They report both.

In the case of Food/Energy, they're often very volatile, so sometimes it's useful to subtract them out. Basically, they're very 'noisy'- you'll have big jumps up and down depending on supply/demand, but that can obscure the actual trend. For example, you might have a spike in energy prices one month because a bunch of oil rigs were down, but they'll be back up and running next month. So it doesn't necessarily tell you anything useful to include that one month spike. When you subtract off Food/Energy, this is "core" CPI. But there is also 'normal' CPI which does include Food/Energy.

In the case of housing, those are considered assets. CPI measures consumption. They do include the 'consumption' part of housing, basically measuring what you would've paid in rent. So they try to basically split the consumption part (which is counted) from the asset part (not counted)

>Could really big acts enact a vendetta against Ticketmaster, and insist on playing (for example) in nothing but outdoor, Woodstock-like venues?

Groups like Pearljam have tried exactly that, and failed. And it really hurt the band's career. You would need many acts to work together (and also do so in a way that doesn't fall under anti-trust action of their own). That sort of collective action is very difficult, especially given the potential risk that it fails, or retaliation from Ticketmaster.

Ticketmaster has something like an ~85% market share. They're really, really big.

If they have a majority of shares in the company, yes. Companies have various internal rules (called bylaws) that dictate how decisions by the company are made. Generally speaking, those say if you have a majority, you can make binding decisions. If a minority could hold out, it'd make governing the company kind of impossible (also, it'd mean the minority had control over the majority's property)

There are exceptions/protections (you can't just vote to zero out those minority shares and not pay, for instance), but if you're in the minority of shares you're kind of along for the ride

> Okay, but what’s the end game?

They think there will be more interest in them in the future, as adoption increases. And that will drive more interest/demand.

So they're hoping by getting in early, they can be ready when the price spikes.

>Do they think that things will shift to a distopian future where everyone lives in their metaverse?

That's an exaggerated version, but yeah, more or less.