Do you find there's any difficulty in retaining/integrating things you've read in short few-minute snippets between other activities?

I'll accept that concern as well-intentioned, but I think it's misplaced.

I've offered zero detail of any of the accounts I've seen posting about mind uploads (I don't have the account names recorded anywhere myself, so couldn't share if I wanted to), and those accounts were in any case typically throwaway usernames that posted only once or a few times, so had no other personal detail attached to be doxxed with. They were only recognisable as the same returning user because of the consistent subject matter.

Genuinely just curious about whether the people I have encountered suffering intrusive fears about their mind being uploaded are in fact one person in different contexts, or if this is a more widespread thing than I expected.

Point of curiosity: do you happen to have posted about this scenario on the subreddit /r/NoStupidQuestions/ ?

Because someone has (quite persistently returning on many different accounts to keep posting about it)

The technical meaning is a stimulus that produces a stronger response than the stimulus for which that response originally evolved.

So for example a candy bar having a carefully engineered combination of sugar, fat, salt, and flavour in proportions that make it more appetising than any naturally occurring food. Or outrage-baiting infotainment "news" capturing attention more effectively than anything that one villager could have said to another about important recent events.

Phil Magness notes that students could instead start their majors. That implies that when you arrive on campus, you should know what major is right for you.

That sounds like the way we do it in the UK: there's no norm of "picking a major" during the course of your time at university - you apply to a specific course, and you study that from the start.

Probably why a standard Bachelor's degree is expected to be a 3 year course rather than 4.

By the way, another tactic that is similar (and really prohibited in formal debates) is overloading the speech with technical terms

Possible typo: it is "really" prohibited, or "rarely" prohibited?

Or to add on to the thought, there are non-LW pro-truth/knowledge idioms like "knowledge is power", "the truth will set you free", or "honesty is the best policy"

"The truth hurts", "ignorance is bliss", and "what you don't know can't hurt you" don't contradict: they all say you're better off not knowing some bit of information that would be unpleasant to know, or that a small "white lie" is allowable.

The opposite there would be phrases I've mostly seen via LessWrong like "that which can be destroyed by the truth, should be", or "what is true is already true, owning up to it doesn't make it worse", or "if you tell one lie, the truth is thereafter your enemy", or the general ethos that knowing true information enables effective action.

Sticking to multiples of three does have a minor advantage of aligning itself with things that there are already number-words for; "thousand", "million", "billion" etc. 

So for those who don't work with the notation often, they might find it easier to recognise and mentally translate 20e9 as "20 billion", rather than having to think through the implications of 2e10