ricecake

They're both bad, but at least the hospital provides a service for its money. The insurance company makes all of its money finding ways to not pay for services someone else provides.

First, because I'm not naive and know that CEOs don't get large bonuses and stock grants for doing stuff like that, particularly not in the US health insurance industry.
Second, we know that since he started there they began programs like using AI in a fashion that had a preposterously high denial rate, and actively hurt elderly people.
this case, and others like it continued to happen during his tenure.
Finally, a company wouldn't do a program like that without mentioning it, since it would clearly make them a more appealing insurer.

Even if he didn't put the policies in place, he's still responsible for the conduct of the company under his supervision, and there's no indication he did anything other than act like what you would expect from an insurance company CEO. Maximizing profits by denying healthcare.

The CEO is ultimately responsible for the actions of the company. That's literally their job. They set policy, direction and strategy, and if we're to listen to what CEOs say they do,they also set the tone, attitude and energy of the company.

So unless the denials that resulted in death were done in opposition to corporate policy, the CEO is responsible for them.

Additionally, there was literally nothing stopping him from pushing a company policy of, as a thought, approving all claims involving minors, changing approval standards to only deny when the treatment was unequivocally unnecessary after a verbal consultation between the patients doctor and the insurance review doctor, and moving the balance of claim review to fraud investigation to recoup money after instead of denying upfront.

Kinda. It has to be a crime in both jurisdictions, and it's only between state and federal systems. Two different courts in the same state are under the same judicial authority, so they can't both try you.

If you commit bank robbery for example, you've invariably committed armed robbery in a state against an entity under federal jurisdiction. That means they can both prosecute.

The feds don't have jurisdiction for murder in a typical new York sidewalk.

From what we know about real hitmen, they tend to be unsettling, since a willingness to murder people is at minimum a sign of an indifference towards life.
They often buy not always have personality traits in common with serial killers.

Sometimes things line up in a way that seems intentional.

Well, I don't think you can separate his "personal" and "business" lives. I don't think you can be a great dude and go to work instituting policies that kill people for money.
Maybe he was funny and kind to people he knew, but he wasn't a different person from the person he was professionally.

It's called stochastic terrorism or stochastic violence. Essentially people are made increasingly angry and violence prone. Either the object of their anger is inaccessible or too diffuse to actually target.
As a result, random acts of semi-targetted violence become increasingly common. If your objective is to create an atmosphere where people have a higher baseline level of fear, which can drive irrational reactionary behavior, it does wonders. It's also great at increasing violent acts against people you dislike without explicitly calling for it.

You mentioned a handful of games without doing any research on them, and one of them accidentally proved my point.

You asked for a list of games that fit my "steam hasn't impacted pricing" statement, so I gave you games that had prices inline with what steam prices games at and industry standard. Like I explained in my previous comment. I know how much those games cost: between $50 and $70 dollars, which is what games have retailed at for decades.
Games on steam and off steam have had roughly the same price, and games not on steam have had perfectly reasonable times making sales. Except the one on epic.

They set the $50 price tag to maximize revenue

My point was that even with lowering the price to the low end of standard, they have had some difficulty getting enough revenue to cover the cost of the game.
If other retailers are able to compete just fine, and one isn't despite lowering prices and paying for exclusives, and it's the one that, as you mentioned, people complain about when they buy an exclusive, then maybe the issue is with that retailer.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1388073/average-price-of-video-games-by-platform/

If you want more discussion, you can Google "video game prices over time".

Given that you're starting to ignore large bits of replies and have been repeating yourself pretty consistently without expanding on the point, I'm not sure that there's much value in continuing. You think it's anticompetitive, I don't think it's so obvious. We'll see what the courts say.
Have a nice day, and I hope you find the same passion for your next endeavor. :)

So, a court document is an argument, not a smoking gun. The court didn't dismiss the case because it has enough merit to be argued, which just means it isn't plainly false at first glance. The court did dismiss earlier versions of their claim. Earlier versions being rejected and this one being allowed to move forward have little to do with anything.
Repeatedly asserting that it's "anticompetitive bullying" doesn't actually make it anticompetitive bullying.

This isn't going to end well for you when Valve becomes as openly evil as Google.

Lol, what do you think is going to happen to me? I think maybe you're taking this conversation too seriously.

Yes, Alan wake 2 was lower priced on epic than on consoles by about $10, after epic financed the game. it also has yet to turn a profit, with most revenue coming from titles that aren't exclusive to epic. You also ignored the list of other games I mentioned, each of which launched for $60 to $70 and wasn't on steam.
Half life 1 cost $60 on launch. Same for 2. Same for the original star craft. Same for basically every full featured game for years.
It's not "sus" that most games sell for the typical price for a game. It's a sign that valve isn't driving up prices, since prices are roughly the same regardless of platform, vendor or time, including when steam didn't exist yet.

I know you think you're arguing against a mindless steam fanboy, hence you're starting to break out some insulting language and condescension. I can assure you you're not, just like I assume I'm not dealing with a dense contrarian more interested in punishing valve for success than actual critical thinking.
I don't think that suing someone necessarily makes you right, and that a financially motivated lawsuit is an inherently slanted description of events, when the trial hasn't happened and none of the claims have even been responded to.

And of course it's not possible that they're despised and not doing well because people don't like their platform.

You still haven't convinced me that they are price fixing, to say nothing of it hurting consumers. Full feature games on steam are still around the same price console games are, and that games have been for many years. If they're price fixing to artificially inflate prices, they're doing it in a way that hasn't really kept up with inflation and has been in line with retailers on platforms they don't even sell on.

Listing your product on Steam isn't advertising.

They literally present your product to people as recommendations and make it discoverable by the people likely to buy it. No, it's not banner ads, but you use them because they get your game in front of consumers likely to buy it. That's the entire reason the platform has appeal to developers.

This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive

Yes. Because it's a worse store. People being upset that a thing they want has a hurdle they're not willing to jump over doesn't mean the preferable system is a problem.

Is it reasonable for Nordstrom to go after a company selling the same product at Wal-Mart cheaper?

If they signed a distribution agreement, then yes. It would almost be like a game signing an agreement to sell exclusively on the epic game store and then deciding to sell on steam anyway.

It's a flawed analogy though, because Nordstrom's and Walmart buy the product and then resell it, rather than facilitating a sale. Valve doesn't buy 50k licenses from you for $20 each and then try to sell them while keeping all the revenue for themselves.

They know their price fixing department would have to become a "watch for prices on other platforms and adjust our prices / cut to be competitive" department.

🙄 That would make sense if valve set the prices or adjusted their cut in real time.
Epic is allowed to compete with steam on price. Games don't have to be on steam to be successful. Valve has no way if stopping you from choosing to use a different store, and as you pointed out in the beginning: This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive. You can't be mad epic isn't "allowed" to compete when they're actively competing.