Yeah, but what do you do in the meantime when the bank is out and FDIC is busy? The point is to avoid the practical issue of now way to access the money.

> It's selfish and entitled.

Yeah, sure.

> Poor planning on her planning doesn't constitute and emergency on anyone else. That's the point.

Except that in this case, the situation from the airline creates an emergency for everybody else but the bad parent. It literally punishes good parents and rewards bad parenting.

> I hate entitled people, and this is the definition of it.

Yeah and the airline asks extra payment for parents who don't feel entitled. We always go back to the airline for considering that normal.

> It's absolutely not a search engine

Tbf I wouldn't trust the search engine's first results either. It's like a search engine stuck on some data from 2021...

Tbf some restaurants advertise menu prices that always require an extra. But you know, that's called fraud.

> and if that happens that's something you (or someone else risking the same outcome) could've prevented by choosing seats.

If that happens that's something the airline could have prevented by either not making it an extra option, or forcing the increased price to parents.

Advertising the low price, but expecting parents to ALWAYS pay extra "for the benefit of everybody else" is entirely the airline fault.

> It's not the airlines fault is my only point.

"I don't make the rules, ma'am. I just think them up and write them down."

>That sounds like a personal problem.

Their point is that as long the kid is fine, it is NOT a problem for the parent, but for whoever ends next to the child if he misbehaves. The airline is saying "if you don't pay, we'll force you to put your misbehaving child somewhere we won't let you control him"... but "parent has to handle the child" is a benefit for everybody in the airplane which is NOT the child of the parent, so it's everything BUT a personal problem.

Basically if you pay the airline, you can still end next to the child of somebody who didn't pay extra. It's the "reverse protection" system that you can also see with Certificate Authorities : you pay to provide an advantage to another party, yet it is advertised as receiving said advantage. It only works if EVERYBODY pays extra, else nobody gets the benefit of having no misbehaving child.

What? It's the flagship of a donation-funded organisation. WTF has "the government" (which one? the Swiss?) to do with that?

Do you have examples of that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

> Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

There's a reason wikipedia sources the Wayback Machine.

The whole point of sourcing is providing the primary source. A link to an online list of sources is basically offloading the work.

> Studies are showing wikipedia is "as good" as an old-school encyclopedia for learning about stuff.

For those who wonder how is it possible :
I don't have the source (ironic), but while the Britannica does have "less published errors" than Wikipedia, those errors stay for years while on Wikipedia they get fixed fast.
So while an error is more likely to be published on Wikipedia, when checking both at some instant T, it is roughly equally likely for both that the statement will be an error.

> But don't cite it. As stated, get the cites that are cited by the Wiki.

Goes also about old-school encyclopedia, I think?

^(Psst, double post)

Also, think about checking the Talk Page. If there are issues with the current page (downplaying something, some important missing stuff), somebody before probably noticed it.
In particular, that's the way you can request an edit on a protected page if you notice a glaring source issue. No need to register, your public IP is a good enough identifer to use the talk page.

It's also wonderful for less serious works, like history of some video games, where the original sources may not even exist anymore besides the latest snapshot of the Web Archive and their only use is on Wikipedia. There's a probable 0% chance that you would find an equivalent with a regular web search.

Source : I'm the guy who wasted 3h of their life trying to find a non-primary source about Hypixel's four Guinness Records to know what granted them the "most games on a Minecraft server" record. Ended making an account on the Guinness to access their free search engine and it turned out the authoritary source is incomplete from the start. I assumed somebody better would find a good alternative, but the "free registration required" link and the technically unsourced warning about the missing info still stands there years later.

It's crazy how hard it is to comply with *usually* sensible Wikipedia rules when there's no third-party media coverage of a fact. ^(If you want to help with wikipedia, don't fear asking in the talk page! It's there for a reason!)

You don't know what happened to the discarded blue one...

Yeah, it does. I guess that the switch weren't affected by regulations for websites.

> Never have I seen a website do that, it's always just the last four digits.

Note that the browser is always acting between you and the website, so it's possible that standard browser handle automatically that for fields about CCs, and the switch's browser didn't.

They aren't merely ignorants, they are anti-knowledge.
A willful ignorant wouldn't care about what happens around the world once their sand is buried. Those people want to make sure the entire world stops evolving so they don't look like the guys with a head in the send.

Well, it is a question of control. An anticheat, by definition, is a software that needs to strip control from the user to give it to its developer.
A software bundled with a malicious piece of code to "strip control from the user to give it to its developer" is the practical definition of a rootkit.

So it depends on what is or isn't malicious, but computers don't care about that.

The simple fact your ex decided to out you on what they thought your sexuality makes it an asshole.
My wife discovered she is heavily on the lesbian part of the spectrum, and that doesn't allow me to out her in her place.

G.I.R.L. => Guy In Real Life

But at that point it means only close ones can identify you. It can't reach your employer for example.

I think she REALLY hid something and recated instinctively, so when he asked she made up "wedding ring".
She wouldn't start by saying "something personal" if it was something he meant to find, in her place I would've said "shiny" or "gift"

uBlock origin and as the cherry on top, a network-wide DNS blocker like Pihole, Adguard or NextDNS

Note that you can legally get free games, like on r/FreeGamesOnSteam that list such deals.
Some special cases to the rule also exists : Minecraft used to provide the old Classic for free in browsers, nowadays provides a time-limited demo, and Raspberry Pi OS still bundles a very, very old legal free copy of Minecraft with features to integrate the virtual world with IRL devices.

And sometimes you can pay for an illegal copy, like Uplink in 2000 : the publisher never paid the dev for the copies they sold, which means the people who paid for the game weren't more legal than the ones who pirated.

While I'm on it, devs prefer that you pirate games rather than using key resellers. It is a legally grey area, but those keys are often obtained with stolen details, or by scamming the devs out of press keys. Both cost money to the dev's customer support team, while pirating doesn't cost them a penny. It's technically a legal copy, but it's a very unethical way of getting cuts.

Note that some legal games can still cause damages to a computer. Notably, a dreamcast game loaded a virus when plugged into a computer to access the bundled screensaver. And some legal games anticheat system is borderline acting as a rootkit.