Dictionary definition to run over:
1 : to go over, examine, repeat, or rehearse quickly 2 : to collide with, knock down, and often drive over
IIRC "attack" used to be originally a charge by the cavalry. And now terrorists and air forces also attack. Meanings shift. The victim needn't see the undercarriage in person to classify as being run over. Language is literally imprecise.
The scenario is a bit misleading. We didn't arrive at everything being wrapped in single-use plastic overnight so we cannot switch the other way that quickly either.
Perishable or hygienic reasons must allow for continued use for some products. But there are plenty of things that don't fall under that umbrella where waxed paper or single-use bamboo could make sense. You have correctly identified cost as an issue. The reason why everything is still wrapped in plastic like a corpse in Twin Peaks is it's cheaper. Plastic packaging is also more resistant to damage on the way to the consumer. So the calculations need to change. We need to raise the cost on plastic and lower it on other more quickly biodegradable items. That's a political decision, one that would be heavily lobbied against by the big boys in packaging. Yet another reason why overnight simply won't work.
The question about resources also hinges on the time frame. If the switch had to occur today, the answer is probably no. There aren't enough paper mills and bamboo nurseries in the world to meet demand. But there weren't a gazillion plastic factories from the start, they grew over time in numbers. One should also not forget that paper mills aren't without environmental impact. And neither would bamboo toothbrushes be. Also if we increase the amount of arable land to grow bamboo, are we decreasing land for food or animal feed? What are the effects of growing bamboo on the land without fellow periods? What fertilizer would be used? What toxic insect killer chemicals would need to be in use to guarantee sustainable levels of production? It's not like one option is the perfect solution to fix the problems with the other option.
A holistic aporoach would also have to include us consumers changing our behavior. That's definitely not happening overnight.
I was listening to a podcast about a Danish murder investigation that included an interview by Danish police of a prisoner suspect in Finland in cooperation with the Finns. They went ahead with the interview without the lawyer present, which seemed normal to the Danes and wrong to their Finnish colleagues. It was one of the reasons why the content of the interview was inadmissible on court. That's the first thing I thought about regarding a lawyer opt-out.
As a fan of the Nordic Noir genre of crime shows, it's a great booster for extras. Whenever a person of interest has become an actual suspect, there will be a lawyer present in the show. In 99% of the cases it's an extra without any lines. So there appears to be a legal requirement to have a lawyer present or the interview cannot or should not proceed.
I think in general it is a hard thing to operate under a system where a lawyer must be present for any interview. There may not be enough lawyers to man every police interview with opt-out rules. They require remuneration as well. This may explain why the rules are so fishy. Case law is caught between not hanstringing police investigations with an opt-out system on the one hand and preventing overreach and abuse by the cops on the other.
Just as a thought experiment: if you required a lawyer being present for any interview at the station, apart from finding a way to pay these poor lawyers you'd also have to come up with a system where enough lawyers are readily available to sit in. Kind of like not all Parisian bakers can go on holiday at the same time. What if there aren't enough lawyers in your hamlet? Do we maybe need to create a hired function to satisfy the legal requirements? An office in the police station where a lawyer or a rotation of usual suspects of lawyers serve? Wouldn't this create a proximity where lawyers and cops become too chummy and possibly collude? The interests of the interviewee are best served by cops and lawyers hating each other's guts but working alongside they've become pals. I think there may be an unintended consequence that the course of justice gets more perverted by the opt-out systen than in the current fishy US system.
Weather is expressed in different ways in different languages. The fact that English, like many other European languages, uses a mysterious "it" as a subject to say what's going on is actually the outlier. More languages use a formula more like "rain falls, snow falls, sun shines, etc."
So you tell him the "it" stands for "the weather" although that isn't true. You could more truthfully say it's a convention and English sentences need a subject. And then you add that "is raining" also transports the idea that it is in the process of happening right now. Don't question it, accept it.
