> I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage. [0]

So reframed, TFA argues that one must be "hardworking and clever" instead of "hardworking and stupid".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord#Cl...

So your test may seem successful, but the box not be enough closer to a tower, or if your neighbor added a new AP, or if cell phone frequencies changed since you bought and tested it. Moreover, if you have to open and close it often, you have to be careful that the attenuation doesn't degrade.

All that to say that the "Faraday box solution" would mean testing it regularly with professional instruments and all that. It is far simpler and cheaper to ask guests to leave their phones in their cars.

Not as easy as one may think. If you put a phone in a generic waterproof metal box (metal junction or biscuit box for instance) and call it with another one, most of the time it will still ring...

I would argue that is not Jevons paradox but standard supply and demand (and this "reverse Jevons paradox" too). Jevons paradox occurs when a more efficient use of a resource leads to an increase in its use (instead of a decrease as a first order analysis would suggest).

(And the Jolla's "hardware privacy switch" feels like a bad joke: yes, the switch is hardware. What it does (if anything) is fully handled in software.)

Well... I'm mostly back to paper after losing most of the notes I had taken on my own Remarkable 2.

Why a sphere and not just a circle or conversely a hyper-sphere in many dimensions? The idea of sphere and growth with 4pi steradian suggests you imply something on the fundamental number of dimensions of knowledge (that may or may not exists).

Regarding the growth of this "sphere": if you consider that a human brain is finite and can hold only a finite quantity of information, then there must be a point where any new concept is too large to fit. Hence, the growth stops somewhere, unless we find a way to go beyond this natural limit (but then, are we still speaking of human beings?).