One of the goals is to minimise them. Most of those left are blindingly obvious, but unprovable. They are technically there, but just part of the base assumptions of the models.

E.g. we couldn’t do science if an all powerful being was deliberately messing with our results. We also can’t prove the universe isn’t a computer program, only rendering what a “conscious” entity is looking at, while back calculating the required history on the fly.

Object permanence is technically an axiom. The idea that things exist even when we aren’t observing them.

There’s also a problem with terms, particularly related to quantum mechanics. It uses the term observer. To a layman, that’s a person watching. To a scientist its any collection of atoms/fundamental particles that can cause the quantum waveform to collapse.

The results of the axiom are that things do exist when we are not observing them. Our observations don’t back propagate to retroactively bring them into existence. We can’t prove that however, though it’s fundamental to a lot of science making sense (quantum mechanics being the oddball).

It’s read by multiple fans, doing a chapter each. It’s been years since I listened to it however, so the details are now quite hazy.

That’s the correct one.

There’s also an audiobook version. Though it’s fan read, so a bit less consistent than most listeners would expect.

It’s a dark gritty type sorry, before that became fashionable, with a lot of world building and explanation. You either love it or just can’t get into it.

In-story it’s the difference between a family bickering and fighting, Vs them suddenly fending off the text chain saw massacre.

It takes the author a while to find their groove and start establishing the storylines, rather than just the world building. I understand what you mean though. I think a lot of people like it for the world building aspects rather than the writing style.

I can’t remember how it breaks down chapter wise, but If you made it to the first endbringer fight, and don’t like it, it’s not your style.

The web serial Worm (Parahumans) has an excellent take on this.

The unwritten rules. Heros have to limit property damage, and not go lethal unless absolutely required. Villains, in turn, don’t go lethal on heros or civilians.

Both groups also respect each other’s secret identities, unless they out themselves. Heros because villains can get nasty if backed into a corner too badly. Villains because going after a cape’s family is a good way to get a kill order, and a heavy hitter involved.

In story there are also world ending threats. When one turns up, villains that are willing to help are out of bounds for retaliation. If they are willing to help, they are treated like any other cape.

End result, all the weird rules of heros and villains suddenly make logical sense. No-one wants to break the status quo.

It also leads to some funny encounters out of costume, or with new costumes.

It depends if it was a discussion or an argument.

A discussion is a search for a common truth/understanding. Both parties need to be willing to adjust their views if the other person has a good point.

An argument is generally when you know you are right. Often it’s intended for the attention of those watching/listening. You’re not trying to convince the other person, but those who would otherwise listen to them.

Arguments with only the other person present are quite pointless.

As for your question. If it were a discussion, I would go back to them to see what they make of the evidence.

If it’s an argument, let it lie, unless they start spouting it to others in your presence. Then it’s down to you to counter them or not.

FYI, back in my uni days, a friend and I would clear the house with our “heated arguments” (atheist Vs devout Christian). When the rest of the house commented on this, we just both looked at each other in confusion. We had both been discussing and learning from each other. It might have gotten loud, but it never turned into an argument!

European budget airlines split it in 3. Checked luggage (in the hold), Cabin bag (in the overhead locker) and personal bag (under the seat, with your legs). Everything other than personal is charged for. They also make it difficult it just get the bag, not a whole package.

It’s gotten to the point it’s pissed off the EU and they are cracking down on it

Steam have an impressive reputation of not trying to just bend their customers over and screw them over raw. Them remembering not only lube, but to wine and dine us first also helps.

You still get screwed (for your money) but it’s a far more pleasant experience.

The problem is they end up built into specialised boards with ridiculous requirements, but no good for most tasks.

A few people might get one working, but I can’t afford the power bill to keep one running full tilt 24/7

Think about it like trying to use mining vehicles as a car.

The worst thing is, the format needed for data centres isn’t compatible with home use. A lot of the ram and SSDs will just be scrapped.

Some resort to majority vote, in the case of disagreements. Theoretically, if someone owned/controlled over 50% of the database, they could rewrite it, and have their version seen as true.

For the few valid uses of it, that shouldn’t be a problem. It will also be reasonably detectable beforehand.

There is likely a selection biased. A lot of mental health issues and quirks have genetic components. If you have an issue, it’s FAR more likely your family has issues.

We also tend to be attracted to like minded individuals. My partner tried to tell me I was normal, until I was diagnosed. They were diagnosed a few years later. It turned out most of their friends were neurodiverse too. They were rating themselves (and me) against a bunch of fellow weirdos!

A lot of the problems have always been there. They were just seen as personal failings and hidden. Now we know that they have an adjustable chemical component that can be used to treat them. That, combined with more people being open about issues has created the spike.

A lot of places have a minimum noise value for cars. It helps the blind particularly. Also, a lot of people REALLY don’t like things to be bothered powerful and silent. A company invented a quiet, but powerful vacuum cleaner. It flopped. People felt like it wasn’t working.

The UFO noise seems to have become the default fix for EVs. I’m just glad that no one has jailbroken them to put custom ringtones on them. E.g. crazy frog would be horrifying.

A built in sun hat.

I definitely think there are grounds to the cleanliness hypothesis. Basically the immune system expects a certain amount of activity. If it’s underperforming, the body systems assume it’s a problem with the immune system, not a lack of bugs, because we are too clean. It then racks up activity levels, causing problematic autoimmune or allergy reactions.

I think the immune system can’t see the eye, so it’s never trained to avoid it. If the eye is damaged, the immune system can become aware of it and start reacting. Once it starts, pulling it back is not easy.

The immune response system is simultaneously amazing and insane.

It basically deliberately scrambles part of the DNA in the immune cells that create antibodies. The rest of the body then sheds cells into the blood to move to the lymph nodes. Any immune cells that react then self destruct.

It’s the equivalent of firing a paint blunderbuss at a wall, and creating a silhouette by standing in the way!

I’d guess the flip over point is maybe a bit higher. I can see definite gains up to 500,000-1,000,000 a year.

I suspect the cut off is around there however. Assuming the same base work level to get it.

I could personally live VERY happily on 100k a year, but not afford EVERYTHING I could reasonably want.

A lot of people do exactly that.

Money has a strong diminishing return to happiness. Once you have enough to do what you want, and keep up that lifestyle from investments, you’ve “won”.

Most who goes past that point are self selected as problematic personalities. They’ve figured out that more money = more power = more happy. When they are not happy, they obviously need to work harder to get more money. This doesn’t make them happy and the feedback loop continues.

I would actually be curious if the curve goes negative after a while. There’s a point where more money gets isolating. That is well past the point where the happiness gain becomes negligible too.