Edit to be slightly less obtuse: surely you're not implying that a common carrier be allowed to discriminate based on facts about a passenger's body without making reasonable accommodations. Surely you're not implying that obese people not be allowed to fly at all. Surely you're not suggesting that fat people should just remove themselves from society so you don't have to deal with them.
Therefore, obese people should get free upgrades to economy plus or better. Thanks for the idea!
I'll imply those things. If you don't fit in the seat, you should have to buy two seats is a not very controversial opinion on the internet IMO. I think that opinion basically violates all of your "surely"s already.
Where do you draw the line? A 250lb person probably mostly fits in their seat still, but at some point a person is just physically going to take up two seats. Do you really think the airline should be responsible for flying them in business class (premium economy doesn't give you more width on most/all airlines)? Does it matter if their weight is due to a medical condition or just laziness? What if they're so big that even a first class seat won't contain them?
The issue is for the airline to solve, since they are the ones trying to make seats comically small.
Also, you have to include other attributes. E.g. Not my problem that you have freakishly long legs, if you have to prevent me reclining then maybe you should have to pay for premium economy. And what if you are broad shouldered? Same deal, not my problem, you have to stay inside the boundaries of your own seat.
I would rather we used regulation to make economy seats a bit larger. Call it a safety issue, since it is.
Our house came with one and we upgraded the unit a few years ago. It's very efficient in terms of units of energy consumed, but in my area of the world gas is significantly cheaper than electricity so it ends up being expensive to run.
That said, we will install solar at some point and then it'll be "free" HVAC.
> they end up coming up with something equivalent to IPv6
Not just that. Almost every single thing people think up that's "better" is something that was considered and rejected by the IPv6 design process, almost always for well-considered reasons.
The converse also happens: people look at something IPv6 supports and says "that's crazy, why would that be allowed/designed for", without knowing that IPv4 does it too.
A reasonably fair comparison. The ISPs had a much stronger incentive to finish the migration, though, because the 3g spectrum could just get turned around and used for 4g after rollout. IPv6 doesn't really have that strong of an incentive structure now that CGNAT is a well-developed technology.
I would guess I/O. Your normal containers need network access and that's it. HA, depending on your setup, might want Bluetooth, a USB zigbee dongle, z-wave, etc etc
No, the I/O passthroughs are fine. Proxmox and HA are fairly great at keeping them stable. I have passthrough for WiFi/BT/USB zigbee/USB thread Of course it pins you to a singular proxmox host, not benefitting from proxmox HA, but that's the way the cookie crumbles with h/w.
pfsense and home-assistant both claim to be declarative configs, which is technically true. However the config files are not well or effectively documented, and where there is documentation it typically relates to the GUI which diverges significantly in arrangement. Their configs are declarative in that they declare the way their internal processes are configured, not in the way that they should interact and appear to other services (networking people will find that statement very confusing).
Both are effectively "Operating Systems" within operating systems, starting/stopping/configuring/managing other programs, home assistant is doing this to the nth degree. When you start them it is very hard to determine when they have actually started - particularly the bits you care about. Getting errors and logs out of them is painful. Updating configs and restarting has multiple routes, the longest of which is very long.
Both are reasonable ways to get to grips with the problem areas they solve for; they are not optimal however.
Passive house standards first gained popularity in Germany and Scandinavia but it seems the principles have been adapted to quite a wide range of climate zones now.
The headscale API is very different than the Tailscale API so if you're automating setting up clients it's not quite drop in. Once a client is up, though, from what I've heard it's seamless.
Edit to be slightly less obtuse: surely you're not implying that a common carrier be allowed to discriminate based on facts about a passenger's body without making reasonable accommodations. Surely you're not implying that obese people not be allowed to fly at all. Surely you're not suggesting that fat people should just remove themselves from society so you don't have to deal with them.
Therefore, obese people should get free upgrades to economy plus or better. Thanks for the idea!
reply