Problem is in practice, I suspect something is pretty wrong in most teams.

Some common examples come to my mind: -Management hears “talk about what you’ve done and what you will do” so great time to sit in and take notes for performance review, and it becomes a “make sure management knows you spent all your time and did really impressive stuff” meeting. Also throws a kink in “things I need help with” as there’s always the risk that management decides you aren’t self sufficient enough if they hear you got stuck, so you also need to defend why you got stuck and how it isn’t your fault. -The people who feel like everyone needs to know the minutia of their trials and tribulations including all the intermediate dead ends they went down on the way to their final result. Related to the above, but there are people who think to do this even without the need to impress management. -The people who cannot stand to “take it offline” and will stop everything to fully work a problem while everyone is still ostensibly supposed to stay in the meeting despite having nothing to do with the two people talking (sometimes even just one, a guy starts talking to himself as he tries to do something live). -Groups that are organized but have very little common ground. An “everything must be scrum” company sticks a guy who does stuff like shipping and receiving into a development team and there’s no ‘scrum-like’ interaction to be had and yet, there he is wasting his time and having to talk about stuff no one else on that meeting has a need to hear either.

Those would be parallel killers rather than serial killers.

Our three weapons are…

It’s not a matter of knowledge, it’s a matter of what they want.

One may desire to be advantaged/superior to some others, and particularly nice and easy if race or gender is a convenient shorthand for knowing who is ‘in’ and ‘out’, as long as you are in the ‘in’ group of course.

So life is just plain easier if women are just supposed to sit there and please them. If the ‘natural order’ justifies that convenience, then one may be attracted to that thought. To the extent fairness and equality makes their life harder, they are inclined to be upset at that obstackle. It’s convenient if the legal and labor world gives their race preferential treatment, and other groups are left desperate enough to do whatever they need done but don’t want to do, and scared enough of the government to not get “uppity”.

Sometimes overt evil, sometimes more subconscious manifesting as being very receptive to narratives that correlate with those feelings.

Might also depend on the timing. At least in the 90s, my area was as described, a hangout place where ambient hanging out was considered just fine because enough people bought stuff it was worth it and people behaved relatively well, or they had enough security to make that the case.

Now there’s all sorts of signs up about unaccompanied teenagers are not allowed.

I think not “most” but the ones that did spend spent plenty enough to make up for the rest. Maybe “most” do at least grab food at a restauraunt though.

I’ve seen both. Our area has had, for a few years, mixed use zoning as a requirement. So a bunch of projects that clearly only wanted to do housing are doing what you describe: Housing and a meets minimum commercial/office effort. Notably while trumpeting “walkable” which is really code for “we don’t waste land on unprofitable parking lots”. So you have somewhat dense living and retail where the retail has zero parking, so the only people a business could hope to get are the people in the units immediately close by, which are not a lot, since each project seems to go for low rise housing. So you get three stories of apartments which is more dense than suburbia, but not nearly dense enough to sustain a dedicated retail presence.

But there is this mall they’ve effectively renovated into a “downtown”, adding high rise apartments, and lots of them to the massive retail presence as well as big office buildings. Critically, also expanded to an insane degree the amount of available parking. It was a pretty failing mall (like most) and now it’s doing really well, both with high occupancy for their apartments and people going there for the rather nice retail. I think this was the first project and inspired the county to decide everything will be a success if it’s just mixed use, and they haven’t really come around to realize that they haven’t succeeded in forcing the developers to do viable mixed use by the current weak regulations.

There was a failing mall in the area and they renovated and added a bunch of housing and it’s doing amazingly well.

We laughed at the protagonist.

Sticking his hand into a fire thinking it was the way and having it burned off… ok, he was tricked by a greatly trusted person in his life.

Then later accepting that the problem was not that it burned off his hand, but he should have put his entire body in…

Our conclusion was that the ending where you jump in are his friends making a cover story of how stupid he was to just jump in the fire and claiming he in fact did become some invisible divine being, and that’s why you can’t see him, not because he was a gullible idiot.

I think the point is that while this photograph kind of works (from above, at a distance), generally from ground level it doesn’t. So if it only works from above, then is it really useful as a camouflage?

