It's the game industry way. Diversity this, inclusiveness that, but when you want to go on holiday for Orthodox Easter instead of Catholic Easter, we have a problem. And you realize it's all pandering and saving face in front of the public.
I don't think having a monopoly should be a requirement to take legal action against nasty practices in general. If somebody is beating his wife, should that be ignored because, you know, she can move out?
What??? The existence of a law against any specific or general act is necessary for taking legal action. Your unnecessarily crude example is a violation of an existing law. Box checked. It's not a violation of the Sherman Act (Clayton Act, FTC Act), so let's stop talking about that example, thanks.
The question in the air in these cases is whether Deere, Apple, etc. are violations of specific anti-trust laws -- the language of those law is intentionally open-ended, and there isn't a ton of case-law. Thus, these cases have a high chance of setting precedent.
Now, it seems that what you're suggesting is that we should be able to punish companies, people, etc for being "bad" just because we know it's "bad." This sort of "justice" is literally arbitrary, and leads to incredible injustices. The closest remedies we have as a people, if this behavior is found to not violate existing anti-trust laws, is to persuade Congress to pass new laws (good luck), pass a constitutional amendment (nope), or to wage a class-action suit (here's your gift certificate for a can of beans).
The decent counterargument is that your proposed system of law isn't one of law at all. It's arbitrary and capricious. It violates all recognized standards of due process.
Under your system, there is no way of knowing whether what you are doing is legal or not.
For example, how would you feel if tomorrow you were hauled to jail for incitement toward an ex post facto law? Ex post facto laws are widely recognized as being morally reprehensible. Surely you should have been on notice that it's illegal to push for one, right?
The creation of such laws is only a matter of (perhaps very long) time. You think this is an "arbitrary" viewpoint? Fine, give me your best argument why what John Deere is doing is "good".
No, I think that John Deere is in violation of antitrust law. Apple, too. And I'm hoping that judges agree with me. And if not, I would hope that Congress could pass laws that Apple and Deere would be made to follow -- would and could, because I have little faith in the legislative branch at this time.
Punishing because it feels right is what I take issue with. Punishing on the basis of a violated law is, at least, above-board.
I thought about it. Maybe it's a cultural difference. Maybe you're right, at least when it comes to right now and American society. Sorry if my comments seem crude or inconsiderate.
It's a 100% pure lottery. I'd easily answer some of the questions, but for others I stand no chance without prep time. For example, I've re-learned implementing a self-balancing binary tree at least 3 times in the past, and I literally can't remember anything about it.
I've always found such questions lame, because (1) you rarely need this kind of thing, (2) when you actually do, you can find the information within 5 minutes, and (3) if you don't know it, well... you're not gonna suddenly come up with somebody's PhD thesis during a stressful job interview.
And you may say "yeah, they don't expect you to, they just want to see how you think". That's bullshit, because people know this questions come up often and will sit down and study them in order to game the interview process.
If I start a side project, I find myself wanting to work on it instead of my daily job. But if I make the project my daily job, I want to work on something else. So no side projects for me, please. And I know plenty of other people who function like that.
Also, if you work hard on your job/project/startup for 7-8-9-10 hours a day, that's probably already past the point of diminishing returns.
1. Netflix (~50% chance) - I feel it's only bundled with the rest of FAANG to make it sound better. In any case, HBO/Disney/Apple/whoever producing a cultural phenomenon like "Game of Thrones" would be enough for Netflix to lose the lead. Netflix wants to game viewers based on big data, but I feel like that will only lead to more and more generic stuff being produced.
2. Facebook (~25% chance) - It has pissed off multiple governments and other tech giants. Younger generations don't really care about it, and older people are starting to understand that it thrives on outrage.
3. Google (~10% chance) - Most of their services are slowly becoming worse, but I feel there's at least another decade before disruption time.
4. Apple (~1% chance) - Even if they need to allow additional app stores by law, I don't see that significantly impacting their bottom line. iPhone/iPad/Watch are the device to own in their categories, and the latest crop of Macbooks have been absolutely stellar. Additionally, they have by far the most devout userbase out of any big tech company. If anything can hurt Apple, that's the NIH syndrome, but it's more of a long-term concern.
5. Amazon (0% chance) - Yeah, not happening. Amazon is synonymous with online retail in a time when online retail is what keeps the world going. And AWS is only going to grow, even if it somehow manages to fall behind Azure. Labor unions will certainly show up, but so will automation.
>> has to be a lie - they haven't died from lack of sleep
C'mon guys, you can't be serious?!