What is this “growing up” you talk about?

There must be. Recall and info sec is mutually excluding by definition!

Oh, it’s funny because it’s true.

Now I need to go cry in a corner, because it’s true

So “it was only a joke” is also back on the menu? Wow, times are rolling back fast!

Even the term itself is a generalising stereotype. But it we are to have a somewhat serious discussion about it, I’d say It’s a human condition, not a gendered condition. For example, given what is (not) known about our respective genders, you felt the need to explain this.

So stereotyping gender is back on the menu? Are hair color jokes still taboo?

I did not in any way mean to suggest sensitivity is not a factor, only to suggest that light sensitivity may be more of a spectrum and that there are persons living in a darker world than others. So, it may not be a person on the top of the bell curve that need more light, but someone on the other end of the spectrum entirely.

Since the top comment in this thread was about needing more light in an already bright room i meamt to say that there might be reasons why people around us prefer 1 or 100000 lumen…

Apparently all eyes are not created equal in ability to transfer light to the retina. Some has narrower or wider fields of vision as well. So, where your eyes may be well adapted to low light levels, others may not be. In a world with no artificial shadows and the sun high on the sky for most of the year, being able to filter out sun light might have been a pro, while now needing lots of artificial lights to see straight.

What if we changed it to “Mexican warns of remorseless criminals north of the boarder”?

Five years ago I was astonished that the U.S. navy was looking for renewable fuels thinking it would never pan out. Today I see alternatives which has nothing to do with fossils in the private sector. I see heavy transportation companies trying to find ways to electrify their fleet. I think those “grownups” will find themselves in a new reality despite them not wanting to.

And unfeasible? Three years ago maybe. Today we need to revise the time plans. I’m already working at implementing the goals set for 2030 and have started shifting focus towards the big elephant and the 2045 goals.

As opposed to the virus itself, which is might be DNA (or RNA), which breach the cell boundary, which highjack the DNA-replicating parts of the cell to do what the bacteria does in the description IHeartBadCode writes, using the same enzymes to do whatever it’s DNA code has randomly come up with.

[/S] Clearly the virus is a much safer bet!

So deciding to have Tesla leave the Nordics, some of the most EV dense countries, will not only hurt Tesla and give the competition an edge, it might actually cost him stock in spaceX? Is that the analysis here?