From what I remember of a presentation they had on how and why the made Go, this is no coincidence. They had a lot of Python glue code at Google, but had issues running it in production due to mismatched library dependencies, typing bugs, etc. So they made Go to be easy to adopt their Python code to (and especially get the people writing that code to switch), while addressing the specific production issues they faced.

This was extra painful, because I wasn't using one of the OS that is blessed by Hetzner, so it requires a remote install. Remote installs require a system that can run their Java web plugin, and that have a stable and fast enough connection to not time out. The only way I have reliably gotten them to work is by having an ancient Linux VM that was also running in Hetzner, and had the oldest Firefox version I could find that still supported Java in the browser.

My fault for trying to use what they provide in a way that is outside their intended use, and props to them for letting me do it anyway.

Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are stopping make up more than 1/50 of the people you are means-testing. You are not only paying for those who fail the means-test, but for all those who are passing it.

It seems mostly an exercise in price discrimination. You always have a slightly higher price point, and some extra functionality to justify it, and the customer will likely push themselves up to the maximum they are willing to spend instead of settling on the cheapest option that meets their needs.

Maybe the 16e sounds good at $599. But, it might be a bit underpowered, so maybe you should just upgrade to the 15 at $699. Then it is only $100 more to just go for the 16 (or 15 Plus), so might as well right? But maybe you want a bigger screen or twice the storage, which are both another $100. Then for another $100, you can get the nicer materials or the extra camera, etc for the 16 Pro...

This is a marketing strategy you see in a lot of the phone market, and has proven to be successful at pushing customers into the higher-margin devices.

Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.

That is, in a way, similar to the problem of user-generated content. There is a limit to how much control a social media company will be able to have over the actions of its users. Unless you replace the system entirely with one where all posts are manually approved by a person before they go up, you will need to have at least some reduced liability for the platform owner.

DOGE is not a department authorized by Congress to exist. Elon's appointment at the head of it was not confirmed by Congress, usurping its right to 'advise and consent' to the executive. All government employees have strict rules they have to follow about conflicts of interest, which Elon's companies many government contracts would put him in violation of. Congress dictates what and how the government spends its money, and the Executive is tasked with carrying that out; Elon has placed himself in the middle of that, and has been saying he will now be the one that chooses how that money is spent. There are many laws in place on how the government is to handle personal information, and there is no indication or oversight of DOGE to verify those laws are being followed. Elon was locking employees out of their workplace, despite having that authority (since he was not confirmed to Congress to be in charge of that department).

There are probably quite a lot of other ones too. A lot of the strategy seems to be moving faster than the courts can keep up.