I have a hard time even parsing this convoluted ideas. You are aware that most international travel and trade depends on friendly cooperation between nations. One-sided sanctions are, maybe, a last remedy, but not something any sane nation would imposed to defend the capabilities of a private company to illegally obtain data about foreign nationals to enforce what amounts, in the great scheme of things, to a trivial amount of fines.

There actually still is a data sharing agreement. But this now only applies to criminal cases. The one that would allow data sharing for civil violations went out the window with Brexit.

Not at all. The fines actually seem to be quite fine (pun obvius). What is not acceptable is that the license plate to holder information was obtained illegally. It's fully within the UKs remit to fine drivers for violations of their rules. It's not ok to illegally obtain information on car registration. That's what the UK gets for Brexit - less access to EU institutions and markets.

You seem to misunderstand something. Some shareholders want the proposal on the ballot. The company management does not. If it's on the ballot, then all shareholders get to decide wether to support it or not. Only if accepted does it set the direction of the company.

They did not excuse anything. They were asked about how their institutions then-current (i.e. most likely predating the current situation by months or more likely years) regulations would apply, not about their personal view or politics. We do live in a society where the divine right of kings and/or university presidents rarely is accepted to change free speech regulations at whim.

Neither of the events you mention took place at MIT (or at Harvard). Also, neither of the cases have any relevancy at all on the question asked. You can complain about inconsistent treatments of different groups on campuses, but that was not the question here.

Also, I see a couple of other difference. First of, Jews and Israelis are not the same group - not by a long shot. Israelis are not a disadvantaged minority in the US, they are, at most, tourists. Jews are a minority, and they are the subject of occasional hate attacks (mostly from the conspiratorial right), but I'd say it's a stretch to claim that they are a disadvantaged minority today. Jews are basically completely integrated with the dominant white population, and they are significantly above average in economic and educational achievements. African-Americans, on the other hand, have been consistently disadvantaged ever since most of their ancestors were brought to the US involuntarily. I find it quite normal and to be expected for a modern society to concentrate on the ongoing effects of their historical crimes than on much less pronounced problems.

And I do wonder how honest the current level of offence is, when 2017 many of the same commentators found little to complain about when a crowd of Nazis shouted antisemitic slogans - indeed, one found "good people on both sides".

Not quite. The question was not where the line should be drawn (which would be a question about her own opinion), but wether particular speech acts were automatically "harassment" under existing regulation. She answered that, as far as I can tell, correctly and to the best of her ability - basically, that a generic speech act would not be considered harassment, but that any such acts specifically directed towards individuals would.

I just looked at Kornbluth's scientific output over at Google Scholar, and she has significantly more than 100 published papers (her i10 is already 109), nearly 150000 citations, and an h-index of 66. In my experience, people like that, who actually get the PhD because they want to do real scientific work, not just as a career stepping stone, are very rarely plagiarising.

I suspect because it's not true in the universe most of us share?

Cory Doctorow's book Little Brother describes a similar situation and offers a number of ideas. With a keyword-based monitoring system, the simplest is to overload the watchers. We used to have the X-NSA-HEADER line for email and usenet, IIRC.

Osama, jihad, fertilizer, gasoline, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!

Maybe in the Dystopian States of Trumpism. Over here in old Europe, they don't have that right. Depending on local rules, they may install some software to monitor policies and productivity if the workers council (roughly equivalent to a union representative, but not quite) agrees, but they are certainly not allowed to monitor all behaviour and files non-stop.

Because individual action does not cure systemic problems.

You believe a press release by a company that is predicated on "securing the necessary funding"? Can I interest you in a bridge over the Hudson river?

Ummm...the article makes it clear that Russia has a quasi-monoply on HALEU (Uranium with a higher amount of U235 enrichment than used in conventional reactors, but lower than weapon-grade). HALEU is the fuel used in SMRs, and building an enrichment plant that produces this on an industrial scale is highly non-trivial and "economically challenging".

It also specifically discusses the case of replacing old coal plants as the strongest case for SMRs - just not strong enough. You must scroll beyond the first screen, of course...

Exactly. I contract (or don't) with Door Dash. They are responsible for the service, not some third-party they sub-contract with. If they can't deliver a decent service, they need to pay their drivers more. Or do without my business.

That is, of course, a very broken system. It motivates you to go into the office when sick, with low productivity, infecting your colleagues, and slowing recovery. In many other countries, sick means sick. You stay home and still get paid - by the company for a reasonable time, after that by the social security system. And, of course, you go see a doctor - also (mostly) free. And before anyone yammers about "it's not free, its paid by taxpayers": It's still an economic net benefit - fewer sick people, faster recovery, fewer problems only diagnosed when it's too late.