Why would anyone pay for pirated content?
Because often times, it's better than the original content: no unskippable ads, no unskippable piracy warnings (lol), and no DRM/malware.
This is the Lump of Labor Fallacy. There is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and eliminating a particular job does not mean "one less job".
I think you mean that it doesn't necessarily mean one less job. There is a possibility it means that. For example, the business could pocket the extra profit and hoard it rather than reinvest.
Either way, someone will have more money in their pocket, and will spend that money on other goods, services or investments, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.
As stated above: there is no requirement that the money saved gets spent anywhere. The business could pocket the profit and do nothing with it.
This is actually a growing concern of late, as we have seen a number of top businesses start to hoard cash - the best example of which would be Apple, which is sitting on over $200 Billion.
Dead end make-work jobs are not "good for the economy", and the point of work is to create goods and services, not to "keep people busy".
It's certainly the ideal that everyone works to create more wealth overall. We can hope that automation starts to open up new markets like technological advances of the past did, but we should prepare for the possibility that it won't.
If the worst happens, and we end up with a growing group of poor, hungry individuals, then make work projects could be better than inviting future civil unrest. That's somewhat of a moot point, though, as there is plenty of neglected infrastructure that we as a country could start training and paying people to repair.
Approving mergers generally falls under the purview of the FTC (see merger review).
The only reason the FCC came up is due to the fact that the two companies may have had to transfer FCC licenses as part of the deal. Since it appears no transferal is taking place, the FCC is not involved.
The entire point of internet enabled devices is to collect your data. They are all surveillance devices.
It limits your options. The company will take your most recent salary and use it to determine the upper and lower bounds to the offers they think you might take.
If they were going to offer much more than your prior salary, you just screwed yourself out of money. If they were going to offer much less, they''ll show you the door without bothering to find out if you would have accepted anyways (due to other factors like benefits, perks, etc.).
We've seen long-established characters changed to a different race or gender or sexual preference or some other trait just to make the content more "inclusive", even if it makes no sense within story lines or established canon. Or we've seen new characters created with a trait like their gender, race, or sexual preference as their main defining characteristic, solely so focus can be put on it, and the rest of the character pretty much ignored.
To be fair, there's also still a non-trivial amount of white-washing going on, too. The most recent and accessible example for the Slashdot audience would be casting Scarlett Johansson for the Ghost In The Shell movie.
In fact, I am somewhat curious about this list of movies that fit your criteria, as I can easily rattle off several whitewashing examples from recent movies off the top of my head, but I cannot think of that many where the reverse would be true (though there are some).
Things have changed a bit in the last 70 years.
Not the least of which is the fact that nukes today are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
They could probably make quite a hefty profit for designer soap:
Green soap: clean your body *and* your conscience.
If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields