They didn’t say to let the government run it. Make the patents/trade secrets public domain and sell off the physical assets in open auctions. Someone would buy up the profitable manufacturing lines that aren’t known to be as harmful.
Ostensibly they wouldn't. On the face that may seem like a problem but I think it's more of an opportunity. With real consequences on the table for investors corporate transparency becomes a critical component of any investment strategy. What might that incentivize?
That’s a very good point. At the least, the stock price should go to zero. I guess your point is that they are artificially keeping the company out of bankruptcy/receivership.
Jokes often work with subverting expectations. In this case you're surprised by a message that doesn't belong and then you remember where it comes from and likely relate it with how frustrating those ever changing rules can be.
I thought it was funny because I've seen similar complaints from linters, e.g. clang-tidy's readability-identifier-length plus readability-identifier-naming, or pylint's invalid-name. (clang-tidy at least is smart enough to exempt loop counters.)
It doesn’t appear that you read the article. Social science journals definitely are organizations, businesses and/or single entities that could change.
Recently, Stacy Abrams and Terry McAuliffe concerning the 2018 race:
“She would be the governor of Georgia today had the governor of Georgia not disenfranchised 1.4 million Georgia voters before the election. That’s what happened to Stacey Abrams. They took the votes away.”
>Voter fraud, electoral fraud or vote rigging are intentional, illegal actions aimed at changing or influencing or forcing the results of an election - by either depressing or increasing the vote share for a particular candidate or choice.
