No, that is your assumption and on you to prove. My argument is in an acquisition many of those will be laid off in short order for "efficiency" reasons and there is precedent for that particularly in filings where consolidation of resources is presented a reason for merger particularly when the other company is struggling. Also part of my proposal is that not allowing mergers will create more competition so those people can get more jobs. If good companies with bad luck deserve to be aquired then how can you argue good employees in bad companies wont get hired again? This is contradictory.

This example contradicts itself.

This also does. Unable to make debt is a prime example of how companies die. You took on debt because you were not making money. Profitable companies can get lifelines because they make profit and can tend to show they can continue growth.

*European* regulators to be clear. Sounds like you agree with me. See my thing is I think your latter example, the Figma example is in the 80/20 rule. The vast majority of MA is for this reason the vast minority is for your former reason, the altruistic "they're really good but just couldn't sell their idea". I am very willing to sacrifice the much smaller and much less consequention minority to stop the far more harmful majority.

Well then as part of my plan I would make it easier for companies to go IPO, bingo. What's next?

You got it wrong. What they did is pump the aquifers dry and that caused the land to collapse. As a result, the natural storage of water in the land can no longer happen. They destroyed naturally occurring water infrastructure by pumping out all the water they could. This was an easily avoidable issue and they were warned this was happening and yet they did nothing.

Climate change did zero percent of the damage. Instead, what has occurred is 100% the result of idiocy. So yes, it has something in common with climate change but it's not the same thing at all.

Just because the coroner finds that the victim was days away from having a fatal brain aneurysm doesn't make you less guilty of murdering them.

Wrong. Neither Linux nor UNIX are mentioned in the specification. However, it should be noted that the specification is hosted on Freedesktop.org which clearly states on their site that...

Freedesktop.org is a project to work on interoperability and shared base technology for free-software desktop environments for the X Window System (X11) and Wayland on Linux and other Unix-like operating systems.

They do mention Linux and Unix-like operating systems being target operating system. However, there is no mention of UNIX systems specifically. Additionally, nobody claimed it was exclusively Linux, only that it would impact Linux users.

Honestly, if I were you, I would be dreadfully embarrassed for making such a boisterous pronouncement only to be shown to be a obnoxious fool.

What should be of interest to slashdotters isn't the irony of someone associated with cryptography losing their private key, but that there exists an open source system to securely allow voting and also to absolutely verify that the vote was counted. All while still maintaining anonymity. Barring the issue of losing private keys on the part of those administering the vote, this sort of system is very interesting, and really could be used to promote voter engagement and democracy. I had heard of it before, but kind of forgot about it.

I don't think treason could have been made to apply. It's defined in the Constitution, and the definition is a *LOT* stricter than colloquial use.

Ah, but who is the consumer of those resources. Perhaps Google is selling compute to other companies. That could be quite a profitable approach.

Same with wolves where the whole idea of the "alpha" was a misunderstanding from one guy who even went back and corrected the observation since he initially made it watching captive animals, in the wild they're just families, the "leadership" observed was parents to children not the big dog in charge.

FWIW, Amazon lost money every quarter for nearly a decade. It hasn't been doing that recently.

If a company goes under them yeah another company can come along and buy their assets sure but a dying company isn't really competing or innovating is it? Companies go under all the time, the success rate in America is like 30% of all businesses and less for some areas.

Aquisitions have just been plainly anti consumer and anti worker in their outcomes; folks get laid off, prices go up, products get worse or just shelved entirely so the parent just catch and kills.

  Let companies grow and compete if two companies want to cooperate they can but no more buying up your competition.

This is true, a comment below here mentions at large companies like this that engineers don't innovate and a good case in point is Adobe.

Magento, Permia, Marketo, Allegorithmic, Workfront and if it wasn't for the EU they would have gone ahead and just bought Figma, an actual competitor that did something actual innovative. Once companies are big enough innovation is just buying your competition, particularly if you can get them before they can actually compete with you.

I've said it before but I am in favor of just stopping any and all acquisitions, at least for a 10 year timespan if not 20 or 30 years because IMO none of the aquisitions have done anything positive for the consumer or the employees. Think about any medium or large acquisition in the past 20 years, which have been positive to where the outcome of being purchased was better than letting these companies grow on their own?

They're hardware vendors, so it's likely disabled in either the hardware or the firmware.

1) "give me liberty or give me death" was always a minority position.
2) Things that work well when people live in rural areas with slow communication don't necessarily work well when people live in dense clusters (i.e. cities) and conversely.
3) It is always the job of the individual to assign weights to his Bayesian priors. The state may control the costs of your actions, but should not be allowed to control your beliefs.

I hope I've covered what you were asking, but it was a bit unclear.

Now that's market research you can take to the bank. The money bank.