ValueSubtracted

the characters are legally distinct so that the writers of that episode don’t get royalties for the entire run of Voyager

This is a very common claim, but I find it very dubious. You never hear about this sort of contract in American television. I don't think anyone made a lot of bank when Chief O'Brien joined DS9.

Another week, another fairly average episode of Doctor Who...at least, in terms of plot.

The story shows up, ticks the boxes it needs to tick, and keeps out of the way. The Krillitane plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but does anybody care?

And then there's the big guest star of the episode - it's Anthony Stewart Head! As a longtime BTVS fan, it was fun to see him, but he's not exactly used to his full potential here. That said, he plays the uptight Krillitane headmaster pretty well.

And that's it! See you next week!

Okay, obviously the main event is Sarah Jane showing up (with K9 in tow). Even as a non-fan, I had an awareness of Sarah Jane and her prominence in the show's history, and the show does a good job exploring the conflicted emotions of both her and the Doctor once the reunion happens. I'm sure there are loads of opinions on her pissing match with Rose, but it ends in the only way it really could - with them uniting in mockery of the Doctor. Elisabeth Sladen has a great presence.

I've never seen The Sarah Jane Adventures, so I don't know whether this was intended to set up that show in a meaningful way - from what little I know of the series, I suspect not.

I'm not sure why the embed isn't working on this one, but it's worth a watch.

That's not what the article says, but it would certainly make more sense.

BUT the current standard toll is $8.00 CAD, while the Ambassador Bridge toll seems to be $14.00 CAD.

Like I said, it's possible I'm misunderstanding something about the tolls, but that's my interpretation.

The other piece of the "new deal" that seems to be new is the wording about the Americans having approval about changes to the tolls - Reuters says this means the US can veto any toll hike over 10% of the current value, which...I don't know, it seems like such a hike would be in their best interests to approve should it be proposed, since it would lead to more of the net revenue they seem to care so deeply about.

I'm also unclear about whether the "regional investment" the new deal refers to is some kind of new money unrelated to tolls. It would be nice to get clarity there.

Assuming all the toll revenue goes toward the reimbursement of construction and operational costs, the net revenue should be zero for many years to come.

I could be wrong about any of this, because it's based on news reports and noth the original documents, so grain of salt, but:

As near as I can tell, the original deal said Canada would charge tolls, which will be used to reimburse the Canadian government for the funds it spent to build the span, and Michigan would get half once that happened.

So the main new bit is the language around "net profits," which doesn't seem to change this original agreement.

Seems like this decision was made strongly based on this individual’s history and that everyone’s safety was considered.

Indeed - the judge's own words deserve consideration.

“It is not without some reluctance that I thus dismiss this judicial review application, because it means leaving Ms. Cooper, a woman, in a male institution. These reasons and judgment should not be viewed, however, as any kind of blanket determination that a transgender or gender-diverse inmate who is designated as a [dangerous offender] cannot be transferred to an institution that aligns with their gender identity, and that may happen eventually for Ms. Cooper. Each such case will depend on their unique circumstances."

What even is time

Dang, that is a solid lineup.

Sure, I guess you got me.