From a technical point of view you are right. But commercially, I am pretty sure many companies and developers that used to make Flash games now make mobile games. There are many mobile games that are ports of old Flash games.
It was on its way out when smartphones and HTML5 became widely adopted. Smartphones didn’t support Flash and HTML5 made sure that the things you used to need Flash for were just implemented in web browsers. Maybe you remember something along those lines.
Adobe Flash Player was deprecated some years ago, so there is no longer any functioning official software that can play Flash games. The modern equivalent are mobile games.
The reason why reimplementing it is a worthy thing to do is to preserve old software, same reason why console emulators exist.
I am fine with my current salary. None of the problems I have are due to having too little money. It is more that I have hardly any time to spend that money and live a fairly lonely life. None of that would be fixed by a higher salary, which is why I have little motivation to try to get promoted.
Free software doesn’t have owners. If someone else did a better job of being the “benevolent dictator” of a fork of Linux, everyone would start using that fork. Arguably this is a more free-market system than non-free software.
And by now we have so many worse threats to free communication on the Internet than the copyright industry, yet the Internet is nowhere near as united against any of them as in 2012. On the contrary, everyone now calls for censorship of the other side’s “misinformation”, “hate speech”, content “harmful to minors”, etc etc.
Debian testing. Seriously. That is reasonably easy to install and configure unlike Arch or Gentoo, but doesn’t come with “user friendly” corporate crap like Ubuntu and its derivatives.
For one sided propaganda for Palestine, try mondoweiss.net
Read all those and choose for yourself what parts of which sides you want to believe. Or don’t. You can also live in peace and happiness knowing that the conflict exists without thinking about it too much because in the end it doesn’t really matter what you think about it anyway.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize “reliable sources” and be neutral among them, but not give equal weight to “unreliable sources”.
Here’s the thing: people have by now figured out that if you first define sources that say things you like as “reliable” and sources that say things you don’t like as “unreliable”, then you can turn Wikipedia into a propaganda organ for whatever you want.
Wikipedia is neither an especially good source nor an especially bad one.