Specifically, the AI is an incorrigible practical joker.
Front pillar blind spots can be a really big deal:
Sorry if you know this, but it may be helpful to others: If cycling gives you joint pains that's sometimes because the bike isn't set up right for you. There are obviously different sizes of bike and also a few different adjustments that can be made to fit your particular dimensions, and not all of them are obvious or easy to get right, so it might be worth taking the bike to a good shop and asking them to set it up to fit you.
50-60Hz is not too low to be heard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bslHKEh7oZk
It's not really too high to be seen either, lights that flicker at mains frequency can be pretty unpleasant on the eyes, and give some people headaches.
I recall seeing something about a very low-powered (and cheaply made) LED lightbulb which could never be turned off. With the light switch on, it was bright, and with the light switch off it was much more dim, but not actually off. It turned out this was because in certain common house wiring configurations, electrical field effects between nearby wires allow enough power through to light the bulb
Level 2 is to automatically apply this technique to negative feedback directed at you.
I'm not sure the reason, but there doesn't seem to be the same kind of nitpicky "everything wrong with X" type criticism out there for games (or at least it's not as popular, because I haven't seen it). There are lots of 'this game sucks' reviews, but they don't tend to be a giant laundry list of tiny inconsistencies, design choices etc. I think games are held to a much much lower standard on things like plot, acting etc, and maybe the fact that everyone's experience of a game is unique makes this style of criticism less viable?
I didn't know the norm was different here. I like the old norm, for reasons that are a little hard to express. I guess political discussion is much more engaging than the stuff we usually talk about, so if it's allowed I fear it will become a large proportion of overall discussion, to the cost of other topics. I don't want people for whom Politics is their main hobby to feel like this place is of any interest at all to them. If such a person wanders across this place and finds a lot of discussion of theoretical computer science and decision theory, they will keep wandering. Having a load of discussions about what may or may not be wrong with people's Politics feels to me like calling up something that we don't know how to put down.
My first impression was that this is much too obvious to be worth talking about, but my second thought is that I've found it very useful to have these language based triggers that act as a "summon sapience" spell. Triggers that make you stop and think. They don't push you to make any particular choice, but just to notice that this is a situation where there is a choice to be made.
I wonder if it would be worth putting together a list of "words and phrases which, when you hear them, should make you stop and think". "Why does this keep happening?" belongs on that list for sure.
This makes me think of the Creative Commons Licences. They're neatly named to show what is and isn't allowed. If I see that a piece of work is marked "CC BY-NC", I can easily see that it's published under a creative commons licence (CC), I'm free to share it as long as I give attribution so people know who the work is by (BY), and it's used only for non-commercial purposes (NC). Perhaps we could design a set of rules like that, with the various optional parts separated out and clearly labelled. "This event is CH NA-AL", or whatever.