As for why this "morally" checks out: moment of inertia of a single point mass at radius r from the center is I = m r^2, and in this case the energy of course has to be the same as 1/2 m v^2 as it's a point. Distributed objects have lower moments of inertia but if you look at the formulas for a bunch of cases (as mentioned uniform solid sphere is 2/5 = .4) you'll see that generally the moment of inertia factor isn't super small unless it's a lot denser closer to the center. For example, the Sun is 100x denser at center than its average and has a (predicted) moment of inertia factor of .07, while the Earth is only 2-3x and has a (confirmed with measurement) factor of .33. So your ball would basically have to be as center-heavy as the Sun to ignore it safely.
...only four people out of how many estimated the speed from the video? Here I was chastising myself for thinking of essentially Robert's approach second (after about a minute or two) instead of immediately, and am surprised so few measured speed at all.
Tangentially, I'm not sure if I'd have thought of ramp flexibility even after observing a different speed than expected from energy conservation - I might have just chalked it up to rotation or friction. But to not measuring the velocity...!
Once in high-school I successfully predicted from theory alone the height required for a free falling toilet paper roll to hit the ground at the same time as a roll that has a sheet held to a wall, but even just my chance of a math error is high enough that I wouldn't trust it. And I consider that more effort than measuring speed, despite being comfortable with the math.
On the other hand, gain of function research is both probably not very useful and unnecessarily risky. Many think it likely that COVID was caused by it; even if you don't, it seems likely that such research could cause similar pandemics.
(I don't think this is the place to argue about whether COVID specifically was caused by gain of function research, so suggest that replies to this comment not be about that)
Additional evidence: I don't feel companionate love as strongly as you do (I expect I feel love closer to the average amount, skewed a bit on the low side), but still have the same negative sentiment towards Green. Internally to me the Greeny feelings don't feel like love, but maybe most Greens do in fact feel them similar? For me it feels more like "story-thinking" or "narrative fit". I think fiction is probably the most Green feeling thing I do, and it feels to me like people apply it to the real world and don't feel the sense of "uhh, this is Real Life, not a book".
I think the sense of feeling bad for not knowing basic stuff is valuable. The key to making it useful is that I try not to flinch away from learning the thing because of feeling bad. The only response to feeling bad for not knowing something is to either learn it or consciously decide it's not worth it right now.
I worry that without this sense I would have more fundamental gaps in my knowledge. It's an alarm bell much like noticing confusion. It probably helps to have prerequisite skills of having similar feelitgs spur yourself to action instead of just beating yourself up about it.
Some of my early inspirations for getting into physics were like that. Once while preparing for the science bowl in middle school I learned I didn't even know what the fundamental particles were. Later I learned I didn't even know how one converts electrical power into mechanical motion. Perhaps this has trained me to be excited instead of sad - following up on "Why the fuck do I not know this?" is often fruitful.
Note from the future that Kariko received the Nobel Prize in 2023 for the mRNA stuff
Additionally, it's been memed, and I think it's in part due to how with modern English writing it reads like someone shouting a mispelling. So many who say "RETVRN" are doing so ironically to make fun of the position, while others use it seriously due to its distinctiveness.
Meh? If 15° accuracy is good enough for you, that map of level curves shows you that most places on land will be fine, along with the parts of the ocean usually used for moving between land.
Ebbinghaus's work on memory, maybe? For some reason it looks like nobody had plotted memory decay curves despite the experimental apparatus consisting only of yourself, flashcards, a metronome, and either a strong work ethic or a masochistic desire to memorize nonsense as if trapped in a satire of education. He discovered some of the early famous results but more importantly was relatively early in doing empiricism in psychology (and like the first to do so for memory?). Wikipedia states:
With very few works published on memory in the previous two millennia, Ebbinghaus's works spurred memory research in the United States in the 1890s, with 32 papers published in 1894 alone.
But also, the fact that this was the 1890s makes me think it may not have been that long before someone found it anyways. But also also, the world wars could've delayed it in this alternate timeline. So, maybe?
You'd be better off with memorizing chemical names + structures and reactions than the periodic table. Likewise I doubt that the world map and the monarchs are a good way to do geopolitics and history - for the former, various statistics or historical events or even just "Country X is in a civil war right now, dating back to year A, while Country Y is allied with Z and enemies with W".
I'll add that for physics, you should choose some reference numbers to memorize, in good units that make remembering and calculating easier. This will unlock the ability to do quick Fermi estimates and give you an additional understanding of the subject.
I broadly agree with the argument of the post, but having good taste as to what to memorize is important. Also, if you're using a spaced repetition program anyways you should put some of the concepts down along with simple facts.