What about Miyamoto? or to a lesser extent Suda51? There's also John Carmack/Romero, Gabe Newell - maybe the trick is being associated with a long string of successful and unique games with a common thread between them.
Roberta and Ken Williams were big PC adventure game celebrities, too — and eventually their company, Sierra (at the time owned by Vivendi), published Gabe Newell’s Half-Life.
You can also go on the radio and accuse your boss of whatever you like in the US as well. You might get sued by your boss in civil court, but the police will not come after you.
You can also deny the Holocaust, that the earth is round, that people have landed on the moon, or anything else. An unfortunate side effect of freedom is that other people will be allowed to say things that you dislike.
The distinction between civil and criminal law isn't terribly relevant here. You can be found liable in civil court for all of the things listed in the first two paragraphs.
Its entirely relevant. Your speech is subject to civil law, never criminal law, because speech is free. If it is somehow subject to criminal law its not really the speech that is, but some other act which the speech is facilitating.
Yelling fire in a theater isn't illegal, but deliberately doing something that will cause a panic is.
It isn't pertinent to the conversation re: europe. Also, it's false, you can be imprisoned for inciting violence (or taking other unlawful action) in the United States. Finally, there isn't a categorical distinction between having speech restricted by a suit brought in civil court vs in criminal court: in both cases my speech is curtailed by law.
I drew the obvious contrast with most of the rest of the world in the parent comment, I have nothing more to say there.
Any market in which you, at the moment you need its goods or services, cannot reasonably be expected to evaluate multiple options, due to the urgency of the need, cannot be considered free.
Yes, obviously, we all need food, but I have some in my refrigerator now, and I ate breakfast this morning, so I have some time to decide whether to go to Price Chopper, Wegman's, or Hannaford to buy my next week's meals. Even in the most urgent circumstance (someone who is literally starving right now), the choice of which grocery store to go to to purchase the food that will save their life is a fairly small decision: most will have something that can serve that need for a vaguely reasonable price, and then that decision will be done, and they'll have the time to consider, "But do I want to go to that one for my next food purchase, or is one that's farther away a better option?"
Healthcare can sometimes be like that. We have some freedom to shop around and choose where to get elective surgeries, ongoing maintenance/preventative care, etc. But if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, even assuming I were conscious and coherent enough to make such a choice, I wouldn't be in a position to say, "No, I don't want to go to the closest hospital; I want to go to the one three counties over, because their trauma ward is better." If I waited that long, I'd die.
Furthermore, the vast majority of Americans don't have any meaningful choice in their health insurance provider. They get it through their employer, paying out of pocket would be prohibitively expensive, and the employer isn't just going to give you what they'd be paying for your plan so you can buy another. For those who have to pay out of pocket, there still aren't great options, because the vast majority of insurance plans that are remotely within reach of people who don't have the absurd luck to get six-to-seven-figure Silicon Valley-style salaries are high-deductible plans, meaning you're still going to be paying thousands upon thousands of dollars out of pocket for care if anything happens. And then there's the issues with figuring out what's in-network and what's not...
Put simply, the healthcare "market" in America is not merely un-free because it is fundamentally coercive, it is also deliberately obfuscatory in terms of what you get for your money, and even how much you'll have to pay in many cases—and remember, a free market absolutely relies on full information.
It looks to me that the relevant part of that video is at 2:06, where he mentions a news camera filming. That section is much darker than the earlier footage, but the camera is waving around making it difficult to get a clear idea.
Here, I screencapped the same scene in the two videos:
https://imgur.com/a/LiISl (note the signs on either side of the road, the street lights, the hill on the right-hand side, the building with lit sign in the background, the purple light on the left-hand side, etc.)
Beware of these folks. When I interviewed (when they posted a remote job here before) they told me after wasting a bunch of time that they aren't actually looking for remote devs. It's not clear why they keep posting remote listings here.
This exact same blurb was posted last month, but when I spoke to them, they claimed that the "REMOTE" tag was "accidental". This is not a remote position, not sure why they keep adding that tag to their hiring posts.
