Mediaboss Marketing

The Department of Justice recently unveiled an antitrust lawsuit against Google accusing the company of anticompetitive behavior in the search engine market. If successful, the lawsuit could fundamentally reshape the internetat the American consumer's expense.

The DOJ claims that Google retains 90 percent of general search inquiries in the United States and 95 percent of mobile device searches. It claims this dominance is possible because Google pays everyone from Apple to AT&T and Mozilla to ensure that it is the default search engine within their products.

Yet this is evidence of competition, not anticompetitive behavior. A true monopoly would not need to pay other companies to promote its services. And Google doesnt force companies to have their web browser as their default; its a win-win for all.

If Apple decides to use a different search engine, such as Bing or DuckDuckGo, theyre well within their rights to do so. However, since users largely prefer Google, Apple runs the risk of losing customers. The DOJ will have a tough time arguing this behavior is anticompetitive when its merely companies looking out for their bottom line.

Furthermore, the DOJ faces an uphill battle with the current standard that theyve used in antitrust cases since the 1970s: the consumer welfare standard. As I previously defined it:

This standard seeks to evaluate mergers and practices of businesses to determine if they harm the economic welfare of people. If they do, then regulators can step in to either prevent the merger or work out an agreement to remove the harm. Note that the standard does not punish a business simply for being big, only for harming peoples economic welfare. And firm size is not a legitimate indicator as to whether or not consumer welfare will be jeopardized.

With this standard, the courts shifted their focus to the consumer, the most crucial aspect when determining what constitutes anticompetitive behavior. How will the DOJ prove that consumers are worse off from having Googles services at their fingertips entirely for free?

Spoiler alert: Google isnt harming consumers.

Google allows consumers to surf the web, watch videos, create and manage calendars, conduct surveys, and create various types of documentsall for free. Proving consumer harm will likely be the largest hurdle the DOJ faces.

The DOJ clearly thinks that consumers are trapped into using Google or are incapable of figuring out how to switch their default choices. But the reality is that consumers are simply happy with the services it provides. (Hence why the app is one of the top applications in Apples store.)

Google shouldnt be punished for the monumental success it has had providing goods to Americans. If consumers are intent on changing their browser, they can look up how to change it. Google (or another web browser) will happily provide the results with a simple search query, and even show videos with simple explainers on how to do so.

But the reality is that there may not be room for many search engines or browsers in this market. Microsoft seems to understand this, as it recently announced it intends to cease supporting Internet Explorer, the once-dominant web browser that landed the company in the antitrust doghouse almost 20 years ago.

This example offers a stark reminder that market dominance is rarely permanent.Using the term monopoly against Google is turning a blind eye to the truth: Google is just the best at what it does.

If we want more competition, maybe its time for newer technologies to create something altogether different. In the meantime, Americans should be skeptical of a lawsuit weaponizing government power for political gain.

See the original post:
The Glaring Flaw Plaguing the Department of Justice's Lawsuit Against Google | James Czerniawski - Foundation for Economic Education

Things are looking pretty bleak across the Atlantic right nowand its not just the UKs famously gloomy weather.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a new four-week (or longer) national lockdown beginning Thursday in hopes of curbing the spread of COVID-19.

All non-essential shops, restaurants, pubs and leisure facilities [are set] to close for at least four weeks, the Guardian reports. People have been told to stay at home where possible, but will be allowed to leave their homes for education, medical appointments, to shop for essential goods, and to work if they cannot work from home.

Unlike the first national lockdown introduced in March, schools, colleges and universities will remain open, as will childcare and early years care, the British paper continues. Johnson also announced a ban on overnight stays and outbound international travel, unless the trips are for work, while places of worship will be open for private prayer but not for services.

Schools do not appear to facilitate the spread of COVID-19. So, its good to see that the UK will keep its schools open. But this return to lockdowns is nonetheless an alarming development.

First and foremost, its just not clear that more lockdowns will mitigate COVID-19 deaths. It may simply postpone them and delay the inevitable.

After all, Britain already locked downhence why this is the second lockdown. Yet when the UK opened up, the disease inevitably started spreading once again, in the same way COVID-19 has continued to plague other countries even after they went through extensive lockdowns.

Its just hard to show with data that lockdowns are actually effective.

Theres little correlation between the severity of a nations restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities, a Bloomberg News data columnist concluded. (Hardly a right-wing source.)

A study of 50 countries published in medical journal The Lancet found that while COVID-19 mortality was correlated with population age and obesity rates, it was not correlated with full lockdowns.

Of course, we should all hope that Britain fares well. But hope is not a strategy.

