But that's false, which just goes to show that the compiler writers know way more about this than you do. There's nothing stopping this from being linked into a binary which doesn't even call main, or which calls NeverCalled, etc. And I bet you will also insist stamping your feet that of course programmers should be able to construct function pointers - to functions like, y'know, Never called - from arbitrary bit patterns. You know nothing, but you're convinced you know so much more than those stupid compiler writers.

That's a pretty naive trust in Microsoft's branding/marketing team. Of course there are heaps of different Windows distributions. They don't necessarily differ as much as, say, Ubuntu vs Gentoo, but they do differ.

Which is exactly why the principle of free speech (as opposed to "the first amendment to the US Constitution") doesn't just apply to legal consequences, and free speech absolutely does require freedom from some consequences.

But I'm not sure in what market exactly Google is a monopoly? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of advertising and big data companies doing just fine.

It may be weird that no one is arguing that (maybe it's just no one you're listening to, or being allowed to listen to, though?), but it's not weird that it's not libertarians. The notion that some people shouldn't be allowed to form voluntary associations with others because they got "too large" is anti-libertarian.

That said, "libertarianism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are becoming too synonymous. As a libertarian (but not an ancap) I have no love lost for big corporations; I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments that monopolistic corporations are bad for society in general. However, because we must stand on principles instead of feels, the relevant principle here is that we have no right to interfere with others' affairs simply because they've chosen to pool their resources into free association, massive or otherwise (assuming they are not interfering with others' liberties, and I don't think there's a genuine argument now that they are).

All hope is not lost, however: there is reason to believe that these monopolies derive much of their monopolistic power through the state (e.g., via regulatory capture) and thus by reducing the power of the state we will actually achieve the desired benefit (breaking up monopolies) without infringing on anyone's liberties.

Not so; there's an easy and reasonable (/s) solution to the problem: only permit pre-approved speech. This can be done through AI and it will be difficult to circumvent.

Not within 60 days, apparently. So I think that claiming that the domain isn't being withheld is disingenuous, because the registrars knew perfectly well that the outcome of refusing service within 60 days after a transfer was that the owner would be locked out of their domain.

This is good news, but I'll definitely want to wait a good long while before enabling this in production. Yes, officially zfs isn't good enough to use in production anywhere even without shiny new features, but I reckon zfs as-is is better than some other filesystem.

Seriously, why are we still dealing with what amounts to a quoting issue in 2017?