Trumps new social media platform translates really well in Russian too

Is anyone calling Google by it's "new" name, Alphabet?

I assume people will continue to call Facebook Facebook.

Lots of companies have horrible online stores. Until Walmart started flooding with their marketplace they were one of the better ones.

I wonder if they even know they suck?

Well that's actually a good example
You're not supposed to rinse the bleach off the dishes.
https://blog.scoutingmagazine....

The thing is that there will always be those complaining about the 20 failures, and ignoring the 40,000 successes.

The real question is the net benefit, I personally believe that free speech makes a big contribution to society, some good, some bad, but on balance it's positive.

Which trade offs are you willing to make?

The best players don't always make for the most interesting game.

Stream it.
If there is an audience, they'll watch it.

Also the chicken and egg example makes sense to those who need to get on a TV channel, but that's old.

Also clearly the egg came first, laid by an "almost a chicken"

Or carry none of them, until they negotiate a deal.
Lets see who blinks first.

I'd assume the first source will accept very low compensation to get this kind of market access.

Myself I can see a strong case to PAY to be the primary news source for Google or Facebook users.

The GSA should be held accountable for the solarwinds123 fiasco. They have sat on their hands for years spending billions (trillions?) and not really taking their supply chain seriously. Also worthy of mention is the NTIA's Software Transparency initiative:
  https://www.ntia.doc.gov/Softw...

Movie theaters are on sale, they're cheap to buy.
If you want to save them, YOU buy them.

I don't want Disney buying them, I think it's a bad investment, and it would be irresponsible for them to do so.

I love how it's always what other people should do, never about what you can do.
Go ahead, buy a theater, buy the chain. Do whatever you want, but don't expect my money to pay for your recreation.

It's simple corporate greed.

Facebook already determined that you're worth the higher salary.
They know that paying a person salary X still results in a net profit for them.

They just want more profit.
It's just an argument to pay people much less than they're worth. They're just hoping that if enough big tech companies collude on this, it can drop costs.

That being said, if Person A creates more value being in a certain physical location, that's fine.
Being the physical "on call" guy, being located X from the site could have value, and should be compensated.

Reminds me of a guy who said we have a cold shortage.

Think about how much energy is spent pumping heat out via Air conditioning.

So you have an AC unit (or fridge), spending energy to try and move the heat.
Then this electrical generator creates electriciy by impediting the transfer of heat.

Entropy.
Every time someone thinks of these great ideas, they never do a thermodynamic analysis.

The events on Fortnite have pulled in millions or tens of millions of people.
Political conventions are only tens of thousands at a time.

They're several orders of magnitude smaller.

Like a Chromebook?

The money is going to charitable causes.
So what if it's growing, it's still funding good causes.

Make another contract.
"I will work on project X, you will pay me X, changes will be released under that OSS license"

Also, there is nothing stopping you from going, see which developers you value, and paying them.