Most people don't 'choose' anything. They take what is given to them or the easiest option. Netscape found that out the hard way when microsoft leverage their OS to push IE on everyone.
People can 'google' on bing, ddg, etc. They don't care whether they are actually 'googling' on google.
Maybe. But if irrational people at big companies are just throwing $21 billion away, the shareholders will hold them responsible. Especially the major shareholders.
It amazes me that reddit has maintained such a terribe search service for so long. It has been consistently and impressively bad. The most basic filtered full-text search would be better. But then again, if google is going to do the job for them, why waste your time and resources on improving search. Maybe if they blocked google, it'll force them to improve reddit search.
> * Her name means "renown/glory of father", a really nice name for a daughter! The first part, kleos comes from kluein, "to hear", which in turn derives from the same IE root as the English word loud.
Which is not even an egyptian name, since ancient egyptian is an afro-asiatic language, not an IE language like greek. It's funny seeing africans and middle easterners fighting over who cleopatra belongs to when in actuality, cleopatra was a european woman of greek ancestry. Not african. Not afro-asiatic.
> * Cleopatra was depicted as an alien, promiscuous, and immoral woman starting with Romans (perhaps continuing the well-known Medea stereotype), up to perhaps mid-20th century.
Starting with the victorious romans. The romans who lost had different views of cleopatra. It's almost like the victors write the history.
> The debate about the color of her skin and her race became heated
It shouldn't have been because there is no question about who cleopatra was. Cleopatra was no more black than elon musk is. She was a ruler of egypt but she was not an egytian ruler. No more than queen elizabeth was an indian ruler of india.
I think language partly to blame for the confusion. There is a difference between an eqyptian queen or egyptian ruler and queen of egypt or ruler of egypt. The latter doesn't necessarly have to be eqyptian.
No. That was due to french influence. Not to be more phonetic.
> Americans removed the "u" from their dialect which makes a needlessly complicated language even more so.
Webster removed it to make it more phonetic. Do you pronounce color the same way as flour? Of course not. Color, harbor, favor, etc is more phonetically accurate than colour, harbour, favour, etc.
> The funny thing is that it's mirrored in our law - English law is all about case law and president.
> Pushing these companies to return money to their shareholders instead of keeping it in huge war chests used for buying up any potential competitors would be a good first step.
Companies already do that with dividend payouts or share buyouts. Also, the shareholders control these companies. If they wanted the profits returned to then, they would vote for it.
> Maybe something along the lines of "any company whose average market cap over the course of a fiscal year exceeds 1% of GDP is automatically broken up".
I prefer over 33% market share. I think every market/industry should have at least 3 players. Any company that goes over 33% market share for X period of time gets broken apart.
> Companies that don't want to be split into pieces would need to find ways to reduce their market cap, one of the quickest being sending dividends to shareholders
Not necessarily. There are companies that don't have a profit or cash on hand with huge market caps. Amazon notoriously made no profit for decades. I think enterprise value is what you are looking for.
> I assure you I see these colours the same as you do.
I assure you that you do not. Don't want to get too philosophical or biological on you but we all see colors differently. Every single one of us. Even identical twins.
The alaskan snow crab market is in the hundreds of thousands to a few million. If 10 billion snow crabs were caught, the snow crab price would have cratered to a penny and we'd all be feasting on cheap snow crabs every night.
Bootstrapped? You mean raped, pillaged, exterminated and polluted.
> Other countries dont need to because cleaner technology is available now.
'Available'? You mean poor countries have to pay rich western countries exorbitant prices to use 'clean' technology when they could simply use abundant and cheap coal, oil, etc to develop?
You act like we are trying to give underdeveloped countries free technology.
No what developing regions like india, asean, africa, etc should be doing is pumping out coal, nuclear, gas, oil, fossil fuel plants and improving the lives of their people.
Instead of assuming what I mean, why not ask for clarification? no, I mean technology and science largely developed by the west.
> You act like we are trying to give underdeveloped countries free technology
Actually yes, rich countries give less devloped countries free technology. Billions and billions worth.
But more importantly, Information is free.
There are many less devloped countries advancing at an incredible rate, more cleanly, because of technlology and information avaialble in the modern era.
You seem a bit outraged. History isnt clean and nobody claimed it was. Ghengis Khan killed 10% of the planets population and drove the world into a global Dark Ages.
People can 'google' on bing, ddg, etc. They don't care whether they are actually 'googling' on google.