No one did a thing when Crimea was taken. In fact, there was simply no firm response after Russia shot down the airplane brazenly. In fact, leaders such as Merkel further increased dependence on Russia by importing gas and integrating them deeply into Germany and many other EU countries' economies! Staggering incompetence and frank delusion!

Besides, suits, if tailored correctly, are perfectly functional garments, and I'm sure all the billionaires have Savile Row++ bespoke tailors.

I think this is a problem, particularly for the major tech companies that produce tech as the end product. If you are purely a "business leader" then the continued growth and even existence of the company is in jeopardy. Isn't the part of the job you mentioned better done by the COO or CFO?

This almost never happens. It takes a long time and huge amounts of money to come up to parity, and in the meantime, the legacy org is earning money on the thing you're trying to rewrite.

It's more often the case that the technology landscape shifts dramatically helping a niche player (who has successfully saturated the niche) become mainstream or more feasible. Take, for example, Intel. Their CISC designs and higher power consumption is now being challenged by relatively simpler RISC and lower power designs. Or Nvidia with its GPUs. In both cases, it's the major shifts that have hurt Intel. No one can outcompete Intel in making server CPUs of old, if they are starting from scratch.

Take another example, this time, of a successful competitor (of sorts). Oracle vs Postgres. Same deal, except that Postgres is the successor of Ingres (which doesn't exist anymore), and was developed at Berkeley and was open-source (i.e., it relied upon the free contributions of a large number of developers). I doubt that another proprietary database has successfully challenged Oracle. Ask any Oracle DB user, and you will likely get the answer that other databases are a joke compared to what it offers.

They are not residents, period. They are vagrants, or transients. I do not agree that vagrants and transients lose property rights summarily, but the idea of calling them some type of "resident" is ridiculous.

Looks like someone just decided to pick USCIS numbers in support of their argument that the intention is to reduce compensation and exploit workers, but failed to provide any substantive evidence, or even a cogent argument.

I think it is callous to comment about how homeless people happen to be in possession of their belongings without at least reading the article. It is a fair comment, however, to ask if examples are cherrypicked to tug at the readers' heart strings, with an agenda in mind.

I do think this article uses numerous tricks to promote this agenda.

- Referring to residents as "housed residents", as if homeless people should be considered "residents" in neighborhoods they have no business being in, in the first place.

- Saying that people are _usually_ forced to move without any connections to housing or support, but then following up with the qualification "sometimes" in the next sentence.

- Citing an example of a lady whose daughter's picture was taken away, as well as her tent, during a cold winter, while not presenting the viewpoint of people who are affected by homelessness in their midst (people such as you). What about _their_ humanity?