Not exactly the same, but I remember seeing a study saying that humans only select from about 50 foods.If you give them access to 1000 or more foods, such as in a supermarket, they'll develop about 50 foods that they think of as available resources, and the rest they just ignore, the same way you'd ignore a rock when you're foraging.
It becomes a problem for people without enough food, because they might have free food available but if it isn't one of those 50 foods they'll look at just like they're looking at a rock.
(Orangutans can remember and select from about 450 foods, for context)

It completely makes sense that other areas of life would have similar constraints.

Tip: Names don't evaporate when you die.

See also: Socrates, Noah, Lugh, Cleopatra, etc.

You're trying (for whatever reason) to be excessively obtuse, but you veered off into plain stupidity.

SFO is not planning to add housing, healthcare, or education to the private terminal.

And if they did, it would be extreme luxury housing, luxury healthcare spa, and elite education that you never had access to and certainly didn't take for granted.

And beyond that, if you're used to taking housing, healthcare, and education for granted you were just a naive moron who never looked out their window at what other people were experiencing.

And then... video games?!?!? You were always a bit daft, but... maybe you should see your doctor about your recent mental decline? Also... Steam sale weeks. A few times a year.

No, if that's your concern then it is up to you, as the consumer, to verify that before you choose to use their store.

You seem to have been dropped on your head once too many times as a child.
The whole point of a new law is that it changes what is legal. So if something was legal and a new law changes that, that's intentional. It's the purpose of legislation and rulemaking. To change the rules.
Also, if it was still not illegal, then wouldn't be any complaint from the perp about getting busted...
And you actually know the intent was to change the rules, because you start off with a claim that the change was intended to change the rules, and that this particular perp's behavior was intended to be covered under the law! So you're completely full of shit when you then pretend that, after said changes, you don't realize that same behavior has been banned.

I would agree, except that in most cases the brick & mortar specialty store that used to sell the higher quality product doesn't exist anymore. In the cases where a quality product is still manufactured, I can usually go the the company's website and buy it direct, or buy it from the company's official Amazon storefront for less .

At a box store, the products are the same as the ones on Amazon, but more expensive. Though you can at least take a closer look at what they skimped on.

What I find funny is that over 90% of the people I've talked to about Amazon end up comparing them specifically to Wally World, which turns out to be their alternative! They're not saving money, they're not getting higher quality products, and they're not supporting higher quality jobs.

Black and Decker, you know... Duncan Black and Alonzo Decker?

Perhaps you've heard of them. Oh, wait, yes, you have heard of them, because they put their names on your screwdriver.

I agree these are often not knock-offs.

Often they're nearly identical but from different factories, but it's the same CAD drawings for all the parts that are shared between factories as part of their social network.

Sometimes you'll find one that's nearly identical but especially bad, falls apart, or doesn't work at all. And you might wonder about QA, but often there is no QA; it's presumed that it's a working design, and they only QA the designs, not the output.

Sometimes you find one that has some small design improvements, too. Not very often though.

One thing to understand is that these are mostly medium-sized factories, not super-factories, and there's no way any of them could service the whole market.

No, now Microsoft is mostly a normal, legit business, and they even publish a linux distro.

It's been that way for many many years now. But windoze still sucks.

My prediction is that this chapter will end rather quickly with the judge fining the lawyers who attempted it.

Having a service model instead of a sales model is inherently a rent-seeking business, but that's not bad.

When people use "rent seeking" in the pejorative, it means something different; that you're seeking perpetual rent after you've finished providing the service.

IBM doesn't do that. Whenever they provide code to their customers to utilize their services they give it under Apache 2 or similar BSD-style, business-friendly licenses. And then they only charge "rent" for services that are currently being used.

In this conversation, "rent seeking" would only apply to this other unknown company who is trying to get money for somebody else's work, based on having purchased or inherited an old contract for which no new services are even planned.

I don't know the answer in this case, but a lot of things published before the copyright changes in the 1970s expired under the old rules unless the company made timely filings to claim the rights under the new rules. At the time a lot of people didn't imagine that code itself would be copyrightable, because they were all math majors who understood it was just formulas! So nobody registered those claims.

Also a lot of it was government funded under terms that made it public once the military released any security claims. And the military opened up most of that in the 80s.

That depends on the State, actually, and how they choose to enforce it. If they take a low resource approach and only investigate when they find out about a violation, then yeah a VPN is all you need.

If they take a more resource intensive approach and actively monitor compliance, then it won't work, because the apps usually have access to your wifi and these big companies already have database of all the hotspots and usually know what building you're physically in all the time. They're not just geolocating an IP.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has repeatedly re-affirmed the right of minors to sign legal contracts, and their validity, subject to certain restrictions like being reasonably expected to have understood the terms and the implications, and it being a fair contract that is under the same terms that others get.

So yeah, if you're 8 you're probably too young to enter into most contracts. But lots of contracts would still be valid; for example the imposed rules at the local videogame arcade. Without a contract they'd have to refund your money in order to kick you out while you still have non-refundable tokens. And yet, that contract is enforceable even against a 3 yo because they understand "follow my rules or you're getting a timeout."

People are so stupid, everything they think they know is just the shit they heard their friend say, and they're repeating. They heard somebody say that kids can't sign contracts so they believed it. They remember "kids can't sign contracts," instead of "Joe said kids can't sign contracts, but I don't know if that's true?"

While I agree with you, the part I don't understand is why adults are installing these apps (that demand invasive permissions) in the first place if their data is going to people they don't trust.

They don't realize these "untrusted entities" already tricked them into activating an addiction similar to gambling. Now they're scared, "What if I lose my wallet and a new app comes out and I can't install it on day 0?!?" The data you give the app is already waaaaaay more invasive than what's on your government-issued ID.

As somebody who isn't an appy apper, this whole thing looks a feeding frenzy for opposing idiots.