Ah damn it. Correction - the corps USED to gift the licensed software. Apparently they stopped doing that after achieved market domination.

Oh, and they stopped using Russian coding experts to program their nuclear missiles.

Somebody should be fired for not insisting on 100% American support 20 years ago.

I have met people that thinks this is the way. You appear to be inexperienced and young.

Most of your post is repeating false propaganda. While classes like "The Music of Taylor Swift" etc do exist, they are the equivalent of the inter mural sports program - they cost very little money, have small classes, and are add-ons that attract attention and students rather than loss leaders. What you call the 'side programs' do wonders to educate the students again at low cost. They do not cost the university money.

The STEM classes are the expensive ones that many people join and then quit the program. Everyone and their uncle wants to be one of the 'smart, valuable students', but most don't have what it takes. All those people trying to make the cut but failing cost the university far more money for far less return.

The atriums etc that you dislike, they are usually gifted by the wealthy. People give 50 million and demand an atrium to have their name.

Similarly, the licensed software is often gifted by the corps. They want people to learn how to use their license stuff, not the free-ware which is just as/almost as good.

There is no "better not be white service", and your inclusion of that indicates that you are prejudiced. You and the snide comments you make are why we need those services. Yes, these things are expensive. The easiest way to deal with that cost is to just kick anyone out that thinks like you. Stop coddling racist and prejudiced shmucks rather than paying for therapy for everyone else.

The real costs problems tend to be 1) administrative, 2) failed students, 3) healthcare is growing.

It is not impossible for innovation to come from large corporations. But:

1) When an individual working for a large corp. comes up with a good idea, let alone a truly innovative one, the bureaucracy of the corp impairs the innovation. Sometime it refuses to try it (aka Polaroid inventing the digital camera then burying it to protect their film cameras), others it 'fixes' the idea to the point it becomes useless.

OR

2) The innovative individual realizes point 1 and also knows they can quit and try to make their brilliant idea on their own, giving them all the profit, albeit with more risk.

For these two reasons, large corporations are less likely to innovate.

First, they start out with poor definitions that many would disagree with. I would contest that innovation NEVER comes from "firms that operate R&D facilities across multiple local markets." Both 'operates R&D facilities' and 'multiple local markets' require large firms and innovation usually occurs in small firms and then they miraculously beat the big boys, getting larger and larger until they eventually start an R&D department, and expand to multiple markets.

Second, the synopsis was full of the worst kind of business jargon - the 'excess words for the sake of excess words' rather than technical terms to be specific.

This paper appears to be written by people whose egos are more valuable than their degrees.

You do know that Johnny Somali is a real person, not an ethnic slur, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If you think keeping paper and pencil notes is the same as the massive privacy invasion people call social media, then you need to get off the internet. You have no idea what it is doing.

A lot of Android people do not want anything to do with chrome because they like privacy. That is what keeps the distinction alive.

I remember when Warren Buffet pledged to give away all his shares in Berkshire to charity.

Now they 'pledge' to invest in technology that scares the crap out of people.

To get over my fear of AI I will have to go watch a parody song about hillbilly Harry Potter on youtube. ;-D

This sounds like a dystopian horror film.

Is there actually any benefit to the experience or is this some gen Z (sidenote, will we go to Gen A next?) idiot that thinks spying on people is required for good business?

Yes, having a waiter who knows you and is friendly makes for a better experience, but only if you know just about them.

I am so glad that my only real social media is slashdot.

Your comment is designed to encourage a particular, political view of their actions by using words that require mental states not in evidence.

The difference between:
"...using the deaths of thousands of young men..."
and:
"... making the best of a bad situation ...

is entirely in the mind of the researcher.

Your wording implies evil in the mind of the researcher without any such evidence.

You could similarly say the same thing, word for word, about the Body Farm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_farm)

Yes, having another company run the service is significantly better because they can't lock your hardware to them.

That is, if I buy an iPhone and connect it up to the Verizon, I know that if Verizon goes under, I can probably connect it to T-Mobile.

The problem is not unethical business (that exists everywhere), but instead scum trying to sell you a service when you want a product, so they tie them together.

They shut down the "Wemo Mini Smart Plug" which was still sold in November 2023. It came with a 3 year warranty.

That is screwed up.

And why you should NEVER buy hardware that comes with a service sold by the same company.

If you buy hardware it should be usable with OTHER people's services. If they want you to get a service, it should include the hardware for free/included in the monthly service fee.