You’re getting downvoted for saying something sorta close to true, but not exactly. I agree strongly with everything you said here, though.

Generally, with any complex human-machine interface, you want to cast as wide of a net for accommodation as possible because there are so many variables that come into play.

Like if you are putting together a basketball team, you probably want a bunch of tall dudes, but you never know how many Muggsy Bogues’s are out there unless you let everyone play.

For a fighter pilot, would you rather have a female with greater ability to distinguish color, or a male that can pull higher g’s? It’s impossible to say what specific traits would lead to the best outcome in all possible engagements.

Even things like colorblindness can be a positive in situations because camouflage can stick out to colorblind people. Some types of deafness comes with immunity to motion sickness.

That’s not true. With no controls, there is no significant difference in tolerance by sex. When controlled for height, females have lower tolerance than males. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3753357/

Honesty is usually the right move for most interviews. People usually try to put their best foot forward, which is good, but it can end up coming across as inauthentic.

If, for example, you are a fresh graduate, and you get an interview, they expect you to be inexperienced. If you claim to know how to use every program and do every technical process, they will know you are bluffing. It’s much better to say “I’ve taken a bunch of classes on X programming language, so I know it pretty well, but ive done some tutorials and little projects with Y and Z, and I’m eager to learn more” or “I’ve done some labs where we used A and B machines, but I had a summer internship where 90% of my days were spent working with C”.

Also, questions like “why do you want to work here?” can be answered with “my significant other got a job in this town, so now I need to as well” (obviously not in those exact words). To you, it might seem like you aren’t acting “excited” by the company enough, but the people interviewing you likely aren’t drinkers of corporate kool-aid any more than you are, so they will appreciate the honesty. Also, the fact that you have a reason to move to that town shows that you are likely to be willing to work there for the long haul.

Tl;dr, don’t pretend to be a unicorn cause you probably aren’t, and people don’t expect you to be. Just make sure you show that you are serious about wanting the job.

Yeah, this is super important. I’ve interviewed someone before who was actually pretty well qualified, but through interviewing him, it was clear that he was actually just shopping for an offer to use as leverage against his current employer, and he had no intention of working with us.

For example, if a job would involve relocating across country, you’d better be asking questions about the area, or if you are already familiar with the area, make that obvious. At the very least, ask questions about what a normal day is like, and stuff like that.

I think I made the mistake as a fresh grad of not asking some of those questions because I was desperate for a job, and I didn’t want to appear “picky”, but I’m sure I just gave the impression that I wasn’t serious about it. From their perspective, they probably thought “this kid doesn’t want to move across the country, they are just trying to get experience interviewing”.

I tend to disagree with people on the “numbers game” thing. The barriers to submitting a million resumes to a million jobs have never been lower, so people in charge of hiring are inundated with applications from people who’s skillsets and stated interests make it clear that they have not even read the job posting. It makes it so that people who are fitting for the job are like a needle in a haystack. It also doesn’t help that the people reviewing applications are not often the people who you’d be working with, and they don’t necessarily know all the right things to be looking for; they just have a list of magic words that they are filtering for. You might have a synonym of the right word on your resume, and they’d never notice it.

These days, knowing someone is especially the key in my experience. It doesn’t even have to be someone you know well enough that they’d give you an actual “recommendation”. You are probably better off sending your resume to 10 people who already have the job you want than submitting 100 actual applications.

It’s not the best resume in the giant stack who gets interviewed, it’s someone’s niece’s college roommate’s former coworker’s step-cousin.

To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever measured vanilla, it goes right in the bowl, lol. Small quantities are often easier by volume, though, for sure.

I think a major one is to try to avoid trusting in unfounded precision.

If you want to make lemonade like a chemist, you don’t just weigh out some lemon juice and add it to water and sugar. You measure sugar and citric acid content of the batch of lemon juice, then calculate how much water will dilute it to the right pH, and how much sugar will bring it to your desired osmolarity. In reality, no one is going to do that unless they run a business and need a completely repeatable. If you get lazy and just weigh out the same mass of stuff with a new batch of lemon juice, you could be way off. Better to just make it and taste it then adjust. Fruits, vegetables, and meats are not consistent products, so you can’t treat them as such.

If i were to be writing recipes for cooking, I would have fruits/vegetables/meats/eggs listed by quantity, not mass (e.g., 1 onion, 1 egg), but i would include a rough mass to account for regional variations in size (maybe your carrots are twice the size of mine). Spices i would not give amounts for because they are always to taste. At most, I would give ratios (e.g. 50% thyme, 25% oregano). Lots of people have old, preground spices, so they will need to use much more than someone using whole spices freshly ground. I think salt could be given as a percentage of total mass of other ingredients, but desired salinity is a wide range, so i would have to aim low and let people adjust upward.

