And pretty much everywhere else.

How is it free if they collect a percentage of what you make off it?

Your logic has failed.

You referring to Florida or California? Because that's certainly how California does it.

You've apparently led a pretty sheltered life, then. Or you aren't paying attention.

This is literally the ALA telling parents "You get no say in what books are available to your children, even the very young ones, and we want the government to enforce that."

If you believe otherwise, get help.

A very sheltered life. I imagine you believe that five year olds (and that is what we're talking about here) should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol - to smoke and drink in the liquor store with no parents around - too. Or make porn videos, or buy guns. Because, after all, in your world, all parents, everywhere, are always within arms reach of their children, who never have a single moment of privacy to get into trouble? Because if you don't believe that, then you're blowing chunks with your bullshit about "adults can still supervise their children."

And you know it.

You firmly believe that parents should not be allowed to have any say in how their children are raised. Which tells me you're just another lefty fascist asshole.

A: It's very racist of you to assume that a Latina must have a Spanish accent. But racism seem to be a core value of the woke.
B: White supremacists are not racist towards black people, they're racist towards all not-white people, including . . . Latinos. (And here in southern California, Latinos are far more common.)

Says at lot about you - none of it complimentary - that you believe that state should force parents to let librarians raise their children, with the threat of government violence to back them. Mostly, it says that you're a fascist asshole with the IQ of a fascist asshole.

It used to be that technology companies would release new products that weren't useless toys whose only purpose was to separate fanbois from their money.

Or, better yet, just prosecute whoever signed the takedown notice for perjury?

Or, if you want to go the financial route, assign punitive damages of on million times the actual amount in dispute. Falsely accuse someone of pirating a $20 movie, once they prove it in court, the damages are automatically $20 million. Every. Time. And if the studio can't afford to pay it, auction off their assets, starting with their copyrights.

If the author says it's not suitable for kids, why would you believe librarians should be able to make it available to kids, even if the kids' parents object?

That is the issue, and really the only issue: (some) librarians want to control how you raise your children, and will go to extreme lengths to force you to let them.

And don't believe a single word the ALA says about "book bans." The local city council where I live is setting up a committee of parents to review books in the city's public library that people complain about, to see if they're shelved in the right section. The moonbats have completely lost their shit over it, screaming "BOOK BAN!!!". (Note: They have also called our Latina mayor a white supremacist. Yes, they're that batshit crazy.) But the proposal would not be to remove them, just move them to age appropriate sections. There's no proposal or mechanism for the committee to remove a single book. Some may be moved from the children's section to adolescent, or adult. The library staff would still decide what books the library has.

But the best part, the part that conclusively proves that ALA are lying propagandists whose real goal is to control how other people raise their children is that even books in the adult section will not be unavailable to any age child. Parents can get two different library cards for their kids - one that gives them access to the children's section, or one that gives them access to the entire library without restriction.

The ALA objects to parents making the decision on what books their children have access to. And they don't even pretend otherwise.

Or pitchforks and torches, or at least tar and feathers.

It's all part of the Clever Plan (which is well proven many times over).

Step 1: steal underpants, er, make promises they know full well they can't keep about how brilliant and useful AI will be.

Step 2: Hype the shit out of it.

Step 3: Sell stock to VCs like there's no tomorrow (because there is no tomorrow, see Step 1).

Step 4: At the height of the hype, make everyone lose faith in the Magic Pixie Dust of the year, and make everyone afraid of it.

Step 5: Demand the government "regulate it" in such a way that no one but the very largest companies can get access to the market.

Step 6: Sell whatever remaining stock you have to said largest companies for even more billions.

Step 7: Laugh all the way to the bank (preferably in a country with no extradition treaty, and bribe amounts posted on their web site) while said largest companies realize they have a pig in a poke. Again.

The price of queen bees. Commercial beekeepers buy them, like they buy their other supplies. As the links you didn't bother to read (while masturbating furiously at how much you hate people who are more successful then you will ever be) explained.

Try to pay attention.

Production was never below demand. Queen bees are produced on demand in whatever quantity is needed. The main effect of the die off was the price for queens went up a bit.

Most people also don't realize that queen bees are produced on demand, and pollination, adding an estimated $18 billion/year in crop yields, means that beekeepers (or, rather, those specialists who breed queens) will, indeed, produce as many queens as are needed every year.

The entire "bee die off" crisis wasn't. The price went up by a significant percentage, but in terms of dollars, it was a minor inconvenience for an industry that's never been in danger of failing.

VLC isn't generally considered sketchy, but it can be tricky to get to work with Blu-Ray.