Learn a bit of Russian. That language is full of colorful images, irregularities, and inexplicable grammar. More so than English, probably. So you can put him in his place when he complains. Like, dude, y'all don't even know what blue is!
Most people who say that do so for dogmatic reasons, not because they arrived at this conclusion after careful analysis. It's the political point of small government.
These are the same people who will probably be first in line shouting for government intervention when their drinking water is full of chemical waste.
You can try to reason with folks like that but you probably won't change their mind. Just try not to shout at them.
But FSBhub is!
I would think the sandwiches would be delivered before any declaration of independence.
Language isn't logical in a mathematical sense. Every language develops its own logic over time as an unspoken consensus that only after the fact gets codified as orthography and grammar.
The big mother language to most languages in Europe, Protoindoeuropean, has its origins millennia ago somewhere in Ukraine. Linguists have pieced together what this language most likely sounded like. It's a game of probabilities and good educated guesses but it's fascinating. If you're a nerd. One theory is that at the earliest time when this language was formed, most if not all verbs were what we would call today irregular, think know-knew-known or sing-sang-sung etc. Small language communities have no problem with insane and arbitrary grammar like that. You learn it with your mother's milk so to speak. Very few outsiders have to deal with it. And life just goes on.
English is a true mix of stuff. The Germanic invadors after the Romans left had to deal with the native celts. They were themselves invaded by Vikings from Scandinavia and some 300 years later by Vikings that had become French. Both brought their own languages with them and influenced English. Both invasions caused situations where adults were put in a situation of having to learn another language. What kids soak up like sponges, grownups have a harder time with. So they take shortcuts in their speech. They didn't struggle too much with sing-sang-sung because that's a typical protoindoeuropean vowel change that exists just like that in many European languages to this day in versions of this particular verb. But some of the other verbs were just too hard to remember! Let's just whack a -t or -d sound at the end and Bob's you uncle. And that's how English lost a lot of its irregular verbs. Over time this became -ed in most cases. But, as I said, we don't follow a mathematical Boolean logic here. It allowed for hangers-on, regional varieties, and new formations of irregular forms. Burnt/burned hung on, fucked/fuckt did not. The reason is the flow of history.
I would think the same so-called AI that told us to eat rocks regularly, or that thinks it's still 2024, or that "hallucinates" other stuff will make conquering our planet harder. Particularly, if these aliens are unaware of the concept of deception.
I would say this system is safe until one password - through no fault of their own - gets leaked. Worse even, two of them. If a bored hacker sees them in a stolen list, they could go to town on all other accounts. So you should advise your acquaintance to change their system. Long passwords are great but if they repeat a lot of characters they are immediately less useful. If the repeating string is known it makes brute-forcing other accounts that much easier.
The best advice is to keep unique passwords for all accounts. And by unique I mean not following a system like that. Long, random, non-sensical crap is best (but also most annoying) - for now. Once quantum computers become a thing, all this probably won't matter any more.
Edit: And always with non-SMS, non-emailed 2FA. But if those are the only options available it's better than nothing.
People who really want to communicate with each other will find a way.
I think English<>French is a language pair you could get instant translations with the help of Google. So there's a tech solution that will cause humorous misunderstands but will make do. You could hire somebody who is bilingual for the first meeting to let the parents talk behind their kids' backs.
If they are French, they may actually be able to have a simple conversation in English but the boyfriend wouldn't know because they lose this ability the moment they cross the border back into France. That's a silly stereotype but I like it.
The absolute worst airports to navigate are all in the US. Fort Worth, Atlanta, just to shame two.
Most other airports are easy to navigate, even on your first trip. It's basically walking to a door with a number following huge signs with arrows and numbers. If you need help, you just ask staff working there. The Lufthansa people will be delighted to take a biz class passenger by the hand. Make sure your suitcase gets sent to Korea directly, pick a seat you like (aisle is better if you ask me), and don't forget your passport. You'll be fine!