During long-haul flights (which is the case for trans-atlantic flights), planes average about 100g CO2 per passenger-kilometer.
Ocean-worthy passenger ships are frequently in excess of 200g CO2 per passenger-kilometer for basic passenger transport vessels. Cruise ships are much worse even, frequently emitting >400g CO2 per passenger-kilometer.
So, how would boats be better for crossing the Atlantic?
Passenger boats are far worse for the environment than passenger planes.
x86 has bit manipulation instructions for any bit. If you have a book stored in bit 5 it doesn’t need to do anything masking, it can just directly check the state of bit 5. If you do masking in a low-level programming language to access individual bits then the compiler optimization will almost always change them to the corresponding bit manipulation instructions.
So there’s not even a performance impact if you’re cycle limited. If you have to operate on a large number of bools then packing 8 of them in bytes can sometimes actually improve performance, as then you can more efficiently use the cache. Though unless you’re working with thousands of bools in a fast running loop you’re likely not going to really notice the difference.
But most bool implementations still end up wasting 7 out of 8 bits (or sometimes even 15 out of 16 or 31 out of 32 to align to the word size of the device) simply because that generally produces the most readable code. Programming languages are not only designed for computers, but also for humans to work on and maintain, and waisting bits in a bool happens to be more optimal for keeping code readable and maintainable.
Unfortunately no one else is interacting with it either. I miss the old style forums, and most of the ones I used to frequent are still online. But they all haven’t had any real activity in years, so they aren’t really usable anymore unfortunately.
A wooden toothpick is probably a bit too thick. You’d want something thin enough that it can be inserted without touching the electrical contacts. If you do have something plastic then that’s probably better, but if you do the cleaning when the device is off the USB port should be unpowered and there shouldn’t be a risk of causing a short, and modern USB ports are quite well protected again shorts anyway so it’s very unlikely to cause damage just by being conductive. You mainly want something that is long and thin enough to get all the way to the bottom of the port without having to apply any force. If the only things you have that are long and thin enough to reach the bottom of the port without having to be forced in are made of metal, then that’s still a safer option than jamming something too thick into the port that can deform the center contacts.
Grab a thin needle or piece of wire, thin enough to easily insert into the USB-C port, and scratch all of the dirt and lint out of it. Always point the needle towards the outer surface so you don’t scratch the electrical contacts in the middle.
There is often a surprising amount of junk inside even if you can’t see it from the outside, and that can greatly affect the connection quality.
My phone recently had a similar issue where it would only charge if the cable was inserted in a specific way, and any movement would cause it to stop charging. The cable also wasn’t really held well even though it looked like it was fully inserted. I cleaned out the port even though I couldn’t see anything inside, and managed to pull out a bit of dust anyway. And now my phone no longer has charging issues and holds on to the cable much better.
USB-C unfortunately just seems to have a design that makes it very easy for dust to get stuck in it, while also having a relatively low tolerance for foreign material buildup before the connection quality gets affected, making this a quite common issue.
Oh sure I’m “reading airline propaganda”.
If you want to claim any counter-argument is some evil company’s propaganda, then please go back to your echo chamber and I am no longer interested in discussing with you. Goodbye.