The fact remains that the coronavirus doesnt seem to care what policies you put in place. And the perils of the UKs return to lockdown go far beyond it simply not working. Sweeping lockdowns are rife with unintended consequences as lethal as any disease.Hope is not a strategyand the perils of the UKs return to lockdown go far beyond it simply not working.

For example, lockdowns are catastrophic for the economy.

The reason why is fairly intuitive. When you lock people in their homes except for some essential activities, many cant work, cant produce, and cant consume.

An economy naturally slows to a trickle as a result. Its no coincidence that the World Bank projects that the COVID-19 crisis and ensuing lockdowns could push up to 100 million people worldwide into extreme poverty.

On the domestic front, FEEs Jon Miltimore showed that red states have significantly lower unemployment rates than blue states. This, at least in part, stems from the fact that Republican-run states have broadly had fewer COVID-19 restrictions.

In sum, the facts clearly suggest that Britains return to lockdown will have drastic economic consequences. Its even possible that the second lockdown will be more damaging than before.

Many firms are in a much weaker position now than at the start of the pandemic, making it far more challenging to survive extended closures or demand restrictions, British Chambers of Commerce Director General Adam Marshall said.

But even beyond the economy, returning to lockdowns will have drastic unforeseen and unintended consequences for Britains people.

Locking people inside their homes fuels social isolation and despair.

This, tragically, will lead to more suicide and depression. We wont have complete figures on the full toll lockdowns have taken for years to come, yet we do already have compelling evidence that they are severely harming mental health.

Suicides are up nearly 100% among young people in Wisconsins second most-populous county, for example. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 1 in 4 young adults contemplated suicide during the summer amid the pandemic.

Other unintended consequences abound. For example, COVID-19 lockdowns have led to a rise in domestic violence as vulnerable people are trapped at home with abusive partners.

These are extreme examples, but sweeping top-down government restrictions are always and inevitably going to incur unintended consequences. Why? Because of what economic philosopher Friedrich Hayek called the knowledge problem. Even beyond the economy, returning to lockdowns will have drastic unforeseen and unintended consequences for Britains people.

The ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them, Hayek wrote.

The principle is simple and true. Only those closest to a situation, at a decentralized and individual level, have enough information and familiarity to effectively and efficiently solve complex problems.

In London or anywhere, top-down efforts to solve vast societal ills from the offices of detached government bureaucrats are destined to fail.

Read the original:
The Many Perils of the UK's Return to Lockdown - Foundation for Economic Education

It features one baldhead, two bears and 42 lads, and Eli Matthewson has a theory about it.

The bible is a big old book. Much like Game of Thrones, only the truly committed have made it all the way through. Also much like Game of Thrones, were still waiting for the hyped-up final part. Ill be honest: I havent read the whole thing. But I have read just enough to uncover the buzziest two verses youll find in there. Here is a small but memorable part of the story of the Prophet Elisha:

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!

When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

Obviously, credit where credit is due: huge diversity win for the bible here. Its a pretty men-obsessed book, but here we get two female characters, who have a major impact on the story! (Obviously it would be better if they werent bears, but still a win.) And yet, despite that, one cant help but ask what the heck is going on here?

I was raised in the church and it was a major part of my life growing up, and Im pretty sure this story never featured in any service I attended. That said, I wasnt the best listener, I was much more into the moshing-at-Parachute part of Christianity than the hour-long-sermons-with-no jokes part, so I may have missed it. Since leaving and becoming a member of the queer community (huge few weeks for us the rainbow parliament and Carole Baskin!) Ive always been struck by the way the few small verses about homosexuality have inspired hundreds and thousands of passionate sermons while others, like the one that suggests you should gather the whole town to throw stones at your daughter if she is not a virgin, dont get so much publicity.

In these two verses 42 children receive the pretty nasty punishment of mauling by bears for using the not particularly creative insult baldhead. These 42 kids are not mentioned before this moment or ever again, and, as bad is bullying is, I just dont think its bad enough that you should get immediately eaten. Given Gods reputation for answering prayers in his own, mysterious time this immediate action to support little baldhead makes it seem like he must have had a pretty good reason to punish these youths so quickly.

Ive searched across the internet, and deeply confused my Facebook algorithm, to try and find a reasonable interpretation of this story. There isnt one. A lot of time is spent arguing that the word youths could mean men up to the age of 28, but I would argue that it sounds more like they are 12 and also even 28 year-olds probably dont deserve this. Over at Catholic.com they explain that these youths may have been running some type of illegal water cartel, and their insensitivity to male-pattern baldness was just what pushed it over the edge. They also add a theory that god thought Elisha overreacted and thats why he was ill later in his life (a brutal move by god considering it definitely seems like he gave the bears the go-ahead).

