw away potentially valuable information when she didn't have to.

So, back to square one, right?