Yes. The US used to work to prevent and break up monopolies. This allowed some of the optimistic promises of capitalism to work. There was competition that worked to bring prices down and quality up.

In the past few decades we've witnessed dozens of competing businesses merged to form conglomerates with little more than speed bumps from government to slow them down, presumably to line the pockets of the would be overseers.

We lost the competition that drove innovation. There's little need to do anything to gain market share when there's no real competition. Instead these mega corporations focus on efficiency to bring costs down, because they're answering to shareholders now instead of consumers.

The result is supply chains have become fragile. One supply chain disruption results in a total shut down, because redundancies have been eliminated. When you have competition, you must have redundancies to ensure you can remain competitive. No need for that when you have no competitors.

This part stood out to me:

... required to accept a license which forbid you to implement those extensions. As soon as you clicked "OK", you could not work on any open source version of Kerberos. The goal was explicitly to kill any competing networking project

Could we not use this same tactic? I would love to see a Terms of Use drafted that requires federation participants to fully support the project. It could prohibit partial implementations, especially if extensions to the standard were being added before fully supporting the standard. Actions that seem to use embrace, extend, extinguish tactics could be explicitly called out and forbidden.

Monday = Moon day. In Spanish, it's "lunes".

I too was going to mention that I too was going to mention the rule!

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs should have never been made into a movie.

We should spring ahead at 2 PM on Friday. Everyone gets to go home an hour early from work and we have the whole weekend to adjust.

dont use Ubuntu.

Why? Do you have a link that explains this perspective? Or can you provide a summary to get me started?

I think it should be considered rape.

Men who pay for sex are the driving force behind human trafficking.

I'm all for freedom, and I will acknowledge that there are probably women in the "sex trade" who were not trafficked or coerced into it, but that number pales in comparison to the number of girls who have been stolen and forced into a horrific life, having lost all control of their future. Freedom is among the most important qualities of human life, and the horror of human trafficking and the way it completely removes all freedom from the lives of its victims trumps the freedom of choosing to sell sex.

Most places, prostitution is illegal, enforced by going after the prostitute and slapping the wrists of the men who use them. I find it immoral and reprehensible that women would be criminalized for this.

Rather, men who make use of sex workers should be ostracized from society and imprisoned as rapists. And the women should be treated with compassion and care, as victims of abuse.