The point of that section was not about the effect of land use restrictions on overall value but on local differences. If you are comparing the value of two different pieces of land with the same land use restrictions then they don't affect the value calculation. Deed restrictions are called out because they can affect the comparative value of two different pieces of land within the same zone.
If you're a reporter and a really good storyteller, which he definitely is, your reporting drive better be really, really good. At my most cynical, I would say that Gladwell writes non-fiction because it suits his style and makes for better stories, but that might be going too far.
The problem isn't really NPEs. If it makes sense to have patents, then it probably makes sense to have a market in patents. The problem is mostly low-quality patents and the fact that the patent system is a poor fit for software.
My question was that while this particular chariot seems like it might have been used for ceremonial purposes, was that true for all chariots? The military context is interesting, but its surely only part of the picture.
To put it a different way, after its military significance faded, was it actually relegated to purely ceremonial uses or was it a popular means of transportation?
If reparations for slavery ever happen in the US, it will be a political decision, not one resulting from a lawsuit. That isn't to say they courts won't be involved at one or more points, as you can certainly imagine challenges, but for it to happen it will have to come from Congress first.
I think you are making some rather large assumptions. It's possible that you and 'techsupporter went to similar colleges in similar cities and around the same time, and the only difference is between your perspectives. But if those conditions aren't true, especially the last one, then your experiences may have been objectively very different.
Given the overall upbeat tone of headline, subheading, and article, is "disingenuous" the word you want to use? Is it your impression that Ars is attempting to deceive or trick its readers?
The funny thing about that it is a perfectly understandable perspective from someone bent on wooing companies to come to his town (i.e. focused on the immediate needs and demands of his perceived clientele), but at the same time completely misses the big picture.
I guess it would be an easy trap to fall into, but you would hope that someone going to the trouble of trying to learn about how another place did things would be a little more receptive to unexpected things.
"I'm going to let this slide" is the closest thing that springs to mind, but I wouldn't be surprised if some regional dialect somewhere uses "walk" like that.
I don't see much difference in the distinction between the client software (written by Mimestream, probably with regular updates) having access to your account, which it obviously has to has, and Mimestream having direct access. But IANA security researcher, so salt liberally.
DC++ used to have the most obscure stuff. I remember finding one site(?server?hub?) that had every single F1 race broadcast (practice, qualifying, and race) for many years. Basically someone had been recording every race on VHS tape and eventually digitized them all and uploaded them. This is just one example of the kind of specializing you could find. I wonder how much of it is still there.
I actually learned to code on a Beowulf cluster. The first programs I wrote to completion were on an LP mud that ran on a cluster in the creator's basement. Not because it was necessary for a mud with never more then ten users at once, but just because.
Dinosaurs were not around during the period in question, but their fossils were, as were the crocodilians and large monitor lizards. So if dragons are based on a real thing, I prefer one of those things. But I also think it's a mistake to discount the imaginations and creativity of previous generations. They might simply have imagined a scaled up garden lizard, adding fire-breathing at some point along the way.
I remember the first time I read a heavily-footnoted Shakespeare play and discovering that for every word or passage I thought I needed to look up there were two or three that I did as well but did not realize simply because the language has changed so much. I.e., the modern meaning made enough sense that I would have been none the wiser without the footnote.
But while an updated Shakespeare might be good thing if well done, to me it would be a new thing, and not Shakespeare.
We might disagree on those two points (I am abivalent about the research integrity one, anyway) but I hope you can agree with me that whether Epstein has a legitimate interest in science is completely immaterial to both of them. That's what my comment was about.