It's more gruesome about the chicken. These are also said to be counted in fall. It's not just about hatching (in summer), but rather about surviving till fall...
The original Nokia 5110 obviously lived long, probably still is there in author's drawer in some disassembled state.
Yamaha digital pianos have on-board recorder which is quite convenient and separates left and right hands.
However, the internal capacity is fairly limited and there's some tolerable yet a delay after the recording to save the buffer on the flash.
I don't think there's a ready way to copy such internal recording from the piano onto some external medium.
This device may be a nice 'upgrade' for such digital pianos. It'd be nice if the recordings can also be played for a selected hand, so that it could be used in learning.
IMO, the firstmost source is your own observations. 3x cube is very tactile, so some moves are just natural.
It helps also to develop some sort of notation for yourself. This way you can track and repeat your moves.
Solving by layers is kinda logical. So solving one side (first layer) is not hard. Then some experimentation with rotation sequences which temporarily break the solved layer/face and then re-assemble it will lead to discovery of moves to swap the edges into the second layer.
The hardest then is to solve the third layer. Again, the notation and observations help charting your way through.
A curious discovery may be about some repeated pattern of moves which may be totally shuffling the cube yet, if continuing it, eventually returns the position to the beginning state. It's kind of a "period".
Solving by layers is logical, it's what most beginners learn, and it is kind of how CFOP (the most popular speedsolving method) works. Nevertheless, it's not what I would recommend. The problem with solving layer by layer is that you are sort of painting yourself into a corner from the beginning. After you have finished the first layer, you can't really do anything without breaking the first layer. Of course it is possible (and necessary) to proceed in a way where you keep breaking and repairing the first layer while progressing with the rest of the cube, but the limited freedom of movement still makes the solution process needlessly complicated, and increases the move count.
In my opinion, it's better to start by solving a part of the cube that still leaves you with a significant amount of freedom of movement without breaking what you have already done. There are several ways to do this. My favorite method (Roux) starts by not making a full layer, but just a 3x2 rectangle on one side. This rectangle is placed on the bottom left part of the cube. You still have a considerable degree of freedom, you can turn the top layer and the two rightmost layers without breaking your 3x2 rectangle.
The next step is to build a symmetrical 3x2 rectangle on the lower right side of the cube. This is quite easy to do by just using the top layer and the two rightmost layers, thus avoiding to mess up the left hand 3x2.
After finishing the two 3x2 rectangles (commonly known as the "first block" and the "second block"), the next step is to solve the corners on the top of the cube. This is the only algorithmic step of Roux, you use a number of memorized algorithms. However, the algorithms are shorter and simpler than those for the top layer of a layer-by-layer approach, because the algorithms are allowed to mess up everything along the middle slice (which hasn't been solved yet) and the edge pieces on the top of the cube.
After finishing the top corners, you are still free to move the middle slice and the top layer without messing up what you've already done. Fortunately, this is enough for solving (intuitively!) the remaining pieces. You can finish the solve by using only these non-destructive moves.
The Roux method, therefore, allows you to keep the maximum degree of freedom of movement (without destroying what's already been solved) all the way until the end. This is what allows it to have a very low move count, and what's makes it easy to learn. It also gives you a lot of creative opportunities compared to CFOP and other layer-by-layer methods. Because of the increased freedom, there are more ways of doing things, and bigger scope for clever shortcuts, especially when building the first and second blocks.
+1. Scratch indeed is very flexible environment for that (even younger) age group.
Lots of interactive ideas could be easily implemented with already available assets (sprites, backgrounds, sounds), customized too. It's more tooled for platformers. There are many nice tutorials (loadable projects). Tons of books (we used 'Super skills. How to code').
The other day this 8yo even had to face first ever concurrency bug - the race condition. Alas there are no ready mutexes as such in Scratch, but we found a way to synchronize the execution.
At times I did feel that it'd be faster to just type the code, but the kid actually felt more in control doing all the needed coding with touch/mouse.
Also the projects/games are shareable, so friends can load that too.
But it is super unwieldy. Pretty much the only way to decode those files without compiling the decoder from source since it has non-standard lz4 headers.
For the few remaining SQLite files DB Browser works great.
That OnStar button is a service, it needs location. Other mfgrs have some kind of remote assistance service too. Now, what if the owner have not subscribed?
Why does it need to keep a long-term history, though? Isn't an ephemeral ping to get the current location enough? Or if you're trying for better resiliency, let it ping as often as you want but be responsible and only cache it for an hour or a day or whatever. Even a day is probably too long to be practical. They're not going to send help to a location ping from 18 hours ago...
The original Nokia 5110 obviously lived long, probably still is there in author's drawer in some disassembled state.