Just a few numbers to put that number into perspective. I am not trying to make any particular point with this post, just trying to get a feeling for how many children/people are affected by this.
Sudan has a population of about 46.87 million people.
One death every two hours would be 4380 deaths a year or about 1 death in 10700 people in the total population.
In 2022, the annual number of under-five deaths dropped to 4.9 million.
Of the 4.9 million under-five deaths in 2022, 2.3 million occurred during the first month of life and 2.6 million children died between the ages of 1 and 59 months. The lives of an additional 2.1 million children, adolescents and youth ages 5–24 were also cut tragically short that year. Between 2000 and 2022, the world lost 221 million children, adolescents and youth. That’s nearly the entire population of Nigeria, the sixth-largest country by population. Children younger than 5 comprised 162 million of these lives lost, almost equal to the population of Bangladesh, the world’s eighth-most-populous country. Neonatal deaths accounted for 72 million of those under-five deaths, while 91 million deaths occurred among children aged 1–59 months. And nearly 53 million stillbirths took place between 2000 and 2021 – deaths that are often missed by policymakers and in programme actions and data collection.
The world population in 2022 was 7.951 billion people.
The 4.9 million death figure would be 1 death in 1622 people in the total population, the 2.3 million would be 1 death in 3456 people in the total population, 2.6 million would be 1 in 3058 and 2.1 million would be 1 in 3786.
Presumably the child every two hours is an excess death figure above the deaths that occur under normal circumstances and certainly the numbers will be much higher when those mass starvation occurs.
From the article
Seven million people face the prospect of mass starvation by June.
This would be 1 in 6.7 people in the entire population of the country.
I think there are two ways of being polite, one is that fake-politeness you mention, the other is more of an avoidance of proactively hurting people's feelings.
As an example let's say you think gender reveal parties are stupid. Your friend invites you to their gender reveal party for their baby. Declining the invitation with a fake excuse is the first kind of polite. Just declining by saying you don't want to go is the second. Proactively offering your opinion that gender reveal parties are stupid in general and your friend shouldn't have one even though they didn't ask and probably already scheduled it would be unnecessarily hurtful. On the other hand if they asked you what you think of gender reveal parties instead of inviting you I would not see it as rude to respond honestly. Also, if you decline politely and they keep probing deeper for reasons you are under no obligation to make up some fake reason.
There are two schools of thought here. The "never risk anything that could potentially break something" school and the "make stuff robust enough that it will deal with broken states". Usually the former doesn't work so well once something actually breaks.
The idea that it is somehow possible to determine that for each and every bug is a crazy fantasy by the people who don't like to update to the latest version.
Also, Windows NT is no longer supported while the support for brains running autism has only grown over the last few years and no general end-of-life date has been announced for that support.