Yeah, I think that's most people. Have you tried a light roast coffee though? They're not common at all, and most people don't like them in my experience. Those two things are probably related.
Okay that's fair. Would you notice the flavor difference between strawberry and choc milk though? Because that's on par with the flavor difference between the two coffees. Dark roasts taste roasty, light roasts taste fruity. My comment on bean color was a minor side note that I ended with, the much bigger difference is in the flavor.
Given then that we have these multiple, fully independent differences that could be noticed (different beans, different flavor, not having caffeine), a bunch of people missing all of them is not likely imo, unless all of them are particularly oblivious. All it takes is one person to notice, after all.
Possibly. I will admit that it's uncaffeinated people we are asking to distinguish between the two, which is worthy of consideration.
Still though, it's like looking at toast and not noticing how toasted it is. Colors are something that just stand out, a lot, unless you're pretty distracted. If we were running a single individual through the trial then sure, but multiple people? I don't like the odds.
The red flag for me was saying he switched the decaf for the highest caffeine roast available.
Decaf is roasted pretty dark, because the roasty flavors that creates help cover up some of the flavor destruction you get from the decaffeination process.
High caffeine roasts are light ones, though, because the roasting process itself slowly degrades the caffeine.
Thus, he's saying he replaced a bunch of dark roast decaf coffee with one of the lightest available, and nobody noticed. That'd be like swapping someone's chocolate milk for strawberry milk and them somehow not noticing. You'd even see the difference the moment you looked at the beans, because almost-black and very light brown are different colors.
Next time someone wants to share this story, say you replaced the decaf with a similar roast of regular. That will at least sound plausible to the coffee people.
But the dozen or so workers on board didn’t seem bothered.
I mean, yeah, they've still got that whole "earn a paycheck" thing to worry about.
My daughter asked me recently, How do you go up to someone that you don’t know and talk to them? Today, you’re not only interrupting a social dynamic, you’re also interrupting people’s interaction with their devices. I notice it in my own family, because she comes up to me and I’m on my phone and I feel annoyed sometimes, like, I’m in the middle of reading, can’t you see?
It's all in the "excuse me". I think it becomes easy to think of the two words as just a saying that begins conversation, but I like to look at the actual meaning. It's an apology, no different from walking up to someone with an "I"m sorry, but..." or "Pardon me, but..."
So lean into that with your tone and body language. Begin your interruption of someone with a genuine apology for bothering them. Okay, good, so you did something wrong, but immediately apologized for it, and if everything follows the normal rules of politeness, the receiver will automatically forgive you for your interruption because you gave an earnest apology for a very minor social infraction. You are now at a neutral position with the person, having done nothing particularly wrong or right, but you now have their attention and can say/ask whatever.
If you want to practice, try practicing with a compliment. "Excuse me ... pause for response, if positive/neutral then... that's a really nice hat you're wearing. Just thought I'd let you know." and end conversation. Nothing really gained or lost here, but you got to practice some, and very few people will care about the interaction enough to give you more than a second's thought afterward.
Once you lift the narrative requirement, the number of hits balloons into the millions. I would personally draw the line between education and edutainment on the issue of thoroughness. Education needs to be fairly thorough, while edutainment can skip all the boring (but necessary for full understanding) parts and exclusively handle the fun ideas-based stuff, usually with some oversimplification here and there just to keep things moving in an entertaining way.
I would describe Kings & Generals on youtube as a solid example of good quality military history edutainment.
If you're looking for a medical drama that health care workers seem to find an acceptable representation of their work, take a look at The Pitt. Apparently they put a lot of effort into being as accurate as possible.
Overall I think your definition of edutainment as requiring a narrative is overly restrictive, I think we could call narrative-less science shows like this edutainment, despite lacking narrative:
All that said, the specific combination of scientific accuracy, narrative and for-adults does seem to be a rarer combination of traits. I cannot think of very many at all, and those I can do tend to fudge some of the accuracy here and there for dramatic appeal.
This is more of a system issue than bad behavior of an individual charity.
Charities can underpay a little bit, because working for a charity has its own appeal. But if you want a talented, experienced person to run your org, you have to consider what they could make if they worked for someone else. San Diego is not a cheap city, and has its fair share of CEO positions.
If you really want to stretch your dollar though, local food banks are probably a better bet.
"If I have to create stories so that ~~the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people~~ we win, then that's what I'm going to do."
Yea, we already knew that JD, thanks.
Ah, LinkedIn, exactly where I want to get nuanced answers to weird questions from.
Oh he knows. I bet he's known since the second month of his special military operation. He just can't do anything about it, he's on railroad tracks that lead nowhere except disaster.
He's a strongman, his power is based on his reputation, which is based on being able to make decisions that result in keeping the Russian people safe and secure. Had his invasion succeeded, this would have been good for him. But it didn't, so now everyone has to ask: what have they paid, what have they gotten for it, and are they happy with their leadership based on that?
I think it's pretty hard for anyone anywhere to argue that the past few years have been good for them, so Putin has to worry about his popularity. But wait, there's no way to realistically remove unpopular Russian leaders, and that means ... his actual life is in danger if anyone wants him out badly enough, which you gotta figure some powerful people in Russia probably do by now.
That's the problem for Putin. Peace will be the death of him, and he knows it.