He built a website. He didn't dictate how people used it. That was the point. He was charged as a drug kingpin with mobster era consequences. His sentence didn't fit whatever crimes he did or didn't commit.
There is no possible way to have style without the potential to bother someone. Just write how you feel. If the readers are so offended, they can stop reading. Life will go on.
I use cracked software until it is too useful or frustrating to use and the economics makes sense.
If you are making money from something or using it enough that you want support / reliability, pay for it and shame on you if you don't
Don't gimp your cracked stuff for the college kids and evening hacks just trying to see if they like something or if they can build its use into a business.
"Freedom of speech but not freedom of reach". Sounds like tyranny of a different form. I believe that any platform that enjoys protections of the federal government should be required by law to have 100% open moderation policies, regardless of whether it is reach or speech. Those policies should be required to be "legally" oriented and not based on platform preferences. Let the actual police handle policing.
All I want is a remote transport with the ability to place my start markers. The ability to create tracks, arm them and assign inputs would be secondary but awesome.
I need to be able to sit at my drums and control basic recording / playback features in ableton.
This entire article came across as a winey rant. I've never been in a situation where "all the discussions were about alcohol" outside of when I worked for a liquor store and participated in industry events. Within the coding spear, alcohol is not discussed anywhere close to as frequently as nerdy topics.
Why didn't the author just take the "beer dispenser" and use it to dispense something else? The pipes, tubes, mechanisms don't only work for beer. Or just sell it or donate it if it bothered him that much.
Yeah, maybe you were in a bubble. Chinese are awesome, but they are human. Many a deeply racist, and have a number of other problems. Work as life culture is not something to look up to. You probably should re-evaluate your own objectives if you believe working round the clock while neglecting any other form of life is something to look up to.
It is not a 'solved problem'. Price controls are not easy for anyone to manage. Companies can easily find ways around them in many cases.
Enabling companies to categorize themselves as 'platforms' or otherwise and then stipulating both benefits and requirements based on those labels makes a lot of sense comparatively. The general problem though is that the government isn't typically using regulations to improve freedom and competition. The government looks at regulation as a way to extract money, so solutions that encourage competition on a level playing field through market forces (like OP's) aren't given fair consideration.
The market is globally competitive. How would expect tech companies to compete if you have policies that continuously place them at a disadvantage against global competitors.
Tariffs don't solve these problems either. OP's suggestion is pretty decent idea relative to playing wack a mole with price fixing while trying to make sure your country's corps can compete on the global market.