I think the sentence is referring to aircraft that have been forced to land by the enemy, in contrast to "grounded" aircraft that had not taken flight.

I haven't worked in aviation so my understanding of terminology could be wrong, but either way it is definitely an unusual example.

"The enemy landed 4 of our aircraft" without context wouldn't generally mean "forced to land" imo (as a native speaker). It would mean that they either destroyed them or managed to acquire them.

For example I might say that "they landed 4 aircraft with their daring" if they forced us to abandon an air craft carrier (e.g. by sinking it) and then managed to steal 4 of the planes (before it sunk). Or I might say "they landed 4 aircraft with that bomb" if they dropped a bomb on an airfield and it destroyed 4 aircraft.

Right, I think you understand the word as I do: 'verb' + ed. "The enemy landed the jet" as in they forced the jet to land either directly or indirectly. This would mean that the two sentences use "landed" the same way. But my understanding is SuperGLUE's offical answer is that these use "landed" differently with the rational that "landed" is idiomatic and just means to procure or bring about (e.g. "I landed the job") and it happens to be used with planes.

A fishing boat can land a big catch - and a sales executive might have landed a big deal, perhaps after reeling them in or having them on the hook.

So this would be particularly apt wording if the enemy had thrown a net over the plane as it sank in the ocean.

But I prefer to think the enemy gifted british country estates to the planes.

Both of these are just coping methods to either have the situation not exist or be trivialized for a period of time as to make living with it easier.

I don't know of any evidence to say either method is objectively better. By removing the situation from their thoughts/avoiding the topic they may be able to cope for just as long or longer than someone who addresses the situation through comedy.

I previously worked in an environment where iPads were distributed to staff; the team responsible for supporting them had toothpicks on hand for this exact reason.

An argument may exist for lint etc being harder to clean out of a USB-C port once it had made its way in there, but haven't witnessed it myself yet.

Anecdotes can be given all day, but I would suggest it's a potential problem for any port of similar size being placed in pockets and bags.

I like your car engine analogy; car's have the same level of widespread use as computers, yet I would wager a large percentage of people would struggle to perform much in term of car maintenance. Anecdotally, I know a multitude of people who have no idea how their car engine works, so much so they would not know how to check the oil level.

As a further point, drivers are (with edge case exceptions) not kept away or locked down from performing any work on their vehicle, yet in most cases they would still prefer to pass the responsibility on to a trusted professional.

It's certainly good to know how a car works, or a computer works.

Recently, I fixed a number of small (non-drivetrain) things on my car and I wish I knew more.

I think your reasoning here is flawed. People do not all need to develop skills in all aspects of life. By keeping someone from experiencing physical violence you may prevent them from learning how to defend themselves, but by many this would be considered a fair trade.

I believe the same is the case with limited control over technology. Most users do not care to learn, and would opt to actively avoid the opportunity to learn if the associated danger was removed for them.

In my opinion the best option is to remain in the current state by default and have a more obscure 'power user' option that could be enabled within the OS itself.

There is definitely a strong aspect of relationship with the barista/staff as has been mentioned.

In addition Australian's are known to be coffee snobs, anecdotally I've found even those that are not big coffee drinkers tend to be quite particular about the taste of their coffee.

If coffee roasting and preparation is held in high value and seen as somewhat of a craft it makes sense for Australian's to hold loyalty to particular roasters/baristas/cafe's. To draw a parallel, when getting a haircut many people will return to the same person if they are happy with the experience/result.

I'm particular as well, what I mean is there are a lot of high quality options rather than just one, which is great

To say ethics are arbitrary is to say that there is no reasoning behind them, which is basically the opposite of what ethics truly are.

Ethics are commonly a "system of moral principles", said system and principles being the reasoning behind ethics.

I'm assuming what you are trying to say is that "ethics are not absolute", which has strong arguments; however, I think the critique of the use of "unethical" is partially in agreement with my assumption of your first point ("ethics are not absolute"). Assuming ethics are not absolute, then labeling something as unethical in a blanket statement would not always hold true.

I would suggest simply prefacing the statement with "I/many believe" would sit more comfortably.