Sub-example for music games: where you look might depend on your level of skill at the game! Beginner DDR players have to look down from time to time to re-center themselves on the dance pad, because they don't know how to feel where they're stepping. Intermediate DDR players need to turn the scroll rate fast enough to read the patterns, but want them slow enough that they have time to read ahead and process the pattern ("is this upcoming pattern a crossover?"). Advanced DDR players have no problem decoding patterns, and are more focused on accurate timing. So, "visual" players will turn the scroll rate even faster, and focus on where the arrows overlap the outlines as they step, using the slight offsets in their steps to adjust.
Your intuition for Starcraft is good (adapt based on info and branch plans), but you might be surprised where the biggest gain for attention will be: the bottom bar of the screen with your own production buildings selected! Good players will hotkey their production buildings and constantly cycle through them (even as their screen focuses on the army) to see which buildings are ready for the next round of production. Why? Losing a battle due to bad position and control puts you behind. Having a ton of money in the bank and no replacement army ready will lose you the game. It's better to slightly lose one battle if you have a replacement army ready to go and your opponent doesn't. This is also why good players will try and harass. It's not just the direct benefit, you're also costing your opponent's attention.
Arguably the only value they provide to society is finding the actual equilibrium price of a PS5. Is that important enough to be "good"?
Sure, they provide value to their customers. But every PS5 that is bought for scalping makes it harder to find a PS5 at the store. They're effectively spending other people's time to save their customers' time. Qualitatively, that sounds like a transfer of value from one group to another -- not a benefit to society overall.
In the end, the same number of people will own a console and get to use it. Unless one person's leisure is worth more to society than another's, no value (to society) will be created by manipulating this distribution of resources. The one who will really benefit are the scalpers themselves. Sure, it might not be textbook rent-seeking, but it's pretty close.
(I do admit this argument might "prove too much", and could be turned around to any store selling any good...)
If numbers could be used but aren't then you are dealing with a taboo subject
Alternatively, the speaker doesn't precisely know, or the specifics are a distinction without consequence. E.g., gjm's example where someone recommends against pursuing a career in theoretical physics "unless you're very smart."
Vague language is bullshit when the vagueness is deliberate with the intention to mislead.
Maybe this could be a subset of "simple" language (vague because complexity is unnecessary), but it's not clear if this was an intent of that category.
I can imagine a community picking one vs two.
E.g., a community of enthusiasts for some niche interest might prefer open, not free, and not safe.
Why? If they're closed, they don't have enough members for their niche. If they're free, the niche will get watered down to more-casual adjacent interests and discussions. The quality of discussion will drop for the main users. And not safe because they'll intentionally have to bully and gatekeep to maintain social norms and high expectations for level of discussion.
I've taught and tutored math, and this concept is very familiar to me.
When tutoring, I will do as much debugging and back-and-forth as I can. Whenever possible, I would prefer to spend the time to really help cultivate understanding rather than just helping someone stumble through the homework.
When teaching, there's a lot of constraints that limit the ability to go back and forth. Not all the students are at the same level, there's a course curriculum that needs to be covered (as much as possible), and there's simply not enough time to debug the least prepared student. Even if you attempt to do so, you'll start to bore the rest of the class and waste their time.
The best balance I've managed to strike (in my limited experience) is to do short quizzes on prerequisites get an idea of where the class is, take some extra time on things that too many people have forgotten, give explicit instructions and invites to office hours and/or extra study sessions, and then just try and strike the best pace I can. If I get the "dead fish look" of glazed-over eyes from the class, I've lost them and need to slow down, schedule be damned.
One of my instructors in grad school actually took the time on the last day to write up a giant graph of all the major results from real analysis, moving downward as one theorem was used in the proof for another. After he finished, all I could think was "why didn't he give this to us on the FIRST day of class???" In retrospect, I didn't appreciate that thought enough, because it could have been useful to give something analogous to my students as a way to concretely check what they need to know going into each lesson or concept.
Bingo. When people say what they care about, they're treating it as a statement of values. When they say what they prioritize, they say what they're actually doing.
Ideally, people would do things that match their values, or at least be honest about what their values are, but it's a rare person that will say "I don't care about that" to some tragedy, even when they plan to do nothing.
From what I've seen, the more way to publicly "care less" about X instead of Y without it threatening your ego is to say you're adjusting priorities (usually to something unimpeachable, like family). And the way to "care less" about X because you only have finite time to do things and stay healthy is to say you're focusing on self care. It's not that X is any less worthy of a cause, or that you're any less good of a person for spending less time on it. It's a tactical, zero-sum shift.
In my experience trying both, slow-carb was cheaper and more fulfilling than keto, mostly because of beans. Beans are filling, and it's easy to make a big batch of those and eat them throughout the week. They're also dirt cheap, and if you have a pressure cooker you don't have to pre-soak before cooking.