This seems like a useful and accurate overview of the general state of data utilization in many organizations.

In my work as a software engineer at a clinical research company, I'm frequently able to watch as my coworkers struggle to convince our clients (companies running clinical trials) that yes, it is critical to make sure all of available data entry options are locked to industry standardized terms FROM THE BEGINNING else they will be adding thousands of hours of data cleaning on the tail end of the study.

An example of an obstacle to this: Clinicians running/designing the trials are sometimes adamant that we include an option in the field for "Reason for treatment discontinuation" called "Investigator Decision" when that is not an available term in the standard list and the correct standardized code item is "Physician Decision". But they are convinced that the difference matters even though on the back end the people doing the data cleaning are required to match it with the acceptable coded terms and it'll get mapped to "Physician Decision" either way because the FDA only accepts applications that adhere to the standards.
In my opinion a common cause of this disconnect is those running trials are usually quite ignorant of what the process of data cleaning and analysis looks like and they have never been recipients of their own data.

As a pipe dream I would be in favor of mandatory data science courses for all medical professionals before letting them participate in any sort of research, but realistically that would only add regulatory burden while accomplishing little good as there's no practical way to guarantee they actually retain or make use of that knowledge.
 

literally, he did not believe in probabilities between zero and one. yes, such people exist. he would say things like “either it is, or it isn’t” and didn’t buy it when we tried to explain that a 90% chance and a 10% chance are both uncertain but you should treat them differently.

...How does someone this idiotic ever stay in a position of authority? I would get their statements on statistics and probability in writing and show it to the nearest person-with-ability-to-fire-them-who-is-not-also-a-moron.

Strange variant of Monte Hall problem I managed to confuse myself with:
You are presented with the three doors but do not know if you will have a chance to switch later. You know the host can decide to open one of the losing doors and give you the opportunity to switch or not, and does not wish to give away the prize.

If the player chooses the correct door first he is incentivized to open one and give you the option to switch, but since the player is informed of the rules that may convince the player not to switch.
If the player chooses an incorrect door first he disincentivized to give you the option to switch, but since the player is informed of the rules that may convince the player not to switch.
After the host informs you if do you or do not have the option to switch, you are given a piece of paper and asked to predict what is behind the door. If your prediction is correct you get what is behind the door. If your prediction is wrong && [a door was opened] you get what is behind the other one, If prediction is wrong && [no door was opened] you get what is behind one of the remaining doors at random.

Is there an optimal strategy: For the host? For the player?
My working memory is now shot and I can't say I'm confident the puzzle is logically coherent, but it was fun to make.

I don't think most of us mind clickbait so much as clickbait-and-switch, where the content is not what the headline promises. In this case, the 'bait' headline was more or less justified so I don't mind.

Because absent their monopoly on certain types of advertising, competitors could offer the same value for much less. In retrospect I suppose the actual problem is then the monopoly power not strictly the effort from the seller or lack thereof. I'll add to the OP to reflect that/cross out what I no longer endorse.

I don't agree with your labor theory of value - there are many complex and individual valuations that are quite valid.  One can easily argue that the limited resource of buyer attention is worth a fair bit of money to secure, and the percentage-of-sale is just a nice way of charging more to people with more money.

I could be convinced to have a more nuanced understanding. I'm confident I have not read enough of the writing on the topic. What would you recommend?

We might be able to package this up into a nice tidy term and call it "volume insensitivity". See also: The un-intuitiveness of the square-cube law in regards to scaling things up or down.

I find I'm much less adept at first person three dimensional video games than two dimensional ones. This may have more to do with how in e.g. platformers, everything that can effect the player is in your field of view. Not so in three dimensional games where you can get, say, stabbed in the back and never so much as glimpse what got you. Hollow Knight is a much easier game for me than Dark Souls 3, despite people on the internet characterizing Hollow Knight as "2-D Dark Souls".

In similar avenues, there seems to be a dichotomy between people who think in relative directions vs those who intuitively think in cardinal directions.

The National Association of Realtors is a rent-seeking organization. This is because commissions should be strictly proportional to the amount of work required for the specific task able to change with market forces rather than an arbitrary percentage of the value of a particular property, since the effort needed to sell a property is not necessarily proportional to the value of said property.

I'm disgusted that they've managed to make a percentage of property value the accepted norm for commissions. How were people suckered into that rather than demanding per-hour rates?

Edited to reflect insight gained from comments.

The 'live under a rock' strategy has been quite effective for me. I stopped following most political commentary sources several years ago and I've never regretted it.

I avoid political conversations among my family and coworkers because the overwhelming majority are strongly religious and conservative. With beliefs so different from mine discussion is not likely to be productive nor pleasant.

I see, I suppose I interpreted 'scaling' a bit less generally. In that case I agree.

Also I just noticed you mentioned flywheels, which are one of my favorite pieces of technology. I long for someone to make a phone with a flywheel battery as a meme/gag gift.

This has parallels with how the factory-building game Factorio presents things. The thing that makes Factorio fun^[1] is how it abstracts away those pesky prohibitively complex nuances of manufacturing & automation so that everything can feasibly be automated quickly and scaled ad infinitum. For example: 

• The conveyor belts run on magic (they don't require any power, which isn't really explained considering every other electrical thing in the game requires pseudo-realistic levels of electrical input.)
• The assembling machines (essentially Autofacs) don't require any retooling/tuning/cleaning/etc to switch between completely different recipes seamlessly)
• No manufacturing equipment ever wears out or needs physical maintenance.
• Inserters (robot hands that handle objects to and from conveyor belts and the various structures) detect objects flawlessly and reliably and any kind can handle any type of object (and furthermore object sizes are abstracted such that all take the same amount of space on a conveyor belt)
• Electrical usage is abstracted so that you only need to keep generated power >= usage or things will start to slow down/get rolling blackouts. You don't need to worry about pesky throughput tolerances on cables, one small wooden power pole and its wire can handle just as much as a giant cross-country steel behemoth.
• & thousands of other small details abstracted away for simplicity.

Overall I hope we are able to progress to Autofacs in real life, I just don't see it being nearly as straightforward as any of us would prefer. Not that I want to discourage anyone from making the attempt! I just hope that they know what they are getting into.

1. ^{^}

   Really really fun for engineering-minded people like myself. 
   Fun-hazard level — If you've never tried it before it might be wise not to unless you have incredible self discipline or several days of free time in the near future; It can be addicting.