His wife stood by him as wives were often expected to do back in the day, but that doesn't mean she was a willing participant in a nonmonogamous relationship.

Sure

>So I don’t understand why Matt believes that building a few new apartments in some city - a very small move along that spectrum - would do anything other than make local prices go up.

Huh? Other than friends, none of the previously mentioned amenities are provided by apartment buildings.

Adding commercial real estate to a city adds jobs and amenities that make it more desirable, and thus more expensive.

Adding more housing does not.

That said, adding more housing raises the demand for commercial real estate (more available workers and customers), hence the cycle that leads to very dense, very expensive places like Manhattan. Strictly speaking though, adding apartments alone isn't enough to keep that cycle going.

The point of repealing qualified immunity is to let the victims sue as a means of enforcing checks on police.

How does "a major local employer wants the local economy to thrive" lead to more exploitation than usual? If anything, I'd expect a thriving local economy to mean that there's more competition for workers, increasing their bargaining power and reducing the probability/severity of worker exploitation.

People do not prefer sharing a house with roommates to having their own apartment.

Also the idea that people's preferences should be encoded into bans on certain housing types is completely absurd to begin with.

I'd love to see it, but I'm a bit pessimistic about the political viability of a significant revival of civilian nuclear ships.

Killing somebody just because they're running from an outstanding warrant would be a new and terrible policy whether or not a robot was involved.

A pull-up competition is a perfectly valid test if the job/program requires exactly that kind of upper body strength.

Presumably they had a separate GPA, or at least term-specific GPAs, from their second round of community college.

Perhaps this is unnecessarily pedantic, but what you're describing is a "conflict of interest" problem, not an "insider trading" problem. You can have either problem without the other, and depending on how you crack down on insider trading, it could be completely ineffective at solving the conflict of interest problem.