"Curiosity and Willingness" I find it very weird and possibly even offensive that somebody is trying to 'claim' that people with dyslexia are more curious or willing to explore than 'typical' people. I think it might mean that they look at themselves and consider their strong points (which I applaud and support), but phrased like this it reads to me like they want to claim that dyslexic people are, on average, more curious and willing to explore than typical people, and that, to me appears plain wrong and even egoistic (hence the offensive) to claim. The author tries to come up with a reasoning for this conclusion to be true, but fails to provide a set of arguments that amount to the conclusion, let alone are supported by fact. People should stop thinking that just because they have weakness (dyslexia) that they don't have strong points, But the reverse is also true, just because you have strong points, you're strong points aren't more special just because you have certain weaknesses. Life is not a D&D character builder where you can spend X points and having a dump stat means you excel at something else.

One possible solution is to assign profit for any multinational to any country based on turn-over. If that outcome doesn't arrive we will see increased calls for just a turn-over based tax or value-added tax per country.

This article is highly misleading and slanted towards sensationalism! First off, it's highly misleading to compare Starlink Satellites, in low orbit that deorbit in 1000km orbits don't deorbit, even in a million years. Second, for dead Starlink Satellites to be a danger to other Satellites, those other Satellites need to be in a similar or lower orbit than Starlink. Guess what? Practically all other Satellites orbit higher than Starlink will. So they physically can't collide. Your editor could and should have found these two facts with 5 minutes of research instead of trying for such a slanted and 'sensational' piece of ... . TL;DR; this article is misleading and deserves rectification!

Using a LFTR is a better alternative. If your reactor fuel is already a liquid, and they're a stopper below the reactor vessel that melts before the containment vessel melts, you're already melt-down proof. But in addition, because you're a liquid fueled reactor you get to use 100% of your fuel, instead of having to rework your fuel every 2% of usage. Not only that, but a Thorium reactor produces way shorter lived nuclear waste anyway. TL;DR; nice, but pointless. LFTR is the way to go.

I'm not sure where the OP lives, but I'm pretty sure that in most EU countries the landlord isn't allowed to do anything inside the rented area that affects the renters privacy, period. The landlord owns the property and their right is to have their property returned to them in the same or better state then they handed it over to the renter, nothing much else.