" football, hockey, rugby, boxing, kick-boxing and MMA to be amongst the worst sports for this stuff." - - I'm not up to date on the current literature but I'm pretty sure this list is rather wrong. I don't remember all the details of the study I do remember (and I don't have time for a lit review) but in it women's high school soccer actually had the highest concussion rate (idk if it was per participant season or hour or per game minute or...).
I accept that mayonaise is an evolution of allioli (but maintain that the historical fact is that its american ubiquity routes through french chefs). Wikipedia also doesn't say that it's not a mother sauce, if you scroll down you'll find this: "Auguste Escoffier wrote that mayonnaise was a French mother sauce of cold sauces, like 'espagnole or velouté. "I originally wrote "controversially a mother sauce" because the most common listing of mother sauces on the internet is ~wrong- The youtube video i linked includes primary source scholarship on the topic that has begun to update the general understanding in the direction that the quote supports.
This is as much a nitpick with Zvi's article as with this one, but french food just seems hard to find because its easy to misidentify. french technique is the bedrock of american food - both as the history of fine dining(/haute cuisine) routes directly through french chefs, restaurants, systems, and techniques and as french food has been repurposed into american food. Some examples: mayonnaise, the delicate, challenging-to-make emulsion of flavored fats and vinegars,controversially a mother sauce* becomes 'mayo' the white stuff that goes on sandwiches; charcuterie becomes the deli isle; boeuf bourguignon becomes stew. so in your example you can probably (haven't researched the restaurant, but from general knowledge as a processional chef) count at least the "new american" restaurant as french as "new american" is the (new(ish)) American take on a fine dining tradition that comes from france. 'Chef' just means 'chief' in french (like the military rank or the man in charge) and comes from the brigade system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_de_cuisine) ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_mother_sauces) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcDk-JcAnOw )
If it's the case that the game theory here is correct I'm sad why it can't be simply explained as such, if the game theory here isn't correct I'm sad it's curated.
plus one for "stop worrying about what people will say in response so much, get the actual information out there, stop being afraid."see also Anna Salamon's takes on 'not doing PR' that someone else might find and link?
↑ is not ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation
"Gemma think that objective function and its implications through. At all.2"*doesn't
"Gemma think that objective function and its implications through. At all.2"
given this notional use case (and the relative inexperience of the implied user), I think its even more important to (as Gunnar mentioned) contextualize this advice as to whom its for, and how they should use it. doing that properly would take more than i have for this at the moment, but i'd appreciate epistemic tagging regarding things like; this only could work at a new/small scale (for reasons including because the cost of keeping everyone 100% context scales with org size and because benefits don't)that strategy has to fit the employees you have, and this sort of strategy constrains the type of person you can hire to those who would fit it (which is a cost to be considered, not a fatal flaw).
I think that steelmanning a person is usually a bad idea, rather one should steelman positions (when one cares about the matter to which the positions are relevant).I claim this avoids a sufficient swath of the OP's outlined problems of steelmanning for the articles claim of 'nicheness', and that the semi tautology of 'appropriate steelmanning is appropriate' more accurately maps reality. also:"The problem isn't 'charity is a good conversational norm, but these people are doing it wrong'; the problem is that charity is a bad conversational norm. If nothing else, it's bad because it equivocates between 'be friendly' norms and 'have accurate beliefs about others' norms."here we can see a bad use case for steelmanning (having accurate beliefs about others) which makes me wonder if its not a question of doing it wrong? (contra to OP). I also notice that i think most people should have less conversations about what people think, and more conversations about what is true (where steelmanning becomes again more relevant), and wonder where you fall (because such a thing might be upstream?).
I also am apparently into declaratives today. (meta: written without much rigor or edits rather then unwritten, )
First, Writing things so you know them seems valuable.
Second, Fwiw In my struggles with depression, I've found physical habits to be the easiest route to something better. When you don't know what to do but need to do something, go for a walk/hike/jog and let your brain sync up with your body a little, burn some calories to regain some hunger, and deserve some the tiredness you may already feel.