Landlords take risks. Sometimes this can pay off, as in your example of a train station that increases their gains, but sometimes it causes a loss. And that's how risks work. The "unearned" gain is part of a set of possibilties that averages out to a smaller gain or to nothing because it includes an equally unearned loss, and you're not proposing to compensate landlords for unearned losses.

If I were to flip a coin, and on heads you pay me $100 and on tails I pay you $110, it would be absurd to claim that, if you happen to get $110, theentire amount of $110 is unearned.

People expect "doctor" to mean that you have a degree obtained by graduating with it. If you call yourself one and you haven't gotten a regular degree, you are claiming to be something that you are not.

This is another case of "geek thinks that he's found an exploit in the source code of the real world". The world is not a literal genie and "I have an honorary thing which is called a doctorate, so I can call myself a doctor" isn't truthful regardless of whether the exact words seem to let you do it.

And it doesn't matter whether you think you deserve the prestige associated with "doctor" or you've done a lot of doctor-like stuff either. People don't interpret the word "doctor" to mean "I deserve prestige", they interpret it to mean "graduated with a degree".

This is untrue. Sound recordings were believed to be in the public domain because didn't have Federal copyright. But they fell under state copyright rules, which were different from state to state. Some of those state copyrights never expired.

The Music Modernization Act changed this. Now recordings have Federal copyright. Recordings from 1923 finally expire at the end of this year, even longer than the 95 year limit for other things.

If your monthly income is 10K+, your outgoings are thousands, and $1000 is deposited into your account by mistake, yeah, you wouldn't notice it, but you also wouldn't be spending so much that you won't be able to give the $1000 back. Why would someone with thousands of outgoing dollars in money each month spend down to the last $1000 of their account?

The article shows images of diamonds at 500 nanometer scale. What is new about this is that only high pressure is used, but not high temperature. This is interesting because high pressure had to be used with high temperature, but it does not mean "this technique produces diamonds big enough to see in minutes". The ones you get in minutes are still microscopic.

The idea, from reading the actual article, is that DKIM keys were used to verify that the Hunter Biden emails on his laptop were legitimate. The writer would much rather not have this happen and embarrass Joe Biden. If you release the keys, it would no longer be possible to verify that the DKIM signature on the emails is real because they could have been forged on some day after the keys were released.

It's all about protecting one's political side.

Twitter won't start by censoring something for the blatant purpose of killing Trump's campaign. They'll start on tweets that are obviously bad, then they censor slightly better ones, then censor ones that are slightly better than that, etc. It's like the frog being placed in water that gets hotter and hotter until it boils.

So they start by censoring conspiracy theories and misinformation, things that nobody defends. Then they gradually censor things that are more and more reputable. The Post is a tabloid, but it's a lot more reputable than conspiracy theorists. The accusation isn't world-shaking and might be false, but it's more important and less likely to be false than conspiracy theories and injecting bleach. We're already at several steps down the road, where Twitter censors things that have problems, but nowhere near as many problems as the things they started the censorship with.

By the time they get around to censoring things that are completely innocuous and have no problems *at all*, it's going to be too late.

Don't forget the "please listen carefully since our menu options hve changed". They never tell you on what date the menu options have changed so you can know that you don't need to listen if they changed 5 years ago, and most of the time the claim that the options have changed is just BS.

It's going to be pretty hard for Google to do this without being 10 days away from *some* date important to the deaf. They could be 10 days away from Deaf Awareness Week. They could also be 10 days away from the birth or death of some important deaf person, or 10 days away from the birth or death of the inventor of sign language, or 10 days away from the founding of some institute important to the deaf, or perhaps 10 days away from the anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities act.

Each of those dates is at least a 21 day time period where Google would look bad because of the date they did it. 27 days for Deaf Awareness Week. And there are only 365 days in a year.

In other words, you don't need to be a sociopath to do something supposedly anti-deaf 10 days away from some date important to the deaf. You only need to be stuck using days that are actually in the calendar.

If someone lost their job and couldn't afford food, and you owned a grocery store, wouldn't the same reasoning imply they can take your food without paying, just like they can live in your housing without paying?

Grr, stupid typo. A real worry.

This is example #nnn for "why net neutrality really was a real yowrry and how companies are taking advantage of not having to abide by it".

For a reason that most people pushing carbon offsets don't notice.

Carbon offsets are in limited supply. The reason that Google can pay a certain price for them is that there's a certain supply, and a certain demand. If many companies bought carbon offsets, the demand would go up. Since only so many carbon offsets can be produced, that means that the price of carbon offsets would go up and it might not even be possible to buy enough of them at all.

In other words, the fact that everyone is not buying carbon offsets makes it deceptively cheap and easy for the few companies who are to do so. The fact that Google can do so economically doesn't show that it would be economical as a general practice.

This is stupid, because the proper answer is "what the programmer should do at this point depends on how the management in this company operates" with a side of "am I supposed to assume that management is competent?" Obviously you're not going to be telling a programmer at an interview "we have incompetent management", so what you're probably really testing is "is the management in the programmer's last company enough like the management in this company that the best thing to do there is the best thing to do here?"

You're also forgetting that there are interview questions where the interviewee gets asked for BS and will not get the job if he is unable to convincingly BS the interviewer. And that this is a type of question subject to that. Did you successfully communicate to this programmer "I want you to tell me what you'd really do and I'm not one of the 80% of interviewers who'd end the interview if you're too frank?"

It's only "one of the brightest comets this century" if 1) "this century" means "since 2000" and 2) "brightest" refers to its maximum brightness.

Like many comets, this comet was bright when it got near the sun. Comets are also hard to see when they get near the sun. The comet is already dimmer than magnitude 3 in skies that are washed out by twilight. You will be lucky if you can see it at all without at least binoculars, especially in a city.