timoth

> You may need to authenticate payments a dozen times in an hour one day, when you are on a farmers market which doesn't take card payments or you are out dining with friends, and another day not at all.

It's very unlikely people would need to mess about with MittId/BankID if they can't use card payments at a market. Firstly, if they're doing the almost-unheard-of clunky approach of using their mobile banking app to make a bank transfer, it would probably be authorised using their touch/face ID instead of BankID/MittID. But far more likely, they'd use one of the ubiquitous mobile payment apps: Vipps (Norway), Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Denmark).

It's been a long time since I worked in flight simulation (full flight simulators and simpler pilot training devices, including simulating TCAS), but I believe at that time TCAS would be switched to a mode in which it only alerts of "Traffic" instead of providing avoidance instructions precisely _when_ entering busier airspace -- e.g. airport proximity. In that environment it was undesirable for TCAS to be giving instructions. That seems like the environment in which Enhanced Radar's (future) product(s) could be of most interest.

(By the way, I believe EGPWS would take priority over TCAS anyway.)

> Especially nowadays, with Britain out of the EU and "roam like at home" policies no longer in effect.

I thought they were generally still in effect. The multiple UK and non-UK networks I'm aware of still allow free roaming across UK and EU etc.

It does. But not beyond iOS 15. Most recent update: 15.8.2 a couple of months ago. Personally I'm really impressed that Apple is still supporting an 8-year-old phone and it's probably the main thing that has been tempting me to jump ship from Android for a while. (Though it seems like Android might be better on this in future.)

You can do that with the stock Android too, once you've enabled the developer options in settings. The setting needed is "Display cutout" --> "Hide".

I don't read any implication that they see they were likely wrong. According to the article, he actually refused to comment on the French cases and said their own lab "only use mouse-adapted sheep prions, which have never been shown to be infectious to humans." Not even "_had_ never been shown". It seems unclear what his view is.

It immediately goes on to talk about their own discovery 10 years ago that prions could be spread through aerosols which "totally shocked" them and might "warrant re-thinking on prion biosafety guidelines" but that seems an entirely separate thing from the decision to use only sheep prions for research.

I'm a complete layman in this field, but the logical conflict between these two sections concerned me:

> she stabbed her left thumb with a curved forceps while cleaning a cryostat — a machine that can cut tissues at very low temperatures — that she used to slice brain sections from transgenic mice infected with a sheep-adapted form of BSE

Then later:

> Aguzzi declined to comment on the French CJD cases, but told Science his lab never handles human or bovine prions for research purposes, only for diagnostics. "We conduct research only on mouse-adapted sheep prions, which have never been shown to be infectious to humans," Aguzzi says.

Am I missing something, or is the logical conclusion that Aguzzi thinks his lab is avoiding disaster by only using mouse-adapted sheep prions, but the lady is suspected to have been infected by an injury related to "transgenic mice infected with a sheep-adapted form of BSE". I hope there's some nuance here, because otherwise it sounds like Aguzzi's lab isn't actually avoiding infection. Perhaps the lady's case isn't considered to have definitely confirmed infectiousness due to uncertainty (though no uncertainty seemed to be mentioned)? Or the mouse-adapted sheep prions Aguzzi's lab uses are different to the transgenic mice infected with a sheep-adapted form of BSE? I have no idea; it's just that the apparent conflict between these two sections jumped out to my layman's eyes.