> I can google IEnumerable a lot more easily than "what is -> after ::"
That's not really a fair comparison. You're comparing an identifier in one language with the basic syntax of the other. The correct comparison would be whether : {} <> [] , ++ ; & * and other syntax structures of the C-like counterpart are more easily searchable or understandable than those of Haskell, which I don't think is the case.
It’s clickbait. These experiments show no inconsistency in quantum mechanics, which can be easily seen if you think about the whole system as a single wavefunction under unitary evolution. And as someone else mentioned, “observers” are part of that wavefunction. Fundamentally, they follow the same rules.
Isn't the American president a barometer or descriptive reflection of the democratic population? Or does one define American conservatism by reciting a prescription of what people ought be when they say they're conservative?
Similarly I presume the rise of Boris Johnson with Brexit is a reflection of the British people, regardless of whether he has his conservative credentials in order.
I think this is a somewhat false equivalency. The number and extremity of alignment with catastrophic far-right ideology, while relatively small, is significantly larger than the same metrics for similarly catastrophic far-left ideologies in the US (in my opinion). While there are a lot of people who too-broadly level accusations of Naziism against conservatives, and vice versa for things like Communism, there is in fact a real issue at hand around the topic of far-left vs far-right ideologies, and I don't think it requires blind tribalism to have the opinion that one is much more rampant or destructive than the other. In my experience, most criticisms that are based around simply inverting the political sidedness of the claim at hand tend to unjustly ignore this.
> Someone will point at the GDP going up and say this justifies literally everything that corporations do. Someone will draw comparisons between two lines on a graph and say this is why Facebook never did anything wrong.
Except literally nobody will do that, except the caricatures in the fantasy of your own mind.
Companies obtain money and power. Companies use money and power to secure their position, because "make the best product" is usually not the best investment whenever "prevent competitors from reaching the market" is on the table, and regulation is one of the popular ways to achieve the latter.
I think you are confusing the possibility being present with the possibility being realized. In a free market, that possibility is present but unrealized. The possibility doesn't make the market non-free (and anything that would prevent such possibility would make the market strictly speaking non-free), but when entities choose to act on that possibility the market is no longer free.
If such conditions change the price of labour, for example, they are by definition an interference with price mechanisms. The magnitude of the interference will depend on the magnitude of this change. For example, setting a price floor for labour at $0.03/hr will have a smaller effect than setting that price floor at $30/hr.
A free market is one in which, once uniform or standard rules or requirements are established, price and quantity are determined by market mechanisms, rather than by some central planning mechanism.
Even within a so-called free market, numerous market failures may exist: externalities, imperfect or asymmetric information, monopoly/monopsony, coercion, power imbalances, fraud and misrepresentation, rent-seeking and rents, public goods, principle-agent problems, capital concentration, systemic risk, capture and corruption, Gresham's Law dynamics, unpriced ecological inputs, and numerous parties unable to participate in wholly market-based transactions, among them.
Establishing a minimum wage, or employer of last resort, addresses a well-known conflict in the tendencies of the prices of wages and rents -- see Smith and Ricardo.
What you're describing is neither free market nor even remotely viable.
> A free market is one in which, once uniform or standard rules or requirements are established
This is not correct. A free market is a market that is free from government interference. Such rules or requirements can constitute government interference. Ergo, they can fail to yield a free market.
To see the absurdity of the claim that "uniform or standard rules or requirements" always yield a free market, consider the "uniform rule" given by the price floor I described above.
> Even within a so-called free market, numerous market failures may exist
This is irrelevant to a discussion about whether the term "free market" is meaningful. It's moving the goalposts.
> coercion, fraud and misrepresentation, capital concentration, systemic risk, capture and corruption, numerous parties unable to participate in wholly market-based transactions (?)
These are not "market failures", and many of the failures you described are really the same (Gresham's Law and information asymmetry). That aside, one must take into account whether the alternatives are worse: in other words, government failure. For example, on your point about "rent-seeking and rents":
Alexander Hamilton of the World Bank Institute argued in 2013 that rent extraction positively correlates with government size even in stable democracies with high income, robust rule of law mechanisms, transparency, and media freedom. [1]
> What you're describing
What am I describing?
[1] Small Is Beautiful, at Least in High-Income Democracies: The Distribution of Policy-Making Responsibility, Electoral Accountability, and Incentives for Rent Extraction. Alexander Hamilton. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/195551468332410332...
That's not really a fair comparison. You're comparing an identifier in one language with the basic syntax of the other. The correct comparison would be whether : {} <> [] , ++ ; & * and other syntax structures of the C-like counterpart are more easily searchable or understandable than those of Haskell, which I don't think is the case.