Obvious next step: if there's a lot of low hanging fruit like this, let's find it? Have you considered using your LW/Twitter/blog to publicly solicit obvious, simple, and high leverage solutions to other big problems?
In dath ilan, it is virtuous to write more stories about dath ilan.
I expect agave to be generally preferred over table sugar and HFCS due to having a significantly lower glycemic index. I'm unfamiliar with Karo.
Something I've been wondering for a while: are organizations/journalists/individuals filing FOIA requests to get emails and other relevant documents about how the CDC and FDA made their COVID decisions?
Big picture, if your friend wants a different blend of upside-to-work, perhaps they should consider hiring someone to work 15-20 hrs/wk, freeing them up to do <5 hrs/wk of supervision?
This post is a bit hard to parse - please consider replacing "a.test" with something like "test.com/a" or "a.test.com/page" to clarify whether the issue is per-page caching or per-domain caching.
I posted my answer a bit late but this was a ton of fun!
Only four creatures have been known to do significant damage, implying that they've probably sunk some ships:
All attacks by these creature appear to be roughly the same relative frequency on a yearly basis.
Demon whales look the scariest, let's max out at 20x oars: -20% for 20 gp.
Nessie has probably taken out a few ships but she rarely does more than 90%. Definitely worth a cannon: -10% for 10 gp.
Merpeople and crabs both have weird long tails. Let's skip the merpeople entirely for 45 gp.
What's sinking all these ships? Is it...murdercrabs? Let's arm our carpenters, -50% for 20 gp.
We've never seen any of the other creatures come close to sinking a ship, so we won't worry about sharks with lasers on their heads or mega-harpies. I have 5 gp remaining, which I keep as a fee for my services. Alternately, I'd consider trimming off 5 oars for a second cannon, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
First, it wasn't immediately clear that you meant within a range of [-1, 1], perhaps adding that to the graphic would help?
Second, this sounds like it generalizes as "trust your own opinion on any topic sigmoidally, scaling with your personal knowledge of it" - in other words, actively notice and reject your initial bias, until you have enough background to be truly informed, at which point you should trust your own judgment.
If you're willing to write a data extraction script, and John Hopkins continues updating from a new source (that doesn't otherwise publish raw data), you can find the numbers on the embedded sub-pages: