Wasn't that the OPs argument?
Companies have been building tunnel after tunnel [..] and optimized the process. No one had tried to large scale industrialize satellite + space launcher production before.
E-Ship 1 exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1
They report fuel savings up to 25%, so it may be viable for some ships types and voyages. But a long way from propelling the whole ship.
It's a Ro Ro ship for rolling cargo. Not a big one and without the additional car decks an ocean going Ro Ro ship typically has, but for what it is the cargo capacity is reasonable.
A "normal" ocean-going Ro Ro ship would be over 200m long and quite a bit higher. Typically only the lowest deck can carry trucks and heavy loads and the upper decks carry cars. Their solution of only having the heavy load deck is sensible since they need a low center of gravity to counteract the sails and any added deck height hurts the sailing characteristics.
With all that said, there is not much to scale it up. They could make it a bit longer but probably mostly easily: risk in bad weather, structural integrity demands from the added sails and all that may quickly add up.
This, I would go so far as keeping kids from social media is in conflict with (arguably) one of the most important jobs parents have which is getting kids into social interactions.
(E.g. by teaching them good manners so others will play with them)
If the immigration is double the normal expected growth (~tripling the growth) it is not really tiny. It may very well be solvable, maybe even easily.
But the problem in many European countries is that "the left" does not even acknowledge that this may be a problem and should be solved leading to many people voting for "the far right" that does acknowledge that this is a problem.
In the US housing may not be the biggest issue, but the result is the same: the average voter can choose between "there is no problem, we can take in as many immigrant as we want forever" and "we don't want immigration".
I think in US barriers of entry are lower. I've seen a video about a software developer in US that lived in the neighborhood where garbage collection company wanted to charge extra for getting out of the truck and emptying the trash bins.
This guy basically told their neighbors that he can provide same service they used to have at the same rate, collected orders and bought random used "smaller" (but still quite large) garbage truck with robotic hand to pick up the bins.
In Europe without special driving license for trucks he wouldn't be able to drive it (it weighed above 3.5T). I'm assuming other kinds of licenses are also required to ensure the collected garbage is disposed of properly.
In many places garbage collection is a service that's ordered through the local government so that the prices can be kept similar for everybody so that people from remote places (who'd need to pay more for collection) won't just toss their garbage into the forests and such.
Secure Boot makes persisting malware in the kernel fairly difficult.
Which IMHO made sense coming from Windows 7 where driver rootkits and boot kits where trivial. With today's main threat model being encryption malware I would agree that it doesn't add all that much for most people.
It really doesn't prevent anything like that, not even remotely. First, to do any type of persistence that would be detected by Secure Boot, you already require unencrypted, block-level access to the disk drive, possibly even to partitions outside the system drive. There are a gazillion other ways that malware can persist if you already have this level of access and none would be detected by Secure Boot. If you were able to tamper with the kernel enough to do this in the first place, you can likely do it on each boot even if launched from a "plain old" service.
In addition to the technical details mentioned there is also the "social" part:
Having Anticheat lets the company show they are doing "something" against cheating and keeps law abiding players from installing cheats.
Having rudder and propeller on different stations can be useful to organize work on the bridge, especially on a warship. The possibility of having the two propellers on different stations is imho insane.
The only reason that I can think of is a runaway "safety" requirement ~"if one prop control fails you still must be able to take control of the other prop on a different station". That would fit what the article says about them essentially running in manual backup mode all the time and not in the intended mode of operation.
