Most programming jobs are remote. What's the alternative, exactly?

The person you are saying that to, who almost certainly didn't make the decision that you should be laid off, may rightfully view it as someone unable to control their emotions in a difficult moment. This is completely understandable. It's also completely understandable to remember that, and maybe that person is reviewing resumes in the future and doesn't want to work with you because of a brief outburst which does nothing to change anything?

You're certainly allowed to have that opinion, but there's no reason to take you seriously if you do.

Obviously reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

And they're subsidized by the revenue made by everyone else. A thousands of coupons start rolling in and meaningfully affecting revenue either the coupons go away or the MSRP increases. It's the exact same pig just slightly different lipstick.

This seems entirely reasonable - they're obviously a point where tax rates are too low and revenue isn't being brought in, but also a point where tax rates are too high, incentivizing tax shelters or outright crime, and revenue starts decreasing again. The price discrimination side is the same thing just on "optional" purchases instead of taxes so it makes sense there is some Laffer curve corollary.

False testimony of what? Can you be compelled to provide testimony that allows a police officer access to your private data? Can a police officer demand I log into my online medical chart so they can complete their investigation?

> Lying to the police while under investigation is simply illegal, regardless of the thing you're lying about.

Perhaps for certain definitions of police, investigation, illegal, and lie. But as a blanket statement, not even remotely. Otherwise every person found guilty of any crime they said they didn't commit would also be found guilty of lying to the police officers who interrogated them.

And for what it's worth his kids are remarkably well adjusted and nice, if a little bit out of touch about what most people deal with.

Seems to be someone pretending an objective fact isn't true for reasons that escape me.

I don't mean to be snarky but "I counted things on Wikipedia" is not exactly slam dunk proof when the GP was all but saying Trump is selling antitrust immunity on the open market.