I obviously don't know anything about your situation, but the article specifically talks about:

"Lost baggage is when a passenger’s baggage is lost or goes missing due to an error on the part of the [Kansai] airport."

Perhaps in your case they considered the delay to have been due to somebody else's fault?

Weird things do happen. I was once looking out of an airplane window waiting for takeoff when I saw my suitcase getting offloaded from the hold and taken back to the terminal. Spoke to the crew, who spoke to ground staff, who brought the bag back.

Not the slightest idea what it was all about... (I'm guessing some sort of mix-up in which they thought I'd failed to board?)

I'm only superficially familiar with the Japanese culture, but it somehow feels suprising that they didn't leave an apologetic note explaining that they were forced to destroy the lock and why.

> 94.5% is actually terrible.

This statement is quite broad and misses several important factors.

First of all, a test's sensitivity and specificity. The math in your example assumes a balanced test, but on what basis? The math comes out quite different for high-sensitivity or high-specificity tests. (Unfortunately, I could not find the numbers for the test in the linked article.)

Secondly, whom are we testing? The prevalence rate in your example (1%) is unrealistically low even for the general population. But would we screen the general population? No, we'd screen high-risk groups: the elderly, those with certain APOE genotypes etc. Predictive values of a test depend hugely on the prevalence rate.

Lastly, it depends on how the results are used. If it's a high-sensitivity test used to decide whom to send to the next tier in a multi-tier diagnostic system, it could actually be quite effective at that (very rarely missing the disease while greatly reducing the need for more expensive or more invasive testing).

Probably either lecanemab (older) or donanemab (newer).

In my friend's case, donanemab, FWIW.

> LIDAR would be preferrable to cameras when it comes to privacy actually

Right, but how likely is it that there will be LIDAR and no cameras (especially given the low cost of the latter)?

I think the car would have to be more actively involved in the process for that to count. :)

> The talking improves almost automatically, without having to practice it.

I absolutely don't doubt your experience, but find it interesting that mine has been the exact opposite.

I listen to a lot of German and read a fair amount. As a result, my listening and reading comprehension got pretty good (at least B2). My writing has also improved significantly (probably also around B2). However, I find that this does not transfer well to speaking, which I need to practise separately in order to see a meaningful improvement. After some targeted lessons I'm just about approaching B1.

Perhaps transferability will improve once I reach a certain level of fluency. I think this might have happened when I was learning English. However, this was so long ago that I no longer remember.

For the next language I might try to overemphasise speaking from day one just to see how the learning trajectory differs.

There's quite a lot of research into what our increasing reliance on technology is doing to our briains.

Here is one paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62877-0

"Although the longitudinal sample was small, we observed an important effect of GPS use over time, whereby greater GPS use since initial testing was associated with a steeper decline in hippocampal-dependent spatial memory. Importantly, we found that those who used GPS more did not do so because they felt they had a poor sense of direction, suggesting that extensive GPS use led to a decline in spatial memory rather than the other way around."

But there's typically plenty at stake for the recipient. If my accountant tried to use my financial information in some improper way, he'd better have a good plan for what comes next.