This Jordan Peterson loving Youtuber makes an obscure comparison to the Me Too movement and uses the term she bears a lot. Christian blog 1517 suggests context around the location this story takes place suggests these bullies were idol-worshippers, trying to cast Christs prophets out of their town, and thus this is punishment for their idolatry. Christian Index cites a pretty racist-sounding comparison of these youths to a serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. None of this is good enough to me. Two bears ate over 40 kids. What are we meant to learn?

Heres my take: I reckon this story could be a self-aware parable on the sensitivity of old, straight, white men. Perhaps instead of siding with baldhead, we are meant to observe how the ego of a powerful prophet can be so easily broken. Despite being able to perform miracles and having the all-powerful god on his side, it doesnt take much to upset this guy. And by extension, when this straight-white-man-in-power gets upset he enlists the help of his fellow straight-white-man-in-power, God, who cant resist pushing his emergency bear trigger right away. Maybe this is a story about how men are often actually too emotional to be given positions of power, but expect they will be able to handle it because they get too many examples of other men in power. Maybe its about the Todd Muller effect. Maybe?

Look, I dont know if my interpretation is correct. In fact, its almost definitely not. But I also cant see a reasonable explanation for this wild story. And so, to anyone of faith who has a legitimate defence of this buzzy part of the bible, can I say, with absolute sincerity: sound off in the comments, babes.

The Spinoff Daily gets you all the day's best reading in one handy package, fresh to your inbox Monday-Friday at 5pm.

More here:
I just found the buzziest bit in the Bible and Im reeling - The Spinoff

(ThereBryce Petrantonio (25) finds daylight for the Mountaineers, pursued by Gwinns Carl Peterson (3). Gabe Richtig, who rushed for 118 yards, gets a block from the Mountaineers Lucas Maxon (52). (Theresa Proudfit/Daily News photos) Iron Mountains Caleb Burklund (33) finds a gap after taking a handoff from quarterback Eli Lofholm (4) as Gwinns Levi Dupras (54) looks to defend in an MHSAA Division 8 playoff game Friday night at Mountaineer Stadium.

(Theresa Proudfit/Daily News photos) Iron Mountains Caleb Burklund (33) finds a gap after taking a handoff from quarterback Eli Lofholm (4) as Gwinns Levi Dupras (54) looks to defend in an MHSAA Division 8 playoff game Friday night at Mountaineer Stadium.

IRON MOUNTAIN In their first game in 42 days, Iron Mountain cruised past Gwinn, 56-8, in an MHSAA Division 8 football playoff matchup Friday night at Mountaineer Stadium.

In what was the Modeltowners first second-round playoff game in 21 years, the Mountaineers scored on the third play of their second possession. Senior Caleb Burklund powered for a 48-yard touchdown to put IM ahead 7-0.

After Gwinn turned the ball over on downs, Burklund found the end zone once again, this time from 13 yards out.

We played well tonight, in all areas. Were happy to get a home playoff win, said Mountaineers head coach Robin Marttila. We had several different playmakers make plays tonight.

He alluded to the fact that Friday nights contest was basically a Week 1 game all over again. Our offense got off to a bit of a slow start, but we shook it off and went from there, Marttila said.

Gabe Richtig, who rushed for 118 yards, gets a block from the Mountaineers Lucas Maxon (52).

Early in the second quarter, the Mountaineers extended their lead to 21-0 on a halfback option pass from Caleb Evosevich-Hynes to Bryce Pietrantonio for a 46-yard touchdown. Pietrantonio added a successful 2-point conversion run.

The Mountaineers next possession, after a Gwinn punt, saw Burklund race for 37 more yards, setting up an Eli Lofhom 21-yard touchdown pass to Joey Dumais to extend Iron Mountains lead to 28-0 at halftime.

On Iron Mountains first play from scrimmage in the second half, junior running back Gabe Richtig exploded down the home sideline for 59-yard touchdown. That TD put the contest into a running clock mode.

Gabe Richtig ran the ball well tonight, Marttila said. Richtig, who rushed for 118 yards to lead the Mountaineers, added a second touchdown run less than four minuets later, this time from 38 yards out.

Kudos to our defensive secondary, they played a great game, especially considering how much Gwinn passed the ball tonight. We didnt give away any big plays, Marttila said. Our offensive and defensive lines did a great job tonight as well.

(ThereBryce Petrantonio (25) finds daylight for the Mountaineers, pursued by Gwinns Carl Peterson (3).

Pietrantonio picked off a Mastin Love pass late in the third quarter and returned it 68 yards for a touchdown.

