The person checking IDs at the checkpoint isn't investigating which airline you're flying on, they're just checking you have a boarding pass issued for that day and that you're the same person named on the identity document.

It's the traveler's responsibility to know where they need to go, and airline staff and communications will often help.

That's because the biggest tech companies have the resources to invest heavily in security and they are constantly updating their products to make them harder to crack. Smaller companies don't have the same resources, so their products are more vulnerable to being cracked and used for free.

That's correct, there's no true 100% certainty. But as a matter of statistics, you can interpret some threshold level match as an effective yes/no.

There's not much of a point in overly restricting the windows OS.

End users who don't want to pay for it anyone are just going to find a workaround.

It's the OEMs and corporate users where Microsoft makes their money, and who also lucrative targets for legal action if they are using it unlicensed

It's a similar strategy to how Adobe has protected their creative suite products: they rather have college students and personal enthusiasts familiar with that particular software than fight tooth and nail enforcing licensing on the average person.

This is by far the most correct answer. The question is based on a completely false idea.

Applications made by smaller companies are not impossible to break. They're just smaller targets that are generally not worth the effort.

The more things the software tries to do the more potential gaps appear in the system for it to be cracked and the larger the data pool the more people who are trying to crack into it.

Windows doesn't make most of their money off regular folks installing Windows. They make their money from businesses buying licenses for all their staff and from computer makers buying licensees to preinstall windows on your HP laptop. They want normal people to just use Windows by default so they don't care if the guy that built his custom gaming rig doesn't pay for Windows.

You’re 100% correct, there’s plenty of hard unmoving objects that necessitate ski helmets. When I was in my 20’s I hit an ice patch while skiing and went into a tree sideways, hitting so hard I almost severed my quadriceps without breaking the skin. A ski patrol saw the incident and assumed my leg was broken, they were dumbfounded when I stood up, waved them off and skiied away. It wasn’t until the next day when I got out of bed and face-planted that I realized how bad it was. Was on crutches for over a year. Helmets, kids.

Yeah, that's why I'm checking what they mean. I already know of muon catalysation, but who knows, maybe someone figured out how to use Pi- mesons intead of electrons

Since it would be operating at the temperature of a coal power plant it could use the same steam cycle and turbines. In fact cold fusion could be retrofitted on top of current infrastructure with a little imagination.

I think they're referring to muon catalyzed fusion. It's considered impractical due to the high cost of muon sources and the relatively short life span of the particle itself.

One possibility is a blunder where two identical samples generate different results. Lab A didn't follow protocol, or a reagent was a bit old, or a power glitch or similar. This is independent of whether they are using the same method, same loci, etc.

This type of error is common enough that there are special checks routinely included. This might be a "standard" sample run in the same batch. They know what result the standard is supposed to have so if it's wrong then your sample may also be wrong.

Of course that doesn't fix a different kind of blunder where your sample got mislabelled or switched, or spoiled while in shipping. Those get checked by blind "traveller" standards. That's where occasionally the lab QA person mails a standard in labelled just like a normal sample. It's not a perfect check because it just detects sloppy handling of the traveller, not sloppy handling of your sample. But it does serve to weed out systematic problems

Another possibility is a random match or mismatch. If a given loci is expected to be present in, say, 50% of the population, and there's no correlation between loci, then the chance that two different sources match at 23 loci (but not the 24th). is around 1/2^24,. Which is one in about 16 million.

Do paternity tests give a certain yes or no now? I needed one for citizenship purposes years ago and the report we got only had a percentage, like, “there’s a 99.995% chance of paternity” or some very high but slightly under 100% percentage, but not a solid yes or no. They explained to us at the time that no test could be 100% certain, so a yes or no answer would be invalid.

you are gonig off a missguided assumption:

"cold fusion" doesnt mean the reactino doesnt output any heat ever, it means that the requirements to start the reaction are much lower. the output is identical to regular fusion.

I mean you're asking us to speculate because I'm pretty sure none of us have cameras in your bedroom, but you obviously put some clothes on in your sleep and don't remember. That's not entirely uncommon.

It shouldn't be. If both tests were performed properly they should both get the same result. What good is a paternity test that fails to accurate determine paternity?

[removed]

Could just have gotten cold in the middle of the night, but never hurts to check your carbon monoxide levels and set up a camera just to be safe.

[removed]

Kind of like saying "the safest way to avoid a car crash is to denote your vehicle in the driveway"

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Questions about a business or a group's motivation are not allowed on ELI5. These are usually either straightforward, or known only to the organisations involved, leading to speculation (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Yep, the way they get to their answer might be different but it should still give the same answer (you are the father yes/no) if the method is sound.

You're assumption that different labs may test different loci is probably true, depending on whichever test kit they have sourced to conduct their paternity testing. That being said, testing different loci should still come up with the same results, so different test couldn't wouldn't explain the differing results unfortunately

It's likely that burning the chemicals was the safest and most efficient way to dispose of them.