And at Walmart. And at McDonalds. And at Burger King. And at...

Bacically, it is not rare at all. Especially among certain American demographic.

Changing customer sentiment is definitely part of it.

Another lens is to look at is state violence rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

This is just good writing, not a 100% proof of AI being used.

Analogies have to make sense, to be applicable. In this case it doesn't.

E.g. you can't just spew nonsense like "let's work together like a bee hive, everything for the Queen/CEO, no matter the personal cost to an individual" without others pointing out the stupidity of comparing humans with bees.

You can't just come up with a desirable adjective and start coming up with random scenarios in which those characteristics may occur. "Let's make the company strong as a gorilla, big as an elephant, smart as Von Neumann, bright as a Sun, as courageous as young guys from youtube fails compilations." This makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes plenty of sense. Player-coaches are a real thing, and in a realm where you're not worried about peak fitness then it's reasonable to demand the coaches become player-coaches.

Player-coaches are a real thing, but noticeable because of how rare and unusual they are. The problem is that the analogy doesn't even hold up in the source its referring to.

Sure, there are good player-coaches, but there are also great pure leaders. There are also very bad player-coaches. A coach who is trying too hard and too deep to be a player when they are less "fit" (or skilled) has historically led to many problems in many cases

It's not a deep analogy. It's not saying player coaches are inherently better, but in their particular situation they want the managers to be coding.

There's not much equivalent to "fit" here, just skill, and they decided they don't want the pure leaders, they want ones that are knuckle deep in the sausage.

Good decision or not, that very basic analogy is completely fine.

Windows is what happens when there are too many cooks in the kitchen, without a single authority figure, ultimately responsible for maintaining the OS (and only the OS), guarding against and saying no to all attempts to leech the user base.

The Linux numbers went up because Valve did a better job of cleaning the results from the skewed Chinese data.

For what it's worth, Framework sells more of its new Pro line with Ubuntu than with Windows.

Not for people who use Excel professionally, not even close. Excel is undefeated.

Here is a short video explaining the situation: https://youtu.be/XT5TKf9Qfl4

If you don't see a clear difference between the hard sciences of biology/chemistry/medicine and the opinionated "science" of parenting (prescriptive, no less), then you should check your eyes.

I see your point about different qualities of science, but the wording of "highly tuned parental instincts" is still bad. The instincts are the same in both situations, and they're highly flawed. Science should override instincts in lots of situations.

And if you ask basically any kind of science "how do I best accomplish x?", that science will have a "presciptive" answer, so I don't see how parenting science is any more prescriptive then chemistry.

The discussion about the negative aspects of helicopter parenting is as old as the term itself.

The answer does not really depend on genes. There are personal preferences, there are sex differences (women prefer more carbs), and the biggest component is where you are and in which direction do you want to go to.

But in terms of physiology the answer is quite clear:

1. The protein is the most important macro to get, no matter if bulking or cutting. It is the building block.

2. Whatever the amounts (0.8g-1.8g/kg of bodyweight, depends a bit on a situation and the willingness to lose some potential marginal gains), try to divide your daily protein somewhat evenly between meals.

3. Pareto principle, you get the most benefits by having 3 meals. 4 if you really care about small differences and want to optimize. 5 meals give negligible additional benefits, for professional athletes who want to be anal.

4. So basically eat at least 3 meals and up to whatever works for you practically speaking.

It's not that difficult or ambiguous.

Optimum meal timing in particular I believe is heavily influenced by genes - I have friends who never eat breakfast, survive on black coffee until 1PM, then eat a lot in the evening and feel good doing it. If I do that I feel terrible.

So yes eat 2g/kg protein but the best way to time that in terms of meals, best specific foods to eat etc is definitely influenced by your genes

It's all about subjective habits.

But physiologically speaking there is no difference in the optimal recommendation in terms of protein synthesis: protein should be evenly divided between evenly spaced meals.

If people decide that this non-optimal way of life fits them better, then go for it. But let's stop with the "I feel better this way, therefore biologically my body works differently than any other human body." BS.