In fact, a 2016 study concludes that the camouflage hypothesis doesn’t seem to carry weight: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/zebra-stripes-not-camouflage-new-study-finds

Such a purpose would inform the constraints. If we are just “the sims” on steroids, then all the deep physics are absolutely utterly faked and we are just “shown” convincing fakery. If it’s anthropological, then similar story that the physics are just skin deep. If it’s actually modeling some physics thing, then maybe we are “observing” real stuff.

But again, this is all just for fun. It’s not vaguely testable and thus not scientific despite the sciencey theme of it, just something to ponder.

First, this is not really science so much as it is science-themed philosophy or maybe “religion”. That being said, to make it work:

• We don’t have anyway of knowing the true scale and “resolution” of a hypothetical higher order universe. We think the universe is big, we think the speed of light is supremely fast, and we think the subatomic particles we measure are impossibly fine grained. However if we had a hypothetical simulation that is self-aware but not aware of our universe, they might conclude some slower limitation in the physics engine is supremely fast, that triangles are the fundamental atoms of the universe, and pixels of textures represent their equivalent of subatomic particles. They might try to imagine making a simulation engine out of in-simulation assets and conclude it’s obviously impossible, without ever being able to even conceive of volumetric reality with atoms and subatomic particles and computation devices way beyond anything that could be constructed out of in-engine assets. Think about people who make ‘computers’ out of in-game mechanics and how absurdly ‘large’ and underpowered they are compared to what we would be used to. Our universe could be “minecraft” level as far as a hypothetical simulator is concerned, we have no possible frame of reference to gauge some absolute complexity of our perceived reality.

• We don’t know how much we “think” is modeled is actually real. Imagine you are in the Half Life game as a miraculously self-aware NPC. You’d think about the terribly impossibly complex physics of the experiment gone wrong. Those of us outside of that know it’s just a superficial model consisting of props to serve the narrative, but every piece of gadget that the NPC would see “in-universe” is in service of saying “yes, this thing is a real deep phenomenon, not merely some superficial flashes”. For all you know, nothing is modeled behind you at anything but the most vague way, every microscope view just a texture, every piece of knowledge about the particle colliders is just “lore”. All those experiments showing impossibly complex phenomenon could just be props in service of a narrative, if the point of the simulation has nothing to do with “physics” but just needs some placeholder physics to be plausible. The simulation could be five seconds old with all your memories prior to that just baked “backstory”.

• We have no way of perceiving “true” time, it may take a day of “outside” time to execute a second of our time. We don’t even have “true” time within our observable universe, thanks to relativity being all weird.

• Speaking of weird, this theory has appeal because of all the “weird” stuff in physics. Relativitiy and quantum physics are so weird. When you get to subatomic resolution, things start kind of getting “glitchy”, we have this hard coded limit to relative velocity and time and length get messed up as you approach that limit. These sound like the sort of thing we’d end up if we tried simulating, so it is tempting to imagine a higher order universe with less “weirdness”.

My little cousin got one because she loved how “cute” it looked

Well now the question is why they don’t put an extra AA battery in the glove box.

It’s sending the message that we are going to make a bunch of cars idle and burn even more oil. Oil companies rejoice!

The thing is there have been protesters that demanded their campus stop funding Israeli research, and some of those campuses weren’t even doing that in the first place, but they still had to contend with protesters. Defacing museum work doesn’t make people think “oh, now I’ll stop burning oil”.

Yes, some of those protests are at least relevant, but there’s quite a few protests that are doing their causes no favors.

None of us is as dumb as all of us.

My friend just moved into a new house, and there are no light bulbs anymore. So changing light bulbs is on a trajectory to be like shoeing a horse.

I never did change a tire, but I have changed a wheel. However most new cars don’t even have a spare wheel.

A lot of older folks are actually less likely to know how to do laundry with modern textiles and dyes. The only complicated thing is sorting and that can actually be largely skipped now.

Anyway, 90% of people will agree that 90% of people are dumb, they just won’t agree on which 90%

Well obviously you are just another idiot because you disagree with me about whether everyone is dumber than me.

One thing that seems to be true for so long as we have been writing stuff: people 35 and older have always always complained about how hopelessly stupid/lazy/off the people under 25 are and how society is doomed when those folks take over. I take comfort that we seem to have consistently gotten this wrong for hundreds of years.