OneMorePerson

Maybe, I haven't looked into it too much, but among the people with a preference for classroom and textbook based learning there does seem to be a large degree of fear of failure, which influences what might otherwise be a different natural preference. Fear of failure is exacerbated by making mistakes in public, but it seems to even apply when nobody is there to observe someone making mistakes.

It's fascinating the different ways human minds work and learn. I'm the same way.

It also shows up in other areas like language learning where some people prefer classes and grammar books, and others prefer to just learn via exposure to a lot of content.

I'm not a pilot (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and I respect how hard it is to make split second high stakes decisions, however from my read the pilots had to ignore tons of basic sensors (including their own bodies). According to the crash report they were at a 35 degree upward tilt, which is super severe, and they thought they wouldn't crash because they had successfully recovered from a "low altitude warning" (which doesn't makes sense).

Point being it reads like following the sensors but ignoring what you can actually feel is happening, which is back to fundamentals.

I don't think people are saying a Cessna translates to flying an Airbus, more that NOT knowing the basics or forgetting them translates to dangerous gaps when flying the Airbus.

I think this was a pre-LLM issue, but will be exacerbated. I've worked with some people who would be reading logging data and about to do some big intervention when it was clear that the logger itself was having an issue and the results coming out were not really possible.

See but here is where I get confused. The advice you are saying is to "completely eliminate added sugar" but then you say it's due to fiber, nutrients, and hard to overeat.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but people who go to the level of "eliminate sugar completely" are usually pretty knowledgeable, so I'm trying to get into the specifics.

On a societal level the idea of reducing sugar is a positive one, but trying to eliminate sugar is the wrong idea. As far as I know eating a bowl of greek yogurt with homemade granola, raspberries, and maple syrup (or even some powdered cane sugar, which I don't use), has substantially more fiber, less sugar, and more nutrient balance (and less likely to overeat) than sitting down and eating a mango, yet under the current advice trend I'm doing it wrong by "adding sugar" to the greek yogurt, and I'm totally fine to eat the mango since the sugar was in there by default.

Given that factory farmed fruit has been having increasing amounts of sugar over time it's really a lot more about nutrients, fiber, and sugar, than it is about blanket rules.

Saying "no added sugar" is a positive high level societal rule, like "eat 3-5 servings of vegetables and fruit a day" but if you get into absolute rules among nutritionally educated people, things like "no added sugar" don't really track.

Yeah there's some kind of absolutism aspect tied into identity.

Also the funny tendency humans have to dislike the people who are most similar to them. Someone who is at least recognizing factory farming is bad and willing to even think that far is more similar to a vegetarian than the people who don't give a shit and never even think about where their food is coming from.

Obviously there's the cognitive dissonance aspect to point out, but we are all doing that to some extent.

Yeah just how it is even outside of the cloud. At some point nearly all companies eventually try to take advantage of inertia and vendor lock in, if you are willing to undertake the pain of switching it's almost always a savings.

I'm not a legal expert/lawyer but I do think a lot of this is not the company just randomly wanting to do it, but lawyer driven development. No company wants to introduce more friction for no reason, unless somehow there's precedent or risk involved in not doing it. Curious to know what legal precedents or laws have changed recently.

The only possible non legally driven reason I can think of would be if they think the tradeoff of extra friction (and lost customers) is more than offset by fraud protection efforts. This seems unlikely cause I don't see how that math could have changed in the last few years.

I like it! One complaint is that if you are going fast it starts to display a "Quick!" (or something like that) message on top of the middle of the screen. This makes me want to continue going quickly, but the message is blocking me from properly seeing the orbit, so I end up trying to keep the streak going and most often launch and miss cause I can't see. Maybe display it off to the side in empty space?

There's hundreds of countries in the world. I said "relatively rare" and I said explicitly US is not the only one with worthwhile nature. Where did I give the impression I thought it was uniquely rare?

I'm 90% sure this is satire, but given how things are and how fashionable it is to hate on America/Americans I'm not sure. I guess that says something ha

How is that relevant to this conversation?

No matter how beautiful architecture is it's still not natural beauty.

I do agree there's plenty of places in other countries that have natural beauty, but the US has a combination of very large natural spaces, kept in a mostly natural state (not over developed), and does a decent job maintaining it. This is relatively rare (although the US is not the only one).

The US Forest Service has nothing to do with the amount of ads and billboards in US cities.

Honest question, which modern democracies (there's been a few different forms) besides the UK are older than the US?

The word younger is implying to me that US would be considered the youngest in a list of current democracies, which I wasn't aware of.