Absolutely, but 400V isn't as dangerous as 1,000V. IEC standards have already established all of this, above 1,000V is HV, below 50V is ELV and generally safe. Automotives have come in and labelled anything above like 24V as "HV", which is just silly.
Danger, Danger, High Voltage!
Although it annoys me that mechanics consider even 400V "high" voltage. HV is supposed to be 1,000V, minimum.
People make mistakes, that happens. Certain systems should be designed such that any mistakes people make have no or minimal consequences.
Numerous things failed here. Sending a lone 6 year old on the wrong flight is completely unacceptable for an airline.
If you don't want this you can change things.
When you first install Firefox, uncheck install updates as a service. Personally, I don't like applications running services in the background all the time. When I close something I expect it to be gone, and I don't want it running until I tell it to.
Second, go into settings and change your update settings to "Check for updates but let you choose to install them". Firefox will pop up with a discrete notification telling you when an update is available, asking you to download, then another dismissable notification telling you to restart to update.
I'd argue it absolutely is financially viable to society, and moreso than the status quo. It's just less financially profitable for certain commercial interests than the status quo.
The trouble is with government, when you spend money somewhere you generally save it somewhere else, or earn it back elsehwere, and it becomes difficult to associate the spending with the cost savings or profits, such that the spending gets cut. In this case, allowing residents to use public transport for free encourages more people and more business to move to the area, which increases income through taxation. However, after a point someone will look at it and say "Why are we spending so much?" and try to cut it, without acknowledging the subsequent decline after the incentive is removed.
I have a friend who studies pediatric lymphoma who mentioned that there are a lot more kids dying from it in recent times, so it would stand to reason that increase in deaths = increase in cases
No that is good info. Hard end points are key with meta-analysis of data from multiple sources, I think. Death is a hard end point.
It could still be about diagnosis, perhaps some deaths in young people now attributed with cancer would have been attributed to something else in the past. But a significant enough increase in deaths would suggest other factors.
I don't know, I just think it needs to be phrased alongside the classic "more study is needed" statement. It's something that warrants looking at more closely.
Are you saying Israel did not authorise the sale of Pegasus to Saudi Arabia?
Are you saying that the NSO does not have full oversight of the use of its tool by its customers?
I'd appreciate your insight.
Now who's deflecting? You called me a liar, where did I lie?
Finding a source for what I've said is as simple as typing it into Google. I'm not doing that for you, you're not contributing in good faith here so you don't deserve my effort in your service.
If you have a point to make, then make it. Refute my point. Don't just say "source?" without actually saying anything of any meaning and then act like you "win" because I won't jump through your hoops.
Lmfao where did I lie? Seems like you're losing the plot after being called out.
If detection is getting better, with emphasis on picking it up early, then it stands to reason that more younger people will be found to have cancer.
You aren't genuinely asking for sources, you're trolling and playing games. Nothing about your position is genuine. The only question is what your motive is.
I knew it!