dmwallin

I'm personally very pro free speech but the wrong way to go about it is to give the government more power to compel speech from third parties. Use the tools available to prevent mega corporations from sucking up all the air in the room, then create your own platforms to spread the speech you want to enable.

The easy approach of just trying to use government to compel these companies to carry your speech has too many dangerous second and third order effects to seriously consider, especially if your goal is free-speech.

However, groups of private citizens, whose powers over the marketplace are/can be heavily limited through existing laws such as antitrust law, enforced by our democratically elected government have no requirement to carry speech they disagree with.

It’s surprising to me how quickly the Big Business/Small Government Republican Party switched as soon as they realized that big businesses don’t always have their interests in mind. I suggest looking over to the far left, as they have been discussing ways to curb power of large businesses for decades and also have a healthy respect of the dangers of giving the government too much power as the frequent target of said powers.

- Game genre / mechanics

- Your team size/skill sets/experience

- Game engine

- Target platform(s)

- Monetization strategy

2d games in particular support a wide variety possibilities. If you narrow it down I can more easily point you in the direction of specific helpful resources.

- User base overlap with the new SE. It's possible potential buyers had already upgraded to the new SE several months earlier before the mini was announced. (anecdotally I know a couple of these)

- Not having the ability to try it out in person. I could see risk aversion leading to more "status quo" purchases of people worried it could be too small.

> “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If the problem is social media companies that are so large they suck up all the air in the room then solve THAT problem and enforce existing anti-monopoly laws.

The rally was organized by Trump, the mob that marched on the capital was there for Trump, marching with flags for Trump, encouraged and incited by Trump, and aimed at overthrowing a legitimate election in favor of Trump.

BLM was marching for lost lives that could no longer speak for themselves, organized by and for no single individual, carrying flags to honor the fallen, aimed at creating a future where less people would die unnecessarily at the hands of law enforcement.

All systems of economics are also systems of power. If the only system of power is the economic one than your economy is your de facto government.

If a structure for “governmental“ power is identical to the economic structure you have zero ability to fix abusive power imbalances when they eventually arise. It’s the same reason it’s good to have many checks and balances within government itself. Every structure has flaws, and any singular structure of power will have it’s flaws exploited unchecked.

* Mass produced bread <- cost effective product, heavy use of machinery and tooling

* Small local bakery <- higher quality product, still use plenty of professional tooling to make it cost effective

* Making your own bread at home with store bought flour <- Makes use of prepackaged assets to enable a creative experiment

* Making your own bread with wheat you grew in your backyard and hand shaped stone tools <- quaint curiosity

The right approach for free speech is smaller companies AND smaller government.

Credit cards companies are in a very strong oligopoly and are able to essentially demand bundling of all their cards, regardless of the fees charged. If the credit cards companies were forced to charge a single rate for all cards in a bundle, it would allow merchants to either selectively drop higher priced bundles or the card company would have to start balancing the additional cost of higher rewards on their side, moving the incentives back where they belong.

However using a &nbsp; in your brand name would likely be a better way to handle this, and makes actual semantic sense in your html. It's also coincidently more robust to changes in your layouts.

Purity for it's own sake is problematic, and definitely sometimes there won't be a good semantic approach. But thinking through cases a little deeper and trying to represent things better semantically can pay off big dividends by increasing the robustness of your solutions.

If ONLY sick people tend to wear masks then masks will make you a more visible target of fear and hate, which would lead people who are sick to not wear masks.

It's a much better idea to destigmatize the act of mask wearing so we can get larger coverage of sick people with mask s.

3.7.7.3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it discloses the current contact information provided by the licensee and the identity of the licensee within seven (7) days to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm.

That's not how economics works. The prices most stores charge is limited by competition. The only areas you might see an effect are in ones where supply is highly, and likely artificially, constrained.

I'm not saying that your claim is wrong, rather the opposite I believe it's holds true in the present. Computer Information Systems are reliant on larger economic forces. In many cases centralized systems are not better on a purely technical basis, but rather are better at attracting capital. However there are undoubtably systems of human organization and resource management that would change the fundamentals assumptions behind this.