Burklund, who rushed for 111 yards, added an extra element to the Mountaineers already explosive offense by gaining yardage running between the tackles.

We knew Gwinn was going to take away the edge tonight, keeping Evo (Evosevich-Hynes) in check. Caleb Burklund, when he gets a full head of steam, good luck tackling him, Marttila said.

Gwinn, who kept playing hard throughout the game, notched a late touchdown on a Carl Peterson 39-yard run. The Modeltowners defeated East Jordan last Friday night the teams first playoff win since defeating Whittemore-Prescott in a Division 6 regional final in 1999.

We came out in a spread offense to try to throw something at them, that they have never seen from us before, in hopes to catch them off guard, said first-year Gwinn head coach Ben Olsen. We knew how good they could be, and hoped to stay with them. But they ran up and down the field on us tonight.

Olsen noted that the 200-plus combined yards from Burklund and Richtig were frustrating, because his teams game plan was to take away Evosevich-Hynes.

They have so many playmakers, take one away, and another one steps up, he said.

The Modeltowners finished 4-4. Olsen, an Iron Mountain native, took the helm after the unexpected death of former head coach Dion Brown in late January.

Our seniors, who well miss tremendously, pushed our younger guys, and showed them what they needed to do to become good football players, Olsen said. Hopefully with our success this year, having won a playoff game, we keep things in our program moving forward.

Iron Mountain, who improves to 7-1 on the season, will host the winner of todays Bark River-Harris at West Iron game, with the date and time to be determined.

The Broncos and Wykons kick off at 1 p.m. at Nelson Field in Stambaugh.

Gwinn 0 0 0 8 8

Iron Mountain 13 15 21 7 56

1st Quarter

IM- Caleb Burklund 48 yard run (Caleb Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 6:57, 7-0

IM- Burklund 13 yard run, (Kick failed) 2:17, 13-0

2nd Quarter

IM- Bryce Pietrantonio 46 yard reception from Evosevich-Hynes (Pietrantonio run) 11:17, 21-0

IM- Joey Dumais 21 yard reception from Eli Lofholm (Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 5:17, 28-0

3rd Quarter

IM- Gabe Richtig 59 yard run (Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 11:43, 35-0

IM- Richtig 38 yard run (Evosevich-Hynes Kick) 7:54, 42-0

IM- Pietrantonio 68 yard interception return (Brandon Farragh kick) 2:57, 49-0

4th Quarter

IM-Luke Wolfe 5 yard run (Farragh kick) 9:20, 56-0

G- Carl Peterson 39 yard run (Reid Hill Run) 6:17, 56-8

Iron Mountain stats

Total Yards- 353

Rushing: 26-286

Gabe Richtig, 4-118, 2 TD

Caleb Burklund, 7-111, 2 TD

Passing: 2-7, 67 yards

Defensive

Evosevich-Hynes- 6 tackles

Jon Carrion- 8 total tackles, 2 assists

Dumais- 5 total tackles, 1 sack

Pietrantonio- 4 total tackles, 1 INT

Brendan LaPoint- 5 tackles

Burklund- 2 sacks

Lucas Maxon-4 total tackles, 1 sack

Gwinn stats

Total yards- 176

Passing-102

Rushing: 24-74

7 total first downs

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the original here:
No signs of rust for Mountaineers | News, Sports, Jobs - The Daily news - Iron Mountain Daily News

Nov 4, 2020

Tory Z. RoyESPN

As the final seconds of the Kansas City Chiefs vs. New England Patriots Week 4 matchup ticked away, Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes took a knee to solidify a 26-10 victory.

When he stood up, a handful of Patriots headed his way, eager to acknowledge the reigning Super Bowl MVP as well as show their respect.

After quickly clasping hands with defensive lineman Byron Cowart, then linebacker Anfernee Jennings, Mahomes turned and faced cornerback Stephon Gilmore, who was waiting his turn. As Mahomes leaned his right shoulder toward Gilmore's chest, the two players did the unthinkable.

2 Related

They hugged.

Once a normal postgame ritual, hugging during the coronavirus pandemic has been eschewed. Gilmore later tested positive for COVID-19 and Mahomes, despite the contact, did not contract the virus.

The postgame personal contact isn't the only casualty in the war against COVID-19. The NFL has stopped another beloved player tradition: the swapping of jerseys in person after the game.

The NFL announced in July the trading of jerseys among players would be forbidden in 2020, and players were quick to respond.

San Francisco 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman quipped on Twitter (with multiple LOL emojis): "This is a perfect example of the NFL thinking in a nutshell. Players can go engage in a full contact game and do it safely. However, it is deemed unsafe for them to exchange jerseys after said game."

