We don’t have to use one broken market (airline seats) as a model for another broken market (concerts).

Anyway back to the top post - a Dutch auction foods almost all these issues without weird rules.

A Dutch auction kills first day sales and would affect those who need to plan ahead. It will create less ticket sales for medium tiered acts.

Do we (the consumers) care about first day sales?

And maybe we only do dutch auctions for the big acts that have the worst issues with scalping and whatnot.

Metal detectors or whatever other measures are a more direct solution

Just wait until you get older and need to increase the font size. Now you're down to 2 words/line and you get carpal tunnel or De Quervain's from the constant clicking to page. I'm only half kidding.

The article hints that they are dying - the holding company is looking to offload them because profits are down.

I did not explain myself well enough.

The essay show the timescale for "getting bought out, for their products to be reamed out, for the brand to be discarded" is 20 years or more, dating from the Eagle Creek purchase to the current "potentially up for sale."

That's a long time.

That means Theodores is also okay with the same decades-long process happening to "your power tools, your boots, your sunglasses, and about a dozen other product categories where a company you trusted quietly got absorbed by a corporation you've never heard of."

And after a new company X gains market share for its quality, we should expect the vulture capitalists to come swooping by again.

On the environmental side, every one of these packs is plastic waste after 18 months rather than 10 years.

It also means the methods people use to assess quality, despite omnipresent supercomputer phones and video-quality wireless networking, is ineffective, and manufacturers worsen their products knowing that. Why hasn't it gotten better?

So no, I don't see how Theodores comment about the chain of events should make anyone else also feel okay with it.

The "simple" answer is "markets aren't like textbooks".

Consumers are lazy and greedy.

The side effect of which is not-strict-enough regulation of negative externalities. In a perfect world, people would care about the downstream environment impact at least as much as they do about their time/money. But, they don't.

I don't disagree in principle. But, as a consumer, this makes purchasing a bit more complicated. BITD, I could just buy an EastPak or JanSport and be fairly sure it was a good bag. Not much thought or analysis required. Today, I have to dig through 100s of brands I've never heard, with most of their ad budget spent on influencers who maybe can't be trusted. It's not a recipe for a healthy market.

If you feel like spending several hundred dollars on a backpack (big if, I know), I can personally vouch for https://www.seventeenthirtythree.com/. It's more or less a one man show, and the guy is very obsessive about sourcing materials & assembly. Advertising is all word-of-mouth as far as I know. I at times feel anxious about his long term prospects for the exact reasons mentioned in the OP article - I have a backpack from this shop that's about a decade old and has zero visible wear. I think, in order to make this business model work, it's pretty much impossible to scale.

In this case, unlimited means literally everywhere.

You do have the right to go barefoot in your own home. And in true public spaces.

But, a property owner can require shoes. Do I care if somebody is barefoot in the local grocer? No, not really. But, the proprietor might because they want to limit their liability (should something fall on your foot, a cart run it over, or a loose tack/nail somehow land in an aisle, etc).

Except the are companies with which you effectively must do business.

Microsoft (or Apple).

Any web host, payment processor, etc that's contracted to do work for your local government (I suppose you could try driving to the government office and pay by check, but then you need to give consent to Ford or Chevy).

Short of living like a hermit, there's no practical way to avoid all ridiculous T&C.

tl;dr - for the same reason as any other coastline or complex border.

Also, it annoys me that the trail in question is advertised as allowing one to walk the entire English coast - but fails to mention Wales and Scotland are in the way (the trail is not contiguous).

Assuming they specifically do advertise that you can walk the entire English coast, then it is accurate, as Wales and Scotland are not England.

unless they have edited they do not say Wales and Scotland are England, they complain the trail is not contiguous, which to be fair might also be implied by the fact that Wales and Scotland are not England but I guess I could see a scenario that allowed made the trail contiguous, which would still allow you to walk the English coast, but also of course allow you to walk some other parts that are not on the coast.

I would assume now that they have added the Welsh path to this one that it is now "technically" contiguous, though not yet circular around the whole British mainland until someone does something about Scotland.

Don't forget about state parks. Many of them are GORGEOUS. Many of them have fantastic facilities. And most of them are less popular than NPs.

"Whites are under threat" + "immigrants are bad" ~= white homeland. Strip away the name and his posts could be any generic white supremacist.