One version of that sentence concisely articulates the core idea. The other, whilst more correct, hides the core idea under a large number of sub-clauses trying to deal with unusual corner cases.

To bring this back to the technical world, this debate is very similar to the way that programming language designers go to great lengths to try and help programmers right error handling code that doesn't get in the way of understanding the nominal case - it turns out that this is an exceptionally hard problem to solve though when dealing with computers because they are so precise. Thankfully human brains can be a lot more forgiving if we so desire (see the Principal of Charity mentioned previously in this thread).

The advantage of the LVT is that in theory the market could bear the price increase because there will be a corresponding drop in the salary tax that most renters are paying. The idea is that the government effectively takes a large slice of the profit from rent, instead of it all going to landlords. The problem of course is that this creates a disincentive for landlords to invest in property, reducing supply, and now we go back to high prices because of market forces.

There is no simple solution to the high price of land, except by increasing supply or reducing demand. In other words, building more housing (which requires us to encourage landlords, not discourage them), or reduce the population. Just think, in a world with half the population of today, we would drastically reduce the percentage of salary devoted to housing. Not bad really.

Those are all recent cases that I am personally aware of, as a non-US citizen, living in Europe. I'm sure there have been plenty of others.

So yes, not all police killings in the US are undeserved, but there sure are plenty that are, and that is what those statistics are showing.

Why? Well I was mostly expired from a story in "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman" where he talks about being bored with physics, and he gets back into it by playing around with toy problems that he had to work out from first principles (the way that the wobble in a spinning plate precesses around the axis). So I've started programming in an emulator of this old 1980s computer. It seems to be working for me too - I'm finding myself to be much more engaged in my day job since I've started.

Or, you arrive at work late, claiming that you stopped off at a client's before heading in to work, but your employer can now verify that you actually got the taxi from your home address.

I'm assuming in these examples that you just need to know pick-up OR drop-off - if you need both, then I agree with you that it's not much of a concern.

Anyway, the point is that publicly funded broadcasters can and do criticise their governments.

The important difference between this New Shepherd flight and those Falcon 9 tests is that the Falcon 9s launched payload to orbit. They burned all their fuel, leaving them with the incredibly difficult slam-landing manoeuver to manage at the end. They have gone close, very close, but have not yet got things entirely right.

So, although this was an impressive technological demonstration, it's a long way from demonstrating a relaunch capability. I look forward to seeing new developments.

Of course that does make me think about forking processes and copy-on-write, and the idea that our reality is just a simulation in a computer and that maybe creating new universes is not as expensive as we might at first think...

To look at it another way, I wouldn't credit the writers of Star Trek for 'predicting' a transporter if one ever gets made. Or warp engines, or pretty much any of the high-tech gadgets in the series. They aren't predicting them, they are simply stating that these would be very cool things to have. The fact that sometimes engineering catches up to human desire is at the same time remarkable, and completely normal.

Back in the real world you wouldn't design your system that way. Instead, you would look at your worst case scenario - mid-winter, and calculate how many solar panels you would need to capture a day's worth of energy in one day. This would also tell you how large your battery would need to be. A prudent engineer would probably introduce a factor of 2 or so both in the size of the panel installation and the size of the battery to allow for a sequence of unusually dark days, but the multiples being talked about in the article are just ridiculous.