I interpret the article to say the "myth" is exactly true. It may also be true that Semmelweis could have done a better job communicating his findings and persuading others. But that doesn't take away from the truth of the basic story.
I meant "still use math" as a proxy for "still use formal languages to communicate".
Maybe in 100 years AI will be so powerful that we'll just ask our question in natural language and get the answer we need. Or maybe in 100 years AI will have harvested us for the iron in our blood. Either way we wouldn't need SQL anymore.
If we still use math 100 years from now, we'll still use SQL. It's a fine way to query relational data, and relational data is a fine way to model reality.
I'd like to hear from people that think I'm wrong.
Could this be a protected concerted activity? In the US, there are some basic protections when two or more employees work together to improve the conditions of their employment. I don't know what does or doesn't qualify for this protection, though.
I had the "oof" but I got rid of it by lifting weights, starting at age 51. I don't lift much anymore, because I kept hurting myself doing powerlifting. But it got rid of the "oof."
I'm sure there's a happy medium lifting enough to keep healthy but not so much that it causes injury. I've never been good at doing medium.
My initial thought was that I didn't like that prescription. But I'd like to know _why_ the author thinks "joke less, laugh less" would help with divisiveness.
I think "my wife is a hospice worker who has provided care to over 5000 patients and hasn't heard these regrets" is a pretty decent argument. I'm not saying Hanson is right, but I wouldn't dismiss his wife's experience.