My understanding is all kids moved to Instagram / Snapchat as soon as parents started using Facebook too, and now parents are on Instagram too so I expect kids are already using something else.
> Why was anti-trust pursued against Microsoft then?
One example among the many things the court found they did was to tell OEMs that they wouldn't license Windows to them if they _also_ included Netscape preinstalled in their computers.
The stated purpose, from internal emails, was to prevent Java from becoming the de-facto API for writing applications, which at the time was win32. This was a gigantic barrier of entry that protected Windows' monopoly and they did all those shady things to keep it raised.
That, and also insensitive to builds you might have done of other versions of the source code, etc. I.e. it's not affected by "files left behind" that would require you to do a clean build and lose incrementality.
> every link they every clicked on, on every web site. [...] No content from google was transmitted back to Bing. Just the next site the users went to.
Your theory cannot explain how Bing associated that "next site" with the specific search term the user had entered in Google.
If you had clicked a link on HackerNews, it wouldn't have shown up in Bing under some random search phrase. It's obvious that Microsoft parsed the search query out of the google.com URL, and the only reason why you'd do that is to mine what results were being presented for each search query.
Last LG I bought came with some vanilla non-Chrome browser preinstalled. I don't know if from AOSP or from LG themselves. Has that changed in the last years? If not, how does this affect companies like LG?
Again, neither of us are constitutional lawyers, but for an argument like that you have to present and challenge the arguments used in the actual sentence. Conspiracy theories without backing are only useful to those who gain political capital out of them.
And for the record, I read that, back in the day, Ciudadanos asked the Defensor del Pueblo to bring the Andalusian estatuto to the Tribunal Constitucional. Not sure if he did, or who can and cannot bring laws to their court.
Of course the situation was delicate, and required a great deal of negotiations and compromises; that's when democracy shines most, when all parts compromise to reach an agreement.
I'm just stating that no, the writers of the Constitution weren't "hand picked", rather selected by Congress among representatives elected democratically; and no, it wasn't ratified by francoist institutions, rather by a democratically-elected Congress (and later on by a referendum). That's just revisionism that gets spread to fuel Catalan nationalism.
What I meant isn't that someone would have decided to start the process again, rather than that's what the law established. The choice presented to the people in the referendum wasn't "accept this or go back to a dictatorship", as the parent commenter believed. I don't intend to say the politicians involved had an easy job coming up with the appropriate compromises; far from it. But the fact that the support the Constitution got in Catalonia was so overwhelming is definitely not because "it was either that or Franco".
What were these limits? What did the Constitutions allow the nobility do against the will of the king, assuming a king that wanted to uphold them?
> nobody was above it.
It's not like there was an independent judiciary branch with the power to enforce that against the nobles or the king. Case in point: the king decided to eliminate them and he just went and did it.