Micromanaging manboys with brains clogged with hubris? That's basically the dictionary description of manager.

Management, and even more so management theories, need to take the human factor into consideration. Every time you get to hear some bullshit "how to manage" story, you can't help but sit back and wonder whether they ever heard of something called human nature.

Generally management and management theories treat humans like some kind of fungible mass. Like any human is identical to anyone else. Sadly, humans are not. By no means. What's worse is that managers think that everyone under their "control" thinks the same and has the same preferences and aversions, and, wht's worse, the same preferences and aversions THEY have themselves. This leads to such bullshit experiences like a manager who enjoys mountain climbing taking his team on a mountain climbing team building event and considers it some great treat while the office talk during the week before is "how do I shoot myself in the foot so it doesn't cause lasting damage but ensures I don't have to go".

And rest assured, it will build team. It will unite the team against management.

Of course the week after productivity will slump and the manager will wonder why, after all he took them on a great experience that invigorates him.

You know, I know, but managers don't. Personally I think it's a bit of the good old "people think as they are" mentality, and hence they consider everyone a trained monkey whose experience is worthless, so they can be replaced by someone cheaper any time.

With the only reason they themselves can't being that they'd have to be the ones doing it.

Some skills (actually, most of the ones worth having) take time to practice to actually be useful. Something that can't be done when the skill is needed NOW.

For reference, see Cobol programmers and their salaries in the years before y2k.

Well, it sounds like management is heaps easier to do and a lot less work...

Remind me why again it's also much better paid?

I'm pretty sure there's a gay joke in there somewhere, but maybe I'm not tasteless enough to find it.

Again, same for either program. Both are installed by the user to filter out unwanted content, with the program's maker in the end deciding what's considered "unwanted" (the user only gets to set a category, i.e. "porn" in one and "ad junk" in the other).

No, we need a court to determine whether a company can block something for you.

Which seems odd considering that Net Nanny and the likes have been offering essentially the exact same service for years now and nobody bothered to complain.

While true, judges tend to follow the ruling on the table. If only to appear consistent and not wanting to contradict their peers.

Twice so in a matter where most judges don't have the slightest inkling of an idea what's going on. Like, say, "anything computer/internet".

Your faith in humanity is commendable, but misplaced. Your argument is that companies that abuse their users and the trust those users place into it will lose them.

And you even mention Facebook in your post...

Seriously. Companies actually used to be bothered by bad customer reviews and tried to appear like they're user friendly. But by now they learned that they can essentially treat their users like garbage and they'll still come back. Pick any large company and you'll notice that their customer policy at best just sucks. At worst it's outright hostile. They should go out of business. Yet they don't.

What does visiting the page have to do with viewing ads? Is this the early 90s?

Even a service, program or product I'm interesting in becomes quickly boring and soon after annoying when I get to see the same ad or trailer over and over and over and over.

Take your favorite show. Pick the 30 most interesting seconds of it. Now try to imagine another show you like being interrupted again and again to show you those same 30 seconds.

And then tell me that this isn't going to be annoying after no later than the fifth time.

I'd sell you a pound of bread for a pound of gold. I'm pretty sure nearly any shop would do so, too.

Fiat currencies are not an outright ponzi scheme, but they're essentially exactly the same as Bitcoins: They are accepted because people think they will still have value in some foreseeable future.

That's basically pretty much the general idea behind money. Be it Euros, Dollars, Bitcoins, gold or some shiny pebbles. And all of them have in common that they cannot be multiplied by the average person at leisure.

The huge advantage our current fiat money has over the others is that governments can multiply it at leisure. But that's at best an advantage for governments, not for us. Because we have to have faith in that government giving a shit about us trusting it.

And I don't really think that's currently really something I'd put my money on, so to speak.

And that's by no means any better than "normal" commercials.

Let's look at it and see if it looks, walks, swims and flies like a duck...

Does it interrupt the program I'm watching? Yes.
Is it something that does not interest me? Yes.
Is it repeated so often that you can speak along? Hell yes.

The fact that it's for a movie instead of some female hygiene product doesn't matter.