Did they force you to gate check your bag, and then charged you a fee for it? That's what seems to be claimed here. I'm also pretty sure it'd be a violation of the carrier contract.
If it is within your allowence, but there "isnt enough space in the cabin" there will be no fee. If you turn up with 3 bags, bags that dont fit, or overweight bags they can and will charge you as a checked bag + a handling fee for the inconvenience.
You fly jets long enough, something like this happens.
> two people and four items of luggage plus a personal bag each
Well, there's you problem. I have traveled the world, including many trips of 6 weeks or more, with only a single. carry-on. Laundromats exist everywhere.
Snark aside, a bit of planning and organization w.r.t. packing pays off handsomely in terms of flexibility when traveling.
Spontaneous weekend trip to a remote island when carrying only a backpack - sure. Add two heavy suitcases, and it becomes an impossibility.
Please don't tell other people how they should live.
Personally I love travelling light (<10kg carry-on pack for 2 months last year to South America) but it isn't for everyone.
> Laundromats exist everywhere.
Only if you value your time at nearly $0. They are incredibly annoying when travelling - too often a 10 or 15 minute walk each way to one. Great for backpacking, but a complete waste of time if you only have a limited amount of time for your holiday.
Having just got back from a 8 week European vacation, with a wife+kid+me.
There's also the small issue of it being was 95F degrees outside at 75% humidity (southern France). This means 1 outfit isn't lasting more than a day (sometimes only 1/2 a day) before becoming unbearably stinky. x3 this means laundry needs to be done every other day or packing a ton of stuff.
I interact with physical devices frequently. Mozilla's adamant refusal to implement WebSerial and WebUsb in Firefox forces me to install Chrome on every platform i use. That is just an asinine hill to die on.
It literally is their job. One of Mozilla's roles is to give their opinion on proposed web standards. It's one of the factors that determines what actually becomes a standard. WebUSB is Chrome (and derivatives) only at the moment. You can not like where they landed, perfectly valid, but they were asked.
Yes, but instead of saying "this spec is shit and full of vulnerabilities. Let's work on improving it", they just refused to participate in the discussion. What a childish POV.
I don't think that's a fair summary of Mozillas Position on the WebBluetooth/WebSerial/WebUSB specs. Interacting with arbitary devices has arbitrary consequences, mozilla seems to assume users are not able to understand these consequences and therefore cannot consent to it.
Well, the reason is in the links I provided, and the reasoning doesn't scream arrogance to me.
Personally, I think choice is great. Why be upset when you can download chromium (it is supported by pretty much any platform FF is) and use it to do all sorts of stuff with WebUSB, if you are into that?
Still, I would like to see FF disable these features by default and allow opt-in. I don't see a great reason to avoid implementing them behind some "wall" (other than to avoid an increase in a concealed attack surface).
You are completely missing the point just like Mozilla.
This is the same a surgeon saying they refused to perform life-saving surgery on you because they don't believe you understand the consequences of the possibility of dying in surgery.
The average person cannot be an expert on surgery or on browser security it's up to the people that have the education and work experience in there to make those decisions and handle them.
Mozilla as another poster said has taken their toys home because they didn't get what they want.
So, basically, they noticed some potential insecurities in the implementation proposed by Google. Instead of negotiating modifications to the spec like adults, they threw their toys out of the stroller and refused to participate.
What a bunch of idiots. They seem to have a completely misguided concept of what a browser is. They still have a 1990s mindset of the browser being a window into the Internet, instead of the universal UI that it has become today.
Agreed. Also pointless hill to die on. It just forces users to another browser. This supposed average user only sees one side of this argument. Firefox doesn't work so I don't use it.
If only there was some nonprofit with the funds to hire full time devs to work on this issue.....
AI is very effective, and even before that the "Russian Firehose of Falsehood" approach worked.
Firehose the populous with stupid BS and 3 minutes of hate activities and they'll eventually lose track of specific actions; essentially boiling a frog
I still use Unison as it is simpler than Syncthing.
It does have GUI, which I use. I wouldn't call it pretty or polished, but it works and I understand how it works and the way it works is exactly how I think syncing should work.
I've also configured it to run a GUI diff tool diffuse to easily combine changes in case of conflicts (when a file was changed on both sides since the last sync).
I wish it was a bit more modern and re-written in a modern language, but that's secondary qualities for a program.
As someone married to a Korean, I am not surprised in the least. Every single one I have met (males at least) drinks like a fish. It is impossible to describe to a westerner just how ingrained the drinking culture is over there.
So, deuterium needs to be obtained from sea water through distillation and electrolysis - both energy intensive operations. And tritium comes from nuclear reactors.
I have always wondered - assuming that the confinement problem is solved, how does the cost of the fuel compare to fission (or other generation methods?
The energy cost to extract deuterium from seawater is about 1/238000th (0.00004%) the energy released from fusing that deuterium.
Nuclear fusion breeds its own tritium from lithium.
Running a 1 GW thermal fusion reactor for a year would consume $483,000 of deuterium and $1300 of lithium. At 40% conversion efficiency and 5 cents per kwh, the fusion reactor would produce $175 million of electricity in that same year.
For comparison, fuel is about 5% of the cost of electricity from fission, and about 50% the cost from coal.
