Yes this. Exactly this.

This is so lazy. Interviewing a made-up sock puppet to push your agenda.

No there isn't. There is a "growing push" to discredit junk science. You mistake it for real science however because that narrative aligns with your agenda.

And it's way more prevalent than you believe. It's worked it's way into the senior academia at prestigious universities such as Harvard and Duke University.

Just googling the phrase "university professor fake data" gets you a list of scandals from different universities as well as other scientific institutions that got caught faking data for an agenda.

There is very little oversight in the academic fields and the only oversight is from other academics double-checking their peers. And the back scratching and quid-pro-quo has given rise to peer review mills that claim to, but do not publish fake peer reviewed papers.

Which is a whole 'nother issue.

I don't know the details, but I do it's easy to win cases when the defendant is dead and there are no opposition witnesses...

Exactly!

The police seem to think that if they purchase the data, it's somehow not "collecting it".

The courts disagree, but the police don't care.

The police "technically" are limited in what they collect, how they collect and when they can access.

That being said, there are instances where police bypass the constitution and law buy purchasing from 3rd party this information.

Can it also land on the sun, just like Kim Jong Un?

Except that they do and did.

The title of this thread is incorrect. This isn't about apple having the most "dominant" market capture, but about the anti-competitive actions apple took to exclude competition.

The opening of the court filing references Steve Jobs being upset that you can use a Kindle on both the iOS platform AND the Android platform. He then order apple devs to make it so that you couldn't do this (locking you into one platform).

A direct quote from the court filing's opening statement:

Regional pricing has nothing to do with supply and demand. It has everything to do with exploitation of the market. Whether this exploitation is harmful to the market or not is dependent on the amount of exploitation.

How is making an objectively false statement "humor"?

Maybe it just wasn't funny.

The government of Qatar gave the Trump administration a jet. Not broadband companies...

It is very easy to spend other people's money...

Which is exactly you need stringent oversight whenever a private entity manages a public project with public funds.

Is this the FCC program that has connected zero homes to the internet but had all of it's money wasted?

The problem is definitely all those fishermen that hang out at the pier with fishing rods. We need more game warden's to harass them and save the world from overfishing...

When the fraud happens, it's not their money.

Thus they don't give a shit.