Like I said, exceptions. I don't think tDA and SC do that much worldbuilding, speaking as someone who doesn't usually care for it. Those who ape the Tolkien high-fantasy school lean on it more, meandering descriptions. Anathem is actually my favorite.
I had trouble with the Baroque Cycle and did not bother to finish, but stuck with Cryptonomicon and it was completely worth it. Otherwise agree with your picks.
On Seveneves, no two people seem to agree on which half of the book is "bad", but I will say in general that the first half is more popular among the base. I thought the latter was fine.
He's detailed (maximalist as he likes to say), but I wouldn't call it worldbuilding (with exceptions). A fantasy author does that. He just gets into the nitty gritty about tech or ideas.
Sure, though no reason a Corporation could not also have a duty to all stakeholders. Back when Corporations were a new thing, you had to prove they would be a benefit to the crown to form them. That's not to say it's necessarily ideal in all cases.
Presumably this could be sussed out long before marriage. And if that deeper love and respect should disintegrate, there would be some sort of catalyst.
My expectation is that it's unlikely in the long-run to fall out of love if both parties still nurture the relationship and invest themselves. But maybe I'm wrong and it happens anyway.
This is more likely at a young age, i.e. teens into 20s. If you meet your partner in your late 20s and up, they're unlikely to change in significant fashion. Important to consider in pairing with the advice that you can't change a person. Expect a douche to remain a douche.
I don't think it's that simple anymore. A person isn't necessarily inherently of the type to be committal or non-committal. Broadly speaking the choices can offer different rewards, but usually it's case-by-case, depending on the circumstances surrounding each prospective relationship.
An easy example in your early-mid 20s is the prospect of moving for work and education, and forgoing long-distance, but we can set this one aside because it's a heavy extraneous circumstance.
The early relationships I had carried a more laissez-faire "let's wait and see" attitude, at least on my part. Most people will not end up marrying their high-school sweetheart, but it's good to date around to discover ourselves and others. What I didn't count on was that a) emotional bonds will happen almost every time, and break ups will hit hard, and b) wait-and-see doesn't work very well for the long-run. People don't change that much. If you're committing in the hopes that you will feel more strongly about someone later, don't. And be honest about the way you feel as soon as you know it. Respect your time and others'.
I carried that non-committal approach into my 20s because I was an emotional fuck-up with lots of anxiety and plagued with insomnia. I couldn't be alone. It wasn't until later that I pulled the plug on a relationship and decided I wouldn't jump on another until I felt more certain about them. Now I'm married. I think we take for granted how difficult being alone can be for some people owing to x y struggles, which is unfair to their partners.
Relationships take work, both parties need to invest in each other. There will be times when things feel more stagnant and familiar, and times of great intimacy, etc. A common apprehension about commitment you hear is "won't I still be attracted to other people?". Yes, you will. It won't matter. "How do I know I'm not settling?". What? It's either a happy relationship or it isn't. Trying to min/max superficial attributes is a fool's errand. Tend to your garden. Rewards are way greater in a loving relationship.
Exactly, it's an unrealistic depiction. And it's not a zero sum game. You can care about your spouse's happiness as well as your own, and can't rely on someone else entirely to make you happy.
Your own happiness and your significant others' aren't mutually exclusive, or zero-sum. It's a distortion to characterize one as more or less important than the other. It's important to look out for both. You can't just rely on your SO to make you happy.
You claim T_D was brigaded, yet claim ignorance as to whether such a thing has sprouted from the conservative base which needn't explicitly come from T_D. That's more than strange unless you haven't really explored much else on the site.
> Forums like 8chan and 4chan effectively incubate hate speech by providing a safe space
The simplest view is that these safe spaces mostly exist because some larger platforms have been turned into safe spaces. However, even on larger platforms, these types form insular groups that are effectively walled gardens within a larger ecosystem (see T_D). The mode of operation appears to be to rally behind safe spaces, then brigade larger platforms when something catches their attention. No real discussion, just bombarding text.
It's exceedingly difficult to have honest discussion with those of opposing views because people reward themselves with safe spaces and tend to expect them. Ideally, we could rely on rational discourse to assuage the extremism issue and inoculate. If we shout them down in a given arena, they'll scurry away but never disappear.
As I see it, it's a problem of scale. On smaller vbulletin forums you'll more likely see heated, but honest, debate there without any brigades nor bans (depending on modship). A rainbow of opinions. With platforms as large as reddit, censorship is holding all out shit shows at bay.