Baking is a little different, and I really like cookbooks that use bakers percentages, however, they don’t work well for ingredients like egg that I would want to use in discrete increments. For anything with flour, I would specify brand and/or protein level. A European trying to follow an American bread recipe will likely end up disappointed because European flour usually has lower protein (growing conditions are different), which will result in different outcomes.

I will say in defense of teaspoons, most home cooks have scales that have a 1 gram resolution, though accuracy is questionable if you are only measuring a few grams or less. Teaspoons (and their smaller fractions) are going to be more accurate for those ingredients. Personally, I just have a second, smaller scale with greater resolution.

Seconding the national center for home food preservation document.

One thing that I like experimenting with that i have to search for every time is the time/temperature curves for pasteurization of different foods. Every “knows” you are supposed to cook chicken (and most “prepared foods”) to 165 °F according to the FDA/USDA. What most people don’t know is that that temperature is what your food needs to hit for 1 second to have the proper reduction of bacteria (e.g., 7-log for chicken, which is a really high bar). You get the same reduction with 15 seconds at 160 °F or an hour at a little over 135 °F. You can easily do that with a sous vide bath.

It’s really cool for people who are immunocomprimised or pregnant because you can cook a steak to medium rare, but hold temp for a couple hours, and it’s just as safe as if you cooked it to way hotter and ruined the meat. You can also do runny egg yolks.

Here’s the first link that came up when I looked for it, but I’m sure you could find the actual government publication.

https://blog.thermoworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf

Why would you want anything by volume? Mass is so much easier. 50 ml of honey is way more annoying to get into a recipe than dumping it right into whatever container the rest of the ingredients are in while it’s sat on a scale.

I think it depends on the type of tourist attraction. In places like beach towns, “locals” are usually people who happened to have enough money to buy a vacation house, and decided to make it permanent. Or think of ski towns where the cost of living is so expensive that everyone who actually works there commutes in from another hour away or lives in their car or a jam packed seasonal rental. Basically anywhere that tourism is the only industry, a lot of decent people will be priced out.

brings back a good degree of manufacturing

The idea that manufacturing ever “left” is propaganda. Union factory jobs have gone down, but the US is producing more than ever. They just want to dangle the carrot of good jobs over people who don’t realize those jobs have been automated.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2583/industrial-production-historical-chart

Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name

Yeah, that all definitely sounds reasonable to me. It’s just weird that if that’s the point the article was trying to make, they should have supported it a bit.

This article mentions that they are trying to disenfranchise people with the citizenship proof requirements, and it also mentions that they specifically want to disenfranchise women, but it doesn’t draw a connection between the two. In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn’t show that).

To actually answer your question, though, at least from the conservative women I’ve talked to, they are fine with that. The conservative women I know are weak, and they essentially want to give up responsibility in exchange for freedoms. They actually want women to be second class citizens because it means that they don’t have to worry about anything (but they do have to just do what they are told).

There are old, conservative women who spent their lives as housewives who feel threatened by working women, so they want to maintain/go back to the status quo of women staying in the home (ignoring the fact that working class women have always worked). On the other hand, there are young, conservative women who do work, who yearn for the pretend vision of white, upper-middle class 1950s, where they get to just stay home and do what they want all day.

TL; DR: They essentially want to be like children, worry-free in exchange for less freedom.

P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I’ve heard from people who seemed to be more honest.

Putting up shelves, you have to decide if you want them to be level, parallel to the floor, or parallel to the ceiling, and those are all different.

On 11, I’d say you also need to decide if the type of terrain you are going on really even calls for boots. Plenty of people do long trips in trail running shoes, which is usually my preference on decent trails, but on really rugged backcountry (or snowy/mountaineering) conditions, you need boots.

Also, to an extent, you don’t really break boots in as much as you break your feet into the boots, so a pair you wore all summer last year and set down for 8 months could probably still use a little ramp up to a long trip.

On 12, I’d say gaiters are really nice even if you aren’t in snowy or wet conditions. I wear them even when it’s nice so I can keep rocks, dust, etc out of my shoes.

There’s also the somewhat counterintuitive idea of “be bold; start cold”. Basically, once you get hiking, you’ll get a lot warmer, so you might as well start a little chilly and save yourself getting sweaty 20 minutes in and having to take off a layer.

The worst is building something perfectly square, and then realizing the space you need to put it into is very not square.

Lots are LED since it’s way more energy efficient.

If you are talking about simulated trading (no real money), it’s called “paper trading”.

I read up on it for a while a few years back, but I never tried it cause I like chewing and variety.

It’s important if you are talking about soylent as in the brand, soylent as in a soy and lentil based beverage, or soylent as a generic term for meal replacement beverages.

Some of these meal replacements are designed to just replace 1 meal a day, or 2 meals a day, etc, so you could develop a deficiency after a little bit. There’s a DIY community to share recipes along with “nutritional completeness”.

https://www.completefoods.co/

Everyone has different dietary needs, so even if a shake technically has all the nutrients you need, it might not have enough of everything unless you eat way more calories worth than you need. Humans are pretty adaptable, though.