Because competence and being well-informed necessarily introduces a bias towards the truth. In a trial that hinges on a technical matter, "unbiased" is synonymous with "ignorant", which is dangerous when it might end up setting precedents.
No matter what you think of Google as an entity, having courts tell it what can and cannot be in its index seems very dangerous.
Why? Isn't that what courts are for: to determine when a certain behavior breaks the law and tell people who are breaking it to stop? Isn't that literally the most basic function of the court system--and now you're saying it's "very dangerous"?
It's not like owning slaves was free. You had to pay to maintain them, to provide food and clothing and housing for them, etc. If anything, corporates have it better under the current system. They can get away with paying most workers at a level approximately equivalent to (or, frequently, below) slave maintenance levels, (what we call "the cost of living" or "a living wage" today,) but without any slave revolts going on because the workers know they're free. (But heaven help anyone who tries to quit their job for a better opportunity in the current climate. Remember, you're lucky to even have a job, so don't complain!)
Speak for yourself. Just this morning, I watched the new episodes of Person of Interest and The Flash online, streamed for free from their respective broadcasters' sites. Heck, The CW's streaming system doesn't even care if I use Adblock!
When copyright was first put in place in the US, we were told it was to encourage the sharing of such educational resources. That may have been a lie at the time (it was designed as a tool for publishers),
Where are you getting this from? That's the exact opposite of the truth; copyright was designed as a tool to keep abusive publishers in line. And it worked surprisingly well throughout most of its history--just not the parts that most of us lived in. The 1970s is when it really started getting turned on its head and perverted into a tool for publishers to use to further abuse people.
What it indicates is that most people don't know how to think beyond a single degree of cause and effect to look for long-term harm. (Ugly fact: we're actually specifically taught not to do this in school: if you say "x will cause y, which will cause z, and therefore you shouldn't do x because z is bad," that's "the slippery slope fallacy" and you're formally wrong.) So when they see "lower prices," well, who wouldn't want that?
WRT Tesla being a "luxury car" brand that's moving downmarket, it's important to note that this has been their stated goal all along.
Elon Musk never set out to run a luxury car company. He's a visionary, a guy who wants to bring transformative change, and he knows that you can't transform a system by only penetrating into a tiny percentage of the market. So he used the high-end market as a stepping stone, a means to an end, to build a brand and to raise capital so that they'd have the resources to put into the R&D necessary to make affordable, high-quality EVs available to the masses.
When Henry Ford set out to build a car for the masses, he wasn't doing anything particularly revolutionary. Automobile technology was pretty well established by that point, and the cars were simple to make, so he could jump straight into it. A century of improvements in the state of the art, not to mention vital safety standards that were nonexistent in Ford's day, means that making an entry-level car from nothing is a difficult endeavor. Now add in an entirely new fuel system with minimal infrastructure to support it (Ford originally intended for the Model T to run on alcohol which anyone with a still could make in their own garage) and you can see why Tesla's incremental system was necessary to get off the ground!
No, Tesla is the new Amazon. Look at the criticisms people are aiming at Tesla, about their financial and business models, then look at criticisms people were aiming at Amazon in the late 1990s about their financial and business models, and it all starts to look very familiar.
It's been over 10 years since I read this, and I'd have difficulty finding it again, but I recall reading once that it used to be thought that cities grew out of towns, which grew out of villages, but archaeologists are starting to learn the exact opposite: ancient cities were almost always intended to be cities from the beginning. IIRC the article was written back in the 50s or 60s, so I'm not sure how much the conventional wisdom has changed since then, but there's more than one viewpoint on the matter, at the very least.
And here you were thinking competition was a good thing. Of course, if these smaller cable operators don't want Charter coming to town and taking their milk money, they could simply offer cheaper, faster service themselves.
There is at least a certain amount of truth to this. When a behemoth much larger than your own company comes in and starts to compete with a local company, it frequently does cause harm to both your business and the community. Just ask anyone who used to be in retail until a Wal-Mart showed up, used economies of scale to be able to afford to "compete" all the local retailers out of business, then started sucking money out of the local economy and treating its workers abysmally.
Not sure how well that same paradigm translates to the cable industry, but it's a real problem that does exist in some sectors, at least.
Python is a dynamically typed language, rather than statically typed, meaning that the declaring code is much more concise, and much more obviously a specification of what's needed, rather than code designed to do something directly.
Static vs. dynamic typing has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of statically typed languages that use type inference (automatically figuring out what type you're talking about) to achieve results similar to Python, rather then requiring manifest typing (declaring all types up-front) as Java does.