explore_broaden

Yes, the first one matches only 2 more characters while the second matches 1 or more. Also the +? is a lazy quantifier so it will consume as little as possible.

That doesn’t really make sense, even if they’re in the 37% tax bracket if the wrap costs $100 they only save $37 on taxes.

They are using nitrogen gas, generated from liquid nitrogen.

I wouldn’t say the OS is Linux any more than the OS of an Apple computer is XNU. Linux is just the kernel. Similarly the other OS isn’t “Windows NT kernel,” but Windows 10 or Windows 11.

I’m not sure when you were using it, but Navidrome definitely let’s you play individual songs and shuffle.

fsck almost certainly isn’t going to cause loss of data, but it will likely inform you about a loss that already occurred if that is the issue you are having.

Yeah but also this is only for their EU profit, so it’s really an even higher percentage.

It doesn’t really make sense to talk about money they made in other countries when talking about these fines, as if they make 5 billion in profit in country X and get fined 6 billion, they would still have lost money for operating in the country regardless of how much money they made other places. Since they lost money in the country, that fine would be high enough for them to want to fix their law breaking or totally pull out of the country, and so the fine accomplishes its purpose.

To be fair the glorified babysitter wouldn’t require 4+ years of education on educating children, so they probably couldn’t just be “simply teaching.” This is still an awful idea, they seem to be trying to save money by paying a glorified babysitter a lower wage than a teacher. Private schools can be for profit in some place, I wonder if that applies here.

I’m pretty sure that it’s true that citing sources isn’t really relevant to copyright violation, either you are violating or not. Saying where you copied from doesn’t change anything, but if you are using some ideas with your own analysis and words it isn’t a violation either way.

My point is that the heat increase of the heart doesn’t have to be so insane. If someone was designing a microwave human heater they would have to make the power level such that it would always result in a safe rate of temperature increase. Obviously using an off the shelf food microwave wouldn’t work.

Is heating someone too quickly a concern if they don’t have hypothermia? Like if I’m sitting round in my house and start to feel cold, and I get in a hot bath, it’s not going to heat me up too fast, right?

But wouldn’t the microwaves also warm the heart? There’s no reason a microwave at the right power couldn’t slowly heat someone up. I don’t think the OP is asking about someone who is dangerously cold either, so the extreme care that needs to be taken when someone is in serious danger due to how cold they are might not be relevant in this case.

Microwaves don’t just heat water molecules, although due to density they absorb a large amount relative to many other substances. Also since humans are mostly water, the heating should be even enough to not be quite as problematic as you describe. Some sensitive areas like eyes are an issue, but otherwise it’s possible a low enough dose could warm someone a couple of degrees without causing any harm.