Personal email servers will communicate with each other happily but you need a middleman one for important recipients if you want to be sure it gets into an inbox.
“The more I hear about this Hitler fellow, the less I like him”
My pet idea is to make some use of longwave! You know those time signals broadcast around 60 kHz? They cover thousands of kilometres from one transmitter. At 60 kHz the wavelength is 5 kilometres long and the RF tends to diffract around objects like mountains, buildings, etc. that get in the way. Longwave tends to penetrate underground, and through Faraday cages meant for short wavelengths.
Those time signals broadcast, in effect, 1 bit per second. The receiver is dead simple electronically and requires almost no energy to run. What if we broadcast a more modern error-corrected data stream? Every device could be supplied with a receive-only stream of a few hundred bits a second of whatever. I admit it's a solution somewhat in search of a problem. Weather updates? Emergency alerts?
Dim memory from my Ham Radio days that you’d need an antenna length of 1/4 the wavelength, which wouldn’t be very convenient for portable devices, unfortunately.
Nothing is really new. I used to live in West Germany in the '70s and '80s. The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet. At that time I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). I made models of both as a child and I think both of them were superb in their own way.
Harrier was designed to work out of fields, let alone roads. Rather similar to an Apache. Minimal maint (ish) and so on.
I now live in Yeovil, Somerset and we have recently had several Italian rotary wing aircraft, such as The Seaking doing test flights around here. Presumably airframe testing and proving for VJ Day.
Also, the French: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar which was designed to be useable from improvised runways, hence the extremely robust landing gear.
Between reasons like in this article, or being born intersex, etc, there are definitely people with female chromosomes who have competed in men's sports, or people with female sex organs and male chromosomes that have competed in female sports. I don't know what the "fairness" answer is, but these are real people.
Using the word “gender” to refer to the concepts of both “reproductive sex” (chromosomes, gametes, genitals) and also “gender” (socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and expectations associated with femininity and masculinity) certainly makes it very complex to reason about and discuss, particularly if it feels socially distasteful to separate the two.
Without getting the soapbox out, it seems to me that there’s an infinite number of possible “genders” as each unique individual can construct whatever permutation of supposedly feminine and masculine coded things that suits them. But broadly speaking, there are two sexes - the one that went down the developmental pathway to produce and ejaculate semen, and the one that went down the pathway to be able to ovulate, incubate fertilised eggs, give birth and nurse with milk.
So in considering sport, given the physiological consequences of reproductive role causes female performance to be on average significantly lower than for males, does it make sense for sporting categories to be gendered (how people look or act) or sexed (how people are constructed)?
There’s a inclusivity argument for “yes” from the point of view of the interests of one group (transgender people), but it seems to come at the cost of preventing female athletes from doing anything other than merely participating in many competitions, rather than being able to win them.