Not all auctions work like Ebay where bids automatically ratchet between you and your competitor until one of you maxes out. Many auctions take fixed bids. Think of the cliched movie scene where someone waltzes in last-second and doubles the highest bid in a big showy display.

Buying something in 2022 at 100X its value in the hopes that there's a significant payout around 2070 doesn't seem like a particularly good investment strategy.

This adaptation will never be made. The rights to produce it are already long gone/resold which is why the 1984 and 2021 movies happened.

To make this movie, you would need to secure both the rights to produce a Dune movie (currently licensed by the Herbert estate to Legendary) AND the rights to produce Lodorowsky's vision (he's 92, so would probably end up being some battle between his estate, the estate of Jean Giraud the graphic artist that illustrated this, and whatever major studio conglomerate has inherited the rights to this specific version through bulk consolidation).

Dead scripts and storyboards rarely get revisited, and this one's way too entangled for anyone to waste their time with when another version is already successfully in theaters.

Slashdot existed long before targeted ads and will likely exist after. We'll see a return to advertising curated by the publisher, and only highest-bid generic ads (think TV-style advertising) in ads coming from exchanges. Basically will make it nearly impossible for small companies to buy online ads (though I have no opinion on whether that's a net good or bad at this point).

And the US has degrees and programs around digital marketing and "new media entrepreneurship"

When writing a law you have to define every term in the law, or rely on the legally accepted definitions. This is why laws are so long, and why they are full of "legalese". The lawyer who pulls out Webster's dictionary in court will be shut down immediately by their opponent and the judge.

In this case, there's several flawed understandings. The right to freedom from censorship is enshrined in the First Amendment - the "Freedom of the Press" - are you, an individual, a printing press? a journalistic reporting organization? or a direct member thereof? No, of course not. There have been Supreme Court cases that set precedent this right applies to all individuals, not just journalists. So just in this very simple example we've already established that "the press" has a different legal definition and supporting case law than the dictionary defintion. The same principle (and precedents) apply to "censorship". The established case law and legal definitions give you individual freedom from censorship from government entities (and those acting under government direction).

What the dictionary defines as censorship is irrelevant, because you have no Constitutionally-protected freedom from private censorship.

The "conservative" parties in this country have aligned themselves with Trump the person, dropping any pretenses of conservatism. I accused you of being complicit.

Sure, but that doesn't change the facts or introduce new grounds for challenging the existing precedent.

Supreme Court has definitively ruled otherwise.

As I said to the other commenter, how you want the law to work is not the same as how it actually works.

You are both wrong. Dictionary definitions are irrelevant when dealing with legal issues. What matters is the legal definition and case law, and the legal definitions and precedents say that moderation by a nongovernmental entity within their own property and services does not constitute censorship.

So break them up. I donâ(TM)t think youâ(TM)ll get disagreement from either side of the political spectrum that the social media companies have gotten too large and dangerously monopolistic.

Yet youâ(TM)ve aligned yourself with the mouthbreathers that treat Trump as a cult leader (âoeDonâ(TM)t trust the media, donâ(TM)t trust the liberals, only trust one manâ).

Being a willing collaborator makes you part of the problem.

It had nothing to do with his approval rating and everything to do with him constantly regurgitating easily disproven lies to rile up his audiences. You know, the same reason he was banned from Twitter.

The purpose of parking meters is not to raise revenue. It's to limit the tragedy of the commons and to encourage having spots available.

We are talking about tax evasion. That's exactly what this $600 threshold is targeting.

You want to keep moving the goalposts?

All income must be reported and is taxable, that has over a century of case law to protect it. Requiring third party financial processors to disclose their data also has well-established precedent. If banks do not voluntarily disclose, then they risk liability for criminal financial activities processed through them (Bank Secrecy Act of 1970).

I repeat - the Constitution does not provide a recognized individual right to financial privacy from the IRS, and even if you did, that does not shield you from parties on the other side of your transactions from being forced to disclose to the IRS. What protections on your banking data you do enjoy are established by the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, a law passed by Congress, and thus amendable by subsequent Congressional legislation.

The wikipedia summary about RFPA even cites the 1976 Supreme Court decision that established financial records are the property of the financial institution, not you, therefore not covered by the 4th Amendment, and thus upholding the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act provisions around forcing banks to disclose. That's why the RFPA was even introduced. Feel free to read further:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...