What indications do you have that both of the above statements/sentiments are/were wrong? I.e., that with less taunts, the negotiations wouldn't be further along, or any indication that Trump knew what he was doing with his taunts?

North Korea came to the table after they finally demonstrated that they can hit Japan with a nuclear bomb, and possibly even the US. Additionally, their testing mountain complex has become very unstable with the latest tests, so they're abandoning it (presenting that move as a token of goodwill). In other words, there is little they can gain with further "tests" and they now have what they wanted: they're a nuclear power and hence have to be treated as one at the negotiation table. Unlike Iran, for that matter.

It's in the last two sentences of the summary:

Granted, the "Last Month" is wrong. It was three months ago.

Being disrespectful because of people's race/gender/etc is not welcoming to said people.

It does. It says to be equally welcoming to everyone.

What generally happens when people get a UBI, is that they start doing things they like, which in many cases involves starting their own business. They get that possibility because they don't have to fear that it will not be economically profitable, or not sufficiently profitable in a short enough time frame. Additionally, those people can also train/retrain much more easily since they don't have to do it while holding another job.

This is not communism.

Between 1950 and 1980, the US had a constant top federal income tax rate of over 70%. I'm not aware of any unhealthy effects that had. Additionally, a UBI does not mean that everyone earns the same. Everyone can earn as much as they want on top of their UBI. You do need taxes to pay for UBI, and even if you deduct the savings from having reduced poverty, getting rid of entire administrations etc, you still have a net gain from working. If that's work that you actually like, then you're more likely to do it rather than sit at home all day.

Actually, that's not what happens in practice.

Hence you would have to create a proper incentive. A UBI would actually turn the labour market into a real functioning market, with real bargaining power on both the supply and demand side.

Or, in other words, "Why garbage collectors should earn more than bankers".

Humans are guaranteed to die, need sleep, have limited mental capacity regarding keeping track of what others are doing (even with the help of computers), can't do everything alone and need the help from others (that may start rebelling). AIs do not necessarily have any of these limitations (at least not in a way that matters in practice; i.e., they will necessarily have limited processing power, but this could be way more than what is needed).

99.9% of WINE is the re-implementation of Microsoft libraries, just like Google reimplemented the Java libraries. There is no difference. You could just as well call the JVM an operating system, which in several ways it is.

Most of the WINE developers are employed by CodeWeavers, which sells a commercialised version of WINE.

Microsoft is trying to transforming itself into an advertising platform. Everyone that runs Windows applications without sending in as much usage data as possible to Microsoft is a loss for Microsoft.

The "commercial/exploitation rights" part of copyright are a tool to encourage innovation and competition (at least in jurisdictions that distinguish between the moral and the exploitation rights; in the US, the whole shebang is enshrined as intended to advance the useful arts etc). I don't see how extending them to cover APIs would help that.

It can even run macOS 10.13 (High Sierra) (the current latest version).

At least already in the US.

Also, one of those numbers you quoted (1,362) is about actually identified victims, while the 100,000 is an estimate. Estimates by definition are extrapolations of actually identified cases.

It is indeed very hard to accurately estimate the numbers. In case you're interested, here's some more background about the issue (including the fact that until December 2000, there wasn't even a generally accepted definition of "trafficking"), and numbers from various (US and other) institutions.

Not really, even if you limit yourself to the US and "modern day history".

The Council of Ministers are not Eurocrats. The Council of Ministers is literally a collection of ministers from the national governments of the countries in the EU. Depending on the topic at hand, different ministers meet under this umbrella name.

In fact, the Council of Ministers is the one branch of the EU that is supposed to prevent the EU from being too Euro-centric and to forget about national interests. In practice, of course, national governments use it to introduce positions that are unpopular at home, so they can then blame them on the evil EU. Fortunately, it is often (but definitely not always) the European Parliament that blocks, or at least weakens these things (although I know that part of this is a political game, where extremes are introduced so that later supposed "compromises" can be reached that are still horribly bad).