"It's silly," Houston Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson said when he learned the league was prohibiting jersey swapping. "You're saying we can play 60 minutes or more tackling each other, then after the game, we can't go switch jerseys? It doesn't make sense."

After more pushback from players, the league came up with a compromise. Days before the 2020 NFL season kicked off in September, the rule was amended so that players could swap jerseys, but it must be done through the teams' equipment managers. The jerseys belonging to the players who are wanting to swap will be washed and then shipped in the mail.

"It's a dope opportunity to still be able to [jersey swap]," said Las Vegas Raiders running back Josh Jacobs, who told his equipment manager, Bob Romanski, that he wanted to swap jerseys with Buffalo Bills wide receiver Stefon Diggs prior to their Week 4 matchup.

The Bills' defense held Jacobs to 48 rushing yards on 15 carries, his lowest total of the season through eight weeks, but receiving a delivered jersey in the mail a few days later might have helped Jacobs temporarily forget about the 30-23 loss to Buffalo.

"It's honestly like a trophy when you get their jersey," Jacobs said. "When it arrives, it's presented to you in a box. It's like Christmas almost."

Like the brief high-fives or fist bumps Patriots players snagged from Mahomes after the game, a freshly signed jersey from your opponent is the ultimate token of sportsmanship and respect among competitors.

Or, in some cases, the trade signifies an acknowledgement of excellence from your peers.

Game picks from our NFL experts PickCenter | ESPN Chalk More NFL coverage

Since their rookie seasons in 2017, Carolina Panthers running back Christian McCaffrey and Los Angeles Chargers running back Austin Ekeler are two of four NFL players who have at least 1,500 rushing yards and 1,500 receiving yards. The others are New Orleans Saints running back Alvin Kamara and Atlanta Falcons running back Todd Gurley II.

"It's got to be something sentimental behind it," said Ekeler on his selection process for swapping jerseys.

"McCaffrey and I trained together [in Colorado]. He was a high prospect coming in, and I was this guy on the side ... Austin Ekeler, from a Division II school. I was always comparing myself and my measurables to him and trying to see like, 'OK, how do I compare to these guys?' It just helped me push myself mentally and physically."

Regardless of the reason or the relationship, players have their own protocols in place when it comes to making the transaction.

"If you haven't had conversations before, like in DMs, then you let them know before the game, 'Hey, man, if you wanna jersey swap, I'm down with it,'" said Colts linebacker Darius Leonard, who lists jerseys from Tennessee's Derrick Henry, Watson and McCaffrey among the highlights of his collection.

"Or there's times where you don't realize you're going to swap with someone who is under the radar. You could walk up to him and say, 'Hey, man, you had one helluva game. I want to jersey swap.' You're just showing respect."

"You make it sound so inorganic!" Saints defensive end Cameron Jordan said with a laugh when asked to describe how the process of swapping jerseys happens. Then, he elaborated.

"It's usually organic: 'Hey, bro. Been meaning to get that jersey. Run it.'

"'Hey, bro, really love your game.'

"'Hey, bro. Let's flip jerseys.'"

Jordan is the proud owner of dozens of jerseys once donned by those whom he considers legends in the game: tight end Jason Witten, running back Adrian Peterson and defensive end Von Miller, for starters. His prized possession, though, is the last game-worn jersey of former Panthers defensive end and future Pro Football Hall of Famer Julius Peppers.

But as simplistic as trading jerseys with opponents might seem, there remains an unspoken code.

One-sided adulation is usually not part of the transaction: otherwise things can get ... awkward.

4:48

Players from across the league are used to trading jerseys on the field after games, but because of the NFL's coronavirus protocols, the jersey swap tradition has been completely transformed.

"Every now and then," Jordan said, "you get offensive linemen who ask for your jersey. As a defensive end, you aren't really inclined to run that jersey, but as a man, you sort of have to.

"Or you're a practice squad guy and you've played no snaps. You're like, 'Hey, man, switch jerseys?'"

Jordan shrugged his shoulders slowly, dramatically, and paused. "Now ... you're putting me in a bad position. I don't want your jersey, I don't know you. So I guess this is a one-way deal.

"You don't just walk up to a legend like, 'Hey, run me your jersey.' There's an order there."

For example, asking Peppers to swap jerseys?

"Oh, I made sure my credentials were right," Jordan said. "I was three or four Pro Bowls in.

"I wanted to make sure I wasn't a scrub."

Go here to read the rest:
Wash, rinse and repeat - NFL players still swap jerseys, but it's different in 2020 amid COVID-19 - ESPN