Extremely interesting set of observations here. Would love to see some research on this, particularly as one suspect some federal anti-bullying initiative kicked off the change (or at least accelerated it). Related, it's often hard to fathom Obergefell was only 9 years ago.
are executive fiduciary responsibility laws so weak as to be toothless? back when studying for actuarial exams (never completed) i recall them being made a big deal and waved about to scare the junior actuaries.
But it's not. Micropayments are everywhere, and are solved tech. The real issue is that as a business decision it looks bad. Why would, e.g, the Times allow people to drop in and read a single article for say $0.25, when they can get a portion of those people to shell out for annual subscriptions?
Yeah, lots of inconsistent reporting (Forbes reports 10.6% for Q3 2023, others higher, notably Statista w/many quarters above 10%). Not a big deal.
To quibble slightly, Macs are reported variously to be between 10-16% of personal computer market share, a big leap over the grim 2% days.
Props for slogging it through such a self-indulgent piece. Had to give it up after the, I think, eighth picture of her with some tech mogul.
Not trying to defend the actual purchase price of an academic book here (which are exploitative), only that setting a max cost is likely the absolute last thing a publishing company would ever agree to.
Unfortunately book authors have no control over this (I didn't and don't know anyone who has). It's also of the type that these cos will never cede as it affects bottom line. There's even one legit arg for this as pub can happen years after the contract was signed, w/very different publishing costs
Fwiw, the US is 65th when ranked in terms of immigrants. Truly reprehensible framing by the Times, as they surely know better. Trying to imagine the convoluted justification: "WH gave us this number, known to be inflammatory - reframing w/better statistic would be us media showing bias"
the perpetual mystery of the dems