A lot of people already suggests several databases or plaintexts like json.

But to be honest if the dataset is not too big and doesn't grow (since it is historical anyway), why not just use markdown with Hugo (a static site generator). You could also make use of its supported search tools to search texts in the stories.

As a bonus, since it's a static website, you can host it and share it to the world!

It's as if Toyota and Samsung are adjectives just as the word "dangerous" and "mortal" can be used as an adjective.

The image of asian women in their traditional clothing hints of them gossiping. They are probably talking about some event and one of them comment "Toyota, Samsung, even" to remark the positive/negative significance of the event.

What if it's yellow? That's what I want to find out.

This isn't really about winning or losing (defined by what, exactly? Upvotes? Lol)

It's good argument on differing ideas.

And I only mentioned price caps because you mentioned capping houses owned. Not my intention to strawman you.

You're saying there's plenty of homes as if they are natural resources to be distributed. They aren't. Someone who spends money to build the homes and covers the costs necessary to even start building the homes need to get their return.

Even if they are natural resources to be distributed and enough houses already exists, what are you proposing? Just give the homes away?

You're paying a house and now its worth is more than double the amount you paid 17 years. Sorry, you're an idiot if you think there's a "correct" price of anything. That's the point of prices in market economy. They rise and fall depends on countless economic circumstances. I don't think your old house lives in a vacuum not affected by the economic changes surrounding your town/city or neighborhood.

If you're thinking about housing price cap, let's even stop this discussion because clearly you are not familiar about macroeconomic causes and effects.

Limiting the number of homes people can own will reduce the incentives for people or real estate developers to build more. You may end up with lower supply of homes, which may drive up price.

Modern economies usually depends on economies of scale to make profits. Imagine if a law was passed to limit the number of groceries people can buy in a supermarket because the government think it'll help poor people by hoping the law will drive down price. This would probably backfire, prompting the supermarket to buy less from distributors, and sell at a higher price because now they can't count on economies of scale.

In short, I'm saying your solution is naive.

Ideal reality: Google doesn't buy advantage from browsers to make their search engine the default. This way, other search engines can compete at the same level, right?

Reality: browser developers will have their income cut down because now their main source of income is dead (see recent news on Mozilla).

Usually these kinds of policies that may or may not come up out of goodwill results in unintended consequences that negatively affect others.

The winner here are the politicians.

I'm with you on this.

In this thread are people who screams monopoly, thinking they know what it means. One comment said Google is a monopoly, followed by "along with <other giant companies>"

They're giants because they're successful and good at what they do. They're successful because people are benefiting and find values from the products they use. The moment these giants stops "exploiting" people will be when they stop bringing values to society.

They've confused economic reality with their own ideal reality.

Maybe that isn't a problem