Can someone enlighten me on why exchanges created their me-too coins in the first place? As a way to move out of crypto into a sort of non-fiat purgatory before taking a position again later on? Like, why does BNB even need to exist?
BNB and FTT exist(ed) so their exchanges can raise/create a lot of money. It's a little similar to why stocks exist, which is why they are clearly securities.
At least ProtonMail is working towards full compatibility with the OpenPGP standard, thereby allowing non-Protonmail users to encrypt emails using a standard PGP key - according to their stated roadmap, ProtonMail will eventually allow you to export your keypair and will also allow you to upload keys you've generated outside of their service instead of relying on their service to do the key generation.
Tutanota has implemented their own variation of encryption which is not OpenPGP compliant. Their justification for this deviation rests on their desire to be able to encrypt all aspects of communications (metadata, subject, etc) while PGP doesn't not offer this.
Law school bar pass rates and first year associate salaries are not what they used to be. According to http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/pf/jobs/lawyer-salaries/ , the median salary for a first year associate is $62k. Add to the mix that law schools inflate their employment stats by including people whose jobs have nothing to do with the law, and what you get is students suing their law schools for fraud (e.g. http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/pf/college/lawsuit-thomas-je...)
A JD is still a big step up for the sorts of people who get them. Humanities majors as a group don't hit much more than $60k mid-career, and more than half of fresh college graduates are unemployed or working a job that doesn't require a college degree.
It clearly sounds like money is no obstacle, and perhaps this is due to the parents' return to Russia as heroes and subsequent plush career placements.
So while the kids's psyche are probably quite damaged, they won't be going hungry.
What about it? Not all speech is protected and there is a case to be made of the harm such speech poses. This is why we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
The bar for prior restraint based on content is pretty high. I believe it's "clear and present danger". You're likely to have a difficult time making the case that ads for allergy medications present a clear and present danger.
The bar for prior restraint on public airwaves is much lower. We'd be much better off if drug marketing were relegated to the shady corners of the internet for advertising.