No? I think there would easily be other use cases where Blenders UI would be very suitable, e.g. Audio software.
It is not a UI paradigm that you would use for just anything, but for certain poweruser software it is one of the best paradigms I have seen, especially since they managed to get rid of 90% of the rough corners in the past decade of development.
You mean decently-funded students. The education system compared to pretty much anywhere else on Earth is extremely well-funded, it just goes to administrative parasites.
There are a few Nordic countries that are at about 80% of California. California students have an average of $27,418 per student projected for 2026-2027, and $25k in 2025. I'm finding nearly half of that for UK, Europe. Perhaps you could peruse some statistics and cite yours? Taking into account PPP Norway and Austria get close (22k and 20k respectively). Germany and France after taking into account PPP still are around 15-17k.
Far from from 'most', we find literally none except for Luxembourg ($33k), which being an extremely wealthy and tiny nation is not that much of a surprise; and is otherwise an extremely outlier.
On the other hand, the UK, France, and Germany are all beaten by Alabama [yes, that bastion of education], at $15k PPP (you can't, of course, forget to apply PPP calculations to the US states you are looking at if you're going to apply them to European countries). This is, btw, very consistent with the average income in these areas, too - Alabama is around or wealthier in PPP terms than the UK, France, and Germany as well.
I am fascinated by the cryptography behind e-voting. That being said I am still against it for high stakes elections.
My main reason is that the purpose of elections is not just to figure out the preferences of the electorate, the main purpose is to deliver agreeable consent. And that means a big part of elections beyond the technical process of figuring out public sentiment is convincing everybody involved that the process itself is orderly. And it turns out the best way to do that is to make the process simple and understandable and involve people from all parties and from all walks of life as little cogs within the actual system.
Now yes, you can mathematically proof correctness of certain e-voting processes. But that proof does not give you the trust of the general population. We vote because we want to avoid having a civil war every time public sentiment shifts. Trust is everything. While we nerds may think there is nothing better than maths to do that, the relationship normal people have with computers is basically one where some foreign power constantly changes how their computer works. Ir is not a device that inspires incredible trust and transparency. It took me two decades to come close to understanding how computers work and even I would rather trust the paper ballot system than some e-voting system if my life and my countries future depended on it and I have to assume that the very chips on which that system runs may have backdoors. And even if I verified that they didn't, how can I know that I didn't miss anything on election day? No thanks.
It isn't generally a problem to hoard unused room. It is a problem to hoard unused room in an environment where room is scarce. It is not a problem to extract wealth from other people's work. It is a problem to extract money from other people's when you pay them wages from which they cannot live. It is not a problem to fill water into swimming pools, but it might be a problem if you are in a desert city and others need to ration water.
Context and amount matters deeply. People like Sam Altman often like to refer to utilitarian principles, when it helps further their goals. Whether that is really their true motivation can be seen in small things like whether they apply the same principles to the same decisions of their lifes.
Attempt to hack a computer system, the idea is tou try to break automated tooling the court may have in place with malicious intent. If you tried to do a drop tables SQL injection and it did in fact drop tables you would also find yourself in a very bad spot. Let's say it is a very good way to figure out how much good will you can lose with a court while not gaining anything.
Not that I am an expert in this but living in a harbor city I know that mooring in harbours is not cheap (e.g. where I am 20k€/day). That means you will have significant mooring costs. Potentially wages are lower because there are less people om board.
When they are at sea they have to pay fuel (probably 100k€ per day), but they also have paying customers on board which is priced to be profitable. If cruise ships wouldn't earn money they would not exist. Without customers they don't have money.
reply