In space vehicle rescue systems, goal is typically to direct both lift and ejection acceleration force to the horizontal rather than vertical vector in relation to the human body. We have a far greater tolerance of such short term high G loads, one of the reasons being that it doesn't stress the spine in the way you describe.

Correct. Like all EU directives, it sets the common limits and each country decides how to implement the directive within the limits of the directive.

However the fact remains that copyright directive that synchronised copyright laws has already been passed and implemented in member state legislatures. The problem presented by OP does not exist.

That has already been done in the copyright directive that was pushed through the European Parliament and implemented into law in all member countries many years ago.

Typically EU rules in cases like these have harmonized the common market by making it illegal to attempt to block these sales on commercial grounds. For example someone ordering the product from another common market member country cannot be blocked for commercial reasons from making the purchase on grounds of "this is a different country and therefore different market for which we want different rules (i.e. price) enforced".

You may obviously charge different sum for delivery in case of physical items with different countries inside common market area, but with digital items this would land you in court for obvious reasons.

This is a story about specific form of content blocking: geoblocking for commercial reasons. What you are asking about is a completely different kind of blocking: blocking because of legal reasons. Therefore it's safe to say that this will not impact it in any shape or form.

The example you cite contradicts the claim I asked you to a citation for.

You cannot blame people who have a significant incentive not to upgrade their hardware for fighting it. What you can do is put pressure from the other side to force it regardless as has been done across most of the Western countries now.

Considering that this forced many older plants to either go for full renovation of the boiler or closure, it's been a pretty hard fight for understandable reasons.

Citation for your claim:

"The "far more capacity" you cite is roughly double, which is pretty close to the difference in deep discharge capability between lead-acid and Li-ion"

Citation please, considering that if this was even remotely close to being true, you're suggesting that all major telecom operators have fucked up in a major way, as main form of cell tower backup today is VRLA battery banks. If your capacity argument was anywhere near true, li-ion would have been long considered as operators are updating cell tower hardware very often and I have never heard li-ion being more than considered unless there was a specific need for it (i.e. weight restrictions on site). Reason is always the same - far too low capacity for cost.

Afaik (hearsay from a friend who is a professional electrician that among other things did electric wiring in large apartment building I used to live in) the main reason for this is costs. But that was often left to the electrician to decide on site in older buildings where building process was nowhere near as tightly degisned regulated (i.e. benefits of computerization of design process didn't exist yet).

Nowadays requirements tend to be tighter.

Which point makes no sense to you? The fact that snow comes every year? That fact huge earthquakes occur approximately once a century? That due to relative energy density, a single tank of an average household sized backup generator will hold much more energy than a battery bank like one advertised in the story?

On a last note, as a Finn with experience in actually clearing snow I would like to simply state that you have no clue on how hard it is to clear snow from the roof to the level where solar panel would do anything at all.

Because snow happens for extended amounts of time every year in relevant regions which are huge, whereas huge earthquakes happen only at faultline regions and only once a century or so.

Also, "severing pipelines" on regional level doesn't really matter in case of earthquake for single household in case we're discussing. If you get severed connections from disaster, chances are that you either leave the region if roads are still operable and logistics work until basic damage control has been done by emergency services, or they are too damaged to allow you to leave and you're stuck and limited to what you have directly on site.

In which case, you likely have far more energy in a single tank of your ICE generator than in a battery bank.

Considering the existence of residential flooded cells and VRLA batteries for decades and the fact that they absolutely destroy these li-ion batteries in all relevant factors except weight, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's more about "ignorant people that didn't know battery backup for residential and small business existed for decades and is far more efficient than these batteries" vs "people who know battery backup for residential and small business existed for decades and is far more efficient than these batteries".

Considering the fact that instead of actual hard numbers, initial release mostly focused on how pretty said batteries look, it's pretty obvious who they are going to be marketed towards however.

Sun's thermal radiation heats roof, thermal energy goes into attic though the roof, there is no active cooling in the attic other than the fan that kicks in at 43C.

That is how thermal energy works. Just because temperature in well ventilated shady area is 23C doesn't mean that it's going to be the same in well lit enclosed space.

Which incidentally is likely to be the site of battery installation.