I would like to sell Fortnite skins and dances, but Epic prevents that, since they only allow them to be sold on their own Fortnite Store, using their own "V-Buck" currency. How anti-competitive!

That appears to be a design document for a proposal for new seats, not one reflecting current use. A quick glance at page 23 should show that to be true. Additionally, page 19 shows a 40 inch pitch in "economy". While very nice looking, it appears to have no relationship to reality.

This. Or you could even make the situation better by asking the person behind you if they mind if you recline, and if they do, offer to switch seats with them. Best part is that they'll be keeping their seat upright, so you'll get even more room when you recline. You get goodwill from your fellow human, you get more space for yourself, it's win-win. The only reason you wouldn't is because you're a short-sighted narcissistic asshat who isn't fit to participate in society.

Fine with me, but no more taxpayer-funded subsidies for airlines, then. If it's up to them and we have no say, then we also shouldn't have to pay for it.

Yes. The pivot point for the seat is below knee level. Consider, with an ideal two-dimensional chair, the "hinge" would be at the junction of the horizontal seat and vertical (or near-vertical) back, right? But if someone is sitting in that seat, the back of their thighs is against that horizontal seat and unless they also have two-dimensional legs, then their knee is going to have to be some distance above the horizontal seat, right? Like, if your legs are a slim 5 inches in thickness, then your knees end 5 inches above the seat at a minimum... and that's also 5 inches above that "ideal" hinge placement.

Now, think of non-ideal seats - the hinge is somewhere lower than the surface of the seat. After all, the seat cushion is going to compress and you don't want a pinch point.

Put those together and the hinge point for the back is at least half a foot lower than the knees, maybe more.

Then it's simple geometry. The back of the seat is usually about 2 feet in length, if the top of it moves back 1 foot when reclined, then at knee height, it's moving back at least 3 inches, and probably more since these are all conservative estimates. If your thigh is thicker, like, say, you're a tall person, your knee is going to be higher, which makes that worse. And there's certainly not 3 inches of space between your knees and the next seat. In fact, from this study, it's 2 inches.

Some newer airplane seats attempt to address this by having the seat (and pivot point) slide forward an inch or two when the seat reclines. That can help.

Police Are Telling ShotSpotter To Alter Evidence From Gunshot-Detecting AI: "testimony from ShotSpotter's favored expert witness[] suggests that the company's analysts frequently modify alerts at the request of police departments - some of which appear to be grasping for evidence that supports their narrative of events."

I don't think this works the way you think it works. Apple isn't sending your mail and attachments in plaintext to be scanned on their servers... The scanning happens on your device, comparing a hash of an image on your device to a library of hashes of child porn. Non-encrypted data never leaves your phone, and there's end-to-end encryption for just about everything.

There may be reasons to criticize this technology and policy, but "Apple's sending my mail in plaintext!" isn't one of them.

Why do you think that exception doesn't apply?

Not quite so clear. See the screenshot of the email in Jim's video. While the scammer used the other domain later, his initial phishing email appeared to be from google.com.

Doesn't sound like it is, though. FTA:

That's neither chance nor skill - there is no possibility of winning at those times. If you're playing poker and for four out of five hands, I don't actually give you playing cards, but, like... the joker or the card with the list of rules on it so that you can't make an actual poker hand, that's neither a game of skill nor chance. I'm just straight taking your money and providing you with no possibility of winning it back.

Now, if there was a random overshoot always applied, but the size of random range decreased with how recently a prize was given away, that would be a game of chance.

Looks like it. Flipping through my phone's weather data for a couple different cities, it tends to show even numbers in the 60s - 64, 66, 68, 70 - and not the odd numbers, but in the 70s, it's odd numbers and not evens - 73, 75, 79. In the 80s, I see 81, 82, 84, 86, and in the 50s, I see 52, 54, 55, and 57...

And now testing it in Excel, you're exactly right - all of those numbers are single degrees in C, converted to F, and then rounded to the nearest integer. You can only get the following values in F: 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 100, 102...

So, yeah, you got it.

Notice how everyone disagreeing with your post focuses on idea #1 and are entirely silent on idea #2? With the former, they can pound their table about "they made their choice, let 'em burn" and the like and that plays into their conservative biases. The latter, however, is the real issue - low-interest student loan programs were originally created to expand the range of people that could go to college, but in response, the colleges jacked up their tuition well beyond inflation or wage increases. It's now a wealth transfer system from the taxpayers and students to the administrators and their friends.

So yeah, make colleges liable for student debt. Maybe make it apply to majors where greater than a threshold (10%? 25%) of their graduates are unemployed or underemployed within 3 years of graduation. Make the career development offices actually do some industry research and forecasting. If there's one position for a master's in film arts a year, then they shouldn't be urging dozens of students to study that, they should be urging one student to do so.

Sony v. Tenenbaum was an RIAA case. The one your article is referring to is Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset, and it was specifically about her willful distributing the works by "making them available" on a peer-to-peer network (e.g. by leaving them in the sharing folder). From the second paragraph of your link:

Journalists frequently just describe them as going after downloaders, but that's poor journalism. It's always sharers - leeching (downloading without uploading) is technically illegal, but almost impossible to prosecute for the reasons I noted above. It's one of the reasons behind alternate Torrent clients like BitThief or BitTyrant.

While the rest of your comment is spot on, the above should be tempered with the knowledge that the publishers haven't gone after individual downloaders (See, e.g., Sony v. Tenenbaum). Both in the Napster and BitTorrent eras, they've gone after uploaders - there's both a technical and legal reason for this.
Technically, it's much easier to identify an uploader than a downloader: you find someone hosting the file, block all other potential servers, and download a full copy from them. Boom, you just proved distribution. But for a downloader, they have to get the full copy of the file from you, and if they hit any other servers, well, you can't be sure that they weren't getting a licensed copy somehow.
Legally, someone who purely downloads may be format shifting - maybe they have a hard copy of the DVD or CD and are just downloading it rather than ripping it. It hasn't been tested, but there's a strong argument under Sony v. Betamax that that may be legal. Regardless, it's not one that the publishers want to test. Additionally, if they did download a full copy from you - see above regarding the technical difficulty - there's an argument that they just got a licensed copy... after all, you put up the server to catch downloaders and made it available for download, so they may have an implied license. Again, not anything the publishers want to test in court.

So, really, all of these cases are the same on that front - they're about illegal distribution. The real distinction is profit vs. non-profit, but that's already worked into the law - doing it for profit can be criminally charged under 17 USC 506, while doing it not for profit is limited to just civil damages and injunctions. So yes, this is unlike Tenenbaum and similar cases from the late 90s/early 2000s, but not because those cases were egregious examples of the publishers going after small downloaders.

Disclaimer: I'm an IP attorney; not your attorney; this is not legal advice; etc.

Everyone wants a redefinition - that's how antitrust suits work. Depending on how you define the relevant market, anything can or cannot be considered a monopoly. Epic has a monopoly on sale of V-bucks and Fortnite skins and animations, if the relevant market is the Fortnite store. Ford has a monopoly on selling F150s. Microsoft has a monopoly on selling Windows. Apple has a monopoly on distributing iOS apps. But are any of those the proper definition of the market? There are lots of competing games with microtransactions, trucks, operating systems, and mobile app stores. Why should we define the market here so narrowly as to exclude the Google App store from consideration as a competing platform? There has to be more of a reason than "iOS devices can't run Android apps", because that also works in reverse - Android devices can't run iOS apps.