nollbit

Practically, anyone with access to the Baltic Sea, boats, scuba equipment, underwater explosives could do it, but they couldn't do it undetected. This area is under surveillance from Sweden and Denmark.

If you want to do it undetected you need to do it completely underwater, including ingress and egress, and that absolutely limits the potential actors.

Why would you ever sign that?

Another issue with game dev for games that release on PC is that devs are usually on very high-end machines. NVMe RAIDs, 3080's, etc. Great for productivity, but there's very little dog fooding on low-spec machines.

To be honest, I'd like somebody to explain to me how a lockdown would have prevented more deaths in elder care facilities in Sweden.

Unless your daughter never met with other kids or other adults, it's seems hard to say there's been no bias.

Perhaps your friends parents were over-careful because their kids kept breaking bones? Kids are different. Mine is very risk-averse and has essentially never hurt himself bad. I was the same way as a kid. His friends are daredevils who hurt themselves constantly.

Also, when it comes to "our parents in the past would let us do anything and I came out ok" sounds a bit like survival bias to me. In Sweden, far fewer kids die today than in the 70s, so perhaps there's some merit to bicycle helmets, safer playgrounds and not letting your kids eats whole grapes unattended before the age of five or so etc.

I run a very small GKE cluster with two 1vCPU preemptible nodes. Costs me a few bucks per month.

I live in Sweden and hourly billing is available here for everybody with a smart meter afaik.

The actual scanning might be slower, but the queues are much shorter for self-scanning at the stores where I by groceries.

Also, where I live we have portable scanners. You pick up a scanner when you enter the store, you scan all your groceries and put them directly in the bag (or under the stroller) and when you reach the exit you leave the scanner and pay at a terminal and off you go.

That's only true if Boeing was the only manufacturer that builds this category of planes (they are not).

Boeing has an issue in their planes that the A350 doesn't have. So if the price of 787's goes up because it needs to go from unsafe to safe, then airlines can buy A350s instead.

”Because if Compnay XYZ disagrees with your politics, you should punish them?”

If a company implicitly assists in putting little children in camps, then yes, it’s ok to “punish” them by not giving them your business.

“Just like one may dislike in-laws while loving a spouse. You don't have to divorce your spouse to prove your dislike of the inlaws”

Similarly, if my in-laws were racists and my wife didn’t think that there were anything wrong with that, then yes, divorce would be an option.

Infant in lap is supposed to be secured with a seat belt that attaches to the parents seat belt. They are not unrestrained.

However, an infant is much safer in a car seat strapped to their own seat of course.

This isn't about efficiency or cost per passenger mile I think.

The A380 was a bet that the hub and spoke model (where passengers travel to an airline's hub in small planes and onwards from there in larger ones like the A380) would continue to rule the industry.

Instead, what happened was low cost carriers flying passenger directly to the destinations. It appears that passengers prefers that, which is why the B797 and A350 exists.