They do? I've known plenty of kids and young adults who utterly failed to become even borderline competent at programming.

I have never experienced this, and it sounds remarkably dysfunctional to me.

> They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook.

Betty could be both a maid and a cook. So there is still ambiguity.

Fortunately I was able to just return it, but if I hadn't been able to, why should that mean insurance wouldn't cover it? I was prescribed this device and it didn't work for me.

Presumably the argument is an abstract one, not applying to any particular machine that actually exists.

Working at an office sucks because it is a massive constraint on where you can live, even if you can tolerate a long commute. If you live with a partner who also has a career your options are even more constrained. I find it miraculous such a situation works out for anyone.

But broadly the gap between scholars and "the public" is as massive at it's ever been. Meet a few members of "the public" socially, outside of tech or academic circles or however you usually meet people. Go to some random bar or club or whatever and make some friends. I think you'll find, like I do, that most people basically don't know anything. They can sort of do 3rd grade arithmetic, but struggle to apply it, and don't know anything else about mathematics - most people don't understand how to use negative numbers or what they're for, for instance. They don't know anything about history - they don't really know what the Renaissance was, or when the Roman Empire was, or when and where human civilization began, or anything else. They absolutely know nothing about physics - they are completely unaware of the idea that acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on mass, which I see as the starting point of teaching physics.

Yeah, well that's just not the case at all here. The drive from Stallings to downtown Charlotte is almost entirely on Independence Boulevard, which is very much a stroad ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad ), very much developed with lots of pointless strip malls and office parks and little visible nature, and certainly not a foresty experience. The fact that you can see green nearby on satellite view has little to do with people's actual experience driving on these roads.

That’s another thing I found a bit odd - it would never have occurred to me that anyone would not have considered that area a suburb.

In your view then... what in the world is this about? If suburbs are perfectly walkable, why does anyone care about urbanism? Why does this channel https://www.youtube.com/c/notjustbikes have over a million subscribers?

Moreover, why is the suburb such a post-automobile phenomenon? If it's viable to get everywhere from a suburb without a car, why were people in 1000 BCE or 1000 CE or 1800 CE not living in suburbs?

I just find this perspective so weird... I've definitely met plenty of people who are very pro-suburb, but it's because they consider it natural and acceptable to need a car for any trip, not because they think they can get places without a car.

Here's a suburb: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.107277,-80.6508196,3a,75y,25...

Here's another: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3137771,-121.9844666,3a,75y,...

In the latter it _may_ be theoretically feasible to walk to a couple restaurants, if you don't mind a fairly unpleasant trip. In practice I guarantee you almost no one does this.

But those are just a couple arbitrary choices; in my experience they're pretty much all like that.

On the other hand, by being selective about where I live (walkable neighborhoods are scarce in the US), I've been able to live in several places where a great grocery store, a gym, multiple great restaurants, a bar or two, and other interesting destinations were within a 5 minute walk - in some cases literally right next door. If most of the land around you is taken up by single family homes with pointlessly large lots, it's completely infeasible for anything more than a tiny percentage of people to live close to these things, short of building a grocery store for every 100 people or something absurd.

Yes, almost certainly.

> Are millennials/ Gen Z the first generation where men anre (perhaps?) allowed to be almost as emotional as women?

This does not appear to be the case in my experience (as an elder millennial with Gen Z acquaintances). Although it surely varies by subculture and individual, in my experience women in the dating market still pretty strongly enforce pretty traditional gender roles for men. You can also see this in social media, notably TikTok - if you're familiar with the trend of young women talking about their "icks" (things that turn them off in men), you'll notice that the "icks" are usually about men being emotional, or being affected by their environment, or showing weakness in some (often trivial) way.