I like to wander around art museums, and on one visit, I shared a gallery with what seemed like a private tour group.
One woman was conducting the tour for three people, when they stopped at one of these all-white paintings.
She was describing the potential meaning behind the work, and noted that sometimes the artist expresses textures, or covers some background work.
It's hard to describe, but I felt this sort of absurdist joy when I watched all four of them lean in very closely for half a minute, only to discover absolutely nothing unique about the work in its texture or color.
Maybe sometimes art isn't made for the observer, but the observer's observer.
From reading the comments, this is for use in scenarios where you connect to a guest wifi network, but aren't automatically taken to their authentication page to get access to the internet.
By trying to connect to a http:// website instead of https://, the redirect will work, allowing you to authenticate your device and access the internet.
The problem with your logic is two-fold, (1) speech doesn't have to advocate for violence or harm for it to create violence and harm, and (2) you're conflating government with culture.
As a group of people, a company is entitled to free speech just like an individual. By restricting their ability to terminate someone for their poor representation of the company, you're effectively forcing them to accept speech that could jeopardize their ability to conduct future business.
A free democracy means speech is free from restriction by the government, but doesn't mean the person speaking is free of consequences from their peers.
Yet, this article from Sports Illustrated claims Derrick Rose and John Wall have multi-million dollar endorsement deals with Adidas that would have been active in 2019.
It might not be an order of magnitude, but there are certainly many more professional athletes who earned more than $1 million in endorsements in 2019.
The key similarity in all those situations was a loss of productive capacity.
The Confederate currency wasn't backed by any assets, so it lost value as their defeat became more likely. Apparently, it lost 20% of it's value after the battle of Gettysburg.
Zimbabwe's government seized the land of white farmers and gave them to people who lacked farming knowledge and experience. Predictably, their output cratered, sparking the hyperinflationary spiral.
Germany lost a huge amount of it's productive capabilities due to the Treaty of Versailles. Keynes wrote a fantastic book (The Economic Consequences of Peace) that lays the economic case for why the Treaty would be a disaster. Germany basically had much of its land, equipment, and other assets seized while also being saddled with significant war debts. They were effectively forced into hyperinflation by the structure of the treaty.
The key similarity in all those situations was a loss of productive capacity.
And the US production figures have gone where in the last 40 years? In 1980 the US was the world's biggest creditor nation. By 1988 the US was the world'd biggest debtor nation.
The debt and deficit have only grown larger since then.
I think the problem is that homes are also designed to cool, efficiently, which is why many a/c and heater units are in the attic with vents in the ceiling.
This means that they tend to heat homes more inefficiently than in places that are used to very cold weather.
It might not be fear of a bank run, but of enforcement from the SEC or FINRA for not maintaining sufficient net capital.
If they did run afoul of these regulations, it's probably advisable to not admit it on televised interviews.
That would also explain why they accepted a $1 billion investment rather than expanding their credit lines, and continued to limit purchases of Gamestop stock.
Monday at open, when last week's option contracts are settled, is going to be interesting.
One woman was conducting the tour for three people, when they stopped at one of these all-white paintings.
She was describing the potential meaning behind the work, and noted that sometimes the artist expresses textures, or covers some background work.
It's hard to describe, but I felt this sort of absurdist joy when I watched all four of them lean in very closely for half a minute, only to discover absolutely nothing unique about the work in its texture or color.
Maybe sometimes art isn't made for the observer, but the observer's observer.