buildingsramen

now _that_ would be more interesting, but it would also be a completely different article

Sure, sure; an unexamined life is not worth living, yadda yadda

I just take issue with this type of analysis for trying to generate that depth - as an etymological lesson, it's minimally interesting, but as far as it tries to "say something" about Japanese culture, it can't.

I feel like this is intellectualizing something that isn't that deep. It's a word you say, not think about. Why do English speakers say "excuse me" after a sneeze? The answer is apocryphal and uninteresting.

Hollywood has always been a little bit dumb, a little bit over-written. It's hard to have both artistic individualism and a reliable business. This is not a new trend.

The examples are not very good. I would take Gladiator II, but Megalopolis was a self-funded project which is completely out of left field, and The Apprentice... I'm not sure what it's an example of. Many more titles are dismissed with a couple words. They really lose me when it comes to Anora. That's quite possibly the worst take I've heard about that film yet, and I've read some Letterboxd reviews.

> What feels new is the expectation, on the part of both makers and audiences, that there is such a thing as knowing definitively what a work of art means or stands for, aesthetically and politically.

Before rushing to judge today's movies, shall we remind ourselves what popular movies 20 years ago were? There were some real stinkers there, too, and they were not more smartly written in this regard. They just weren't.

> The point is not to be lifelike or fact-based but familiar and formulaic—in a word, predictable.

Has this person forgotten Titanic, one of the best-selling movies of all time? It's extremely formulaic, predictable, and intentionally so. It's basically opera, not really a new genre.

This is poorly reported. From the article:

* Group A reported a 26% increase in participants staying in housing they rented or owned;

* Group B reported a 35% increase in housing they rented or owned;

* And Group C, which received the smaller sum of money, reported a 20% increase in renting or owning housing.

But these are not actually percentages - these are percentage points!

* Group A went from 8% to 34% - a 4.25x increase

* Group B went from 5% to 40% - an 8x increase

* Group C went from 11% to 30% - a 2.7x increase

Which is a lot more dramatic than saying 20% vs 26% vs 35%.

The study authors might have good reason for reporting it this way, such as many participants dropped out of the study before follow-up, which probably skews toward people with more chaotic lifestyles. So the denominator for each group has changed at follow-up and could at least partially explain why all groups saw improvements.

Have you tried taking a warmed-up water bottle, chilling it, and pouring it into a glass? I wonder if part of it is the psychological effect.

I'm happy you have a functioning government in Germany!

What do you mean? There are tons of these around. Are you complaining that none of them are popular enough?

I would recommend examine.com as a research tool. One of the few sites not trying to sell you supplements.

I think that sounds conspiratorial. If there is someone in elected office who has this sort of control, why not do it year-round?

Since this is a worldwide trend, how are they able to control it outside their borders?

I don't think it's based on safety, either. It's almost certainly a safety perception / marketing thing.

However, the type of bike they are using is much safer than a normal bicycle because of its size.

The physics don't work that way. With a normal bicycle, you go over the handlebars because the whole bike tips forward - it's just gravity + momentum. Then you faceplant.

With a wheelbase of 2-3m, there's just no way the bike tips forward like this, especially with the rider positioned towards the back. Couple that with the fact that cargo bikes travel at lower average speeds and it's not clear to me how this injury occurs.