In Australia, if a company fails to nominate a speeding fine for a company car - either refusing or not maintaining records - then the fine is multiplied compared to that for an individual.
An N100 minipc or second-hand Dell Optiplex doesn't cost too much more than a rasp-Pi ($100-200), has a lot more power, and will only pull about 10W idle.
My optiplex shows as 8.191 kwh last month -> 11w average.
Better off watching CGP Grey's video "The Better Boarding Method Airlines Won't Use" which has more discussion of the topic, more simulations, and puts forward better methods that are either faster or allow families to remain grouped.
This is basically https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0733 but differs to the paper in that it doesn't consider: alternating odd-and-even row disembarkment, which would give passengers more aisle space to potentially speed-up luggage handling.
I'll ask the dumb question - he'd already taken his money out, what financial advantage is he meant to have then gained by encouraging others to do the same?
To be fair, Valve were sued into enacting their return policy by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), and no longer offer flash sales because of it.
No, dota has a paid subscription ($5 p/m) which gates gameplay features, many of which would be really useful for newer players - ingame coaching, item suggestions, hero pick suggestions, death summary, live gameplay tips, avoid player list, ranked mmr double downs that can be used after drafting phase, exclusive modes, and live spectating (free users have to use discord streaming or spectate with 2 minutes delay).
Microtransactions, real money loot-boxes, gambling, NFT marketplace, battlepasses
doesn't milk it's users?
Dota used to have $35 "arcanas", a high quality skin for a single hero which were released intermittently - but that wasn't enough money, they're now placed $200+ deep in the yearly battlepass. If you played any of their games, you'd realise they're one of greediest in the business.
It's not profound to say that sustained (infinite) growth is unsustainable, but it is of interest when it's within a conceivable timeframe.
It's not worth reading however, because the author whimsically extrapolates energy usage starting from 230 years before the invention of the lightbulb to get their exponential growth argument which doesn't hold at all for modern data.
Since Peter is given the product of the two numbers, he should instantly know the pair if both numbers are prime, but since he doesn't it rules out pairs like (7x11) = 77 and (2x53) = 106.
Sandy knows the sum and has now been told that Peter doesn't know the pair. If the sum had been 6, the following pairs are possible: (1+5) (3+3) (4+2), Peter has just ruled out (1x5) and (3x3), so Sandy would be able to narrow it down to (1,5) if the sum had been 6.
So when she tells Peter she can't narrow it down, it tells him that the pair isn't (4,2) either (among many others).
And if Peter's number were 8: (1x8) or (2x4) he'd be able to solve it, but he doesn't so Sandy then knows that (1,8) isn't the solution either.
Two numbers are chosen randomly, both are positive integers smaller than 100. Sandy is told the sum of the numbers, while Peter is told the product of the numbers.
You're not adjusting for inflation (cash + increases in electricity costs), ambitiously assuming an equivalent 10% return on other investments, or re-investing the amount saved per year in your calculations (that $1650 you save in the first year also compounds to ~$16.25k).