You're right that I've never read the 2e and 3e sourcebooks, just 5e and some OSR stuff, but nothing in between.
Most of my experience playing DnD comes from playing in homebrew settings. Maybe the real problem in that case comes from trying to use a roleplaying system that has a bunch of cosmology and mysticism baked into it in a setting that either lacks that or has metaphysics that actively clash with it.
But if so I think that's probably a pretty common experience with how 5e is played.
But the fact that even just a single rail car holds 360 commuters, equivalent to 180 cars or more on the highway changes the math completely.
Absolutely. The fact that 3 million people pass through Shinjuku station every day is a testament to that.
If all of those people lived in a city in the US it would be the country's third largest, behind NY and LA. (If we're going by the entire urban area instead of just within city limits it would be the 20th, just ahead of the Baltimore-Columbia-Towson metropolitan statistical area.)
All in a space that's smaller than most highway interchanges.
And that's not even using two-level train cars (which is where your figure for 360 people per train car comes from I think?).
While things like merging movements and so on is part of the story, it's not the whole story.
You see, by saying "traffic jams are caused by merging mistakes and so on" it kinda implies that if everyone drove perfectly a highway lane could carry infinitely many cars. In actually a highway lane has a finite capacity determined by the length of the vehicles traveling on it, the length of the gap between them (indirectly determined by how fast they can start and stop), and the speed they're moving.
There are finite limits for gap widths and speed determined by physics and geometry. As the system approaches these limits it becomes less and less able to deal with small disruptions. In other words, as more cars move on a freeway a traffic jam becomes more and more likely. The small disruption which is perceived as the cause was really just the nucleation point for a phase change that the system was already poised to transition through. If it wasn't that event then something else would trigger it.
It is interesting to note that once a highway has transitioned from smooth flow to traffic jam its capacity is massively reduced, which you can see in the graphs in the above link. Another interesting thing to note is that the speed vs volume graph, if you flip it upside down, resembles a cost / demand curve from economics, where volume is the demand and time spent commuting (the inverse of speed) is cost. If you do this you see something quite odd, which is that the curve curls up around itself and goes backwards.
This is less like a normal economic situation (the more people use a resource the more they have to pay, the less people use it the less they have to pay) and more like a massively multiplayer version of the prisoner's dilemma. For awhile the cost increases only slightly with growing demand, until a certain threshold where each additional actor making a transaction has a chance to massively increase the cost for everyone, even if consumption is reduced. Actors can choose to voluntarily pay a higher time cost (wait before getting on the freeway) to avoid this, but again, it's the prisoners dilemma. People can just go, trigger a traffic jam anyway, and you'll still have to sit through it + all the time you waited trying to prevent it.
Self driving cars are often described as a way to eliminate traffic jams, but they don't change this fundamental property of how roadways work. It's true that capacity could potentially be increased somewhat by decreasing the gap between cars, since machines have faster reflexes than humans (though I'm skeptical of how much the gap can really be decreased; is every car going to weigh the same at all times? Is every car going to have tires and brakes in identical conditions? Is the condition of the asphalt going to be identical at all times and across every part of the roadway? All of these things imply a great deal of variability in stopping distance, which implies a wide safety gap.), but the prisoner's dilemma problem remains. The biggest thing that self driving cars could actually do to alleviate traffic jams would be to not enter a highway until traffic volumes were at a safe level. This can also be accomplished with a traffic volume sensor and a stop light on highway on-ramps.
Of course trains, on top of having a way higher capacity than a highway lane, don't suffer from any of this prisoner's dilemma stuff. If a train car is full and you have to wait for the next one that's equivalent to being stopped at a highway on ramp. People can't force their way into a train and make it run slower for everyone (well, unless they do something really crazy like stand in the door and stop the train from leaving).
No better than what?
CRI is defined as how closely a light source matches the spectral emission of a thing glowing at a specific temperature. So, for a light source with a 4000 k color temperature its CRI describes how closely its emission matches that of an object that's been heated to 4000 k.
Because incandescent bulbs emit light by heating a filament by definition they will have 100 CRI and its impossible to get any better than that. But the emission curve of incandescent lights doesn't actually resemble that of sunlight at all (sorry for the reddit link). The sun is much hotter than any incandescent bulb and it's light is filtered by our atmosphere, resulting in a much flatter more gently sloping emission curve vs the incandescent curve which is extremely lopsided towards the red.
As you can see in the above link, there are certain high end LED bulbs that do a much better job replicating noon day sunlight than incandescents. And that flatter emissions profile probably provides better color rendering (in terms of being able to distinguish one color from another) than the incandescent ramp.
Now, whether or not you want your bulbs to look like the noon day sun is another matter. Maybe you don't want to disrupt your sleep schedule and you'd much rather their emissions resemble the sunset or a campfire (though in that case many halogen and high output incandescent lamps don't do a great job either). Or maybe you're trying to treat seasonal depression and extra sunlight is exactly what you want. But in any case I think CRI isn't a very useful unit (another reddit link).
An arch user defines "doesn’t break all the time" as "I have to read the news before every update and apply a manual intervention a few times a year, and there's only been like one time in history that an update made people's installs unbootable despite them taking those precautions".
A Debian user defines "doesn’t break all the time" as "I have a cron job running that periodically runs sudo apt update. I have no idea when it does this or what's changing when it happens and nothing bad has ever happened to me".
Like, the fact that unattended-upgrades comes pre-installed and enabled by default (for security updates) in Debian GNOME vs the fact that informant exists to force you to read the news in Arch before you update should tell you that the two distros exist in two different universes.
the production of highly processed foods
Source?
The US congressional research service thinks EU subsidies are more spread out among all types of crops, including fruits and vegetables, whereas US policy focuses more on grains, sugars, dairy, and oil seeds: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46811
That's not a direct subsidy of food processing of course, but the crops the US chooses to support ends up incentivizing it.
And this paper also makes it sound like subsidized crops in the US end up in processed foods: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2530901
So we were talking about supply, not consumption. But regardless, yes americans choose to eat processed foods more on average. So?
Cultural factors are a thing but I think they're used far too often to explain away trends at the population level and the effects of public policy.
If you just called them "a dick" maybe that would be comparable, as it stands it's more like calling someone "a fatass".
And if my comments are long it's less because I take umbrage with a specific phrase and more because I take umbrage with the idea that you can somehow dictate the implications of your speech based off of your intent. If you want to argue that the phrase "small dick energy" isn't a big deal then be my guest. I honestly don't think I would disagree, at the very least there's far worse things going on right now.
But when someone points out that something you said can have unfavorable interpretations thinking "wow how dare they try to psychoanalyze me over a single internet comment, they should know that's not what I meant" isn't a good attitude to have. Once something leaves your mouth (or the tips of your fingers) it exists independently of you, and it has all sorts of implications and effects whether you want it to or not, especially when you're talking to strangers. This is something I wish I could go back in time and tell my younger self.
EDIT: it's true that sometimes people can go too far in grabbing the worst interpretation of something they can, running with it, and deciding the person needs to be punished for that. But this isn't an example of that.
The thing about real world processor design though is that all those abstractions are leaky.
At higher levels of design you end up having to consider things like the electrical behavior of transistors, thermal density, the molecular dynamics of strained silicon crystals (and how they behave under thermal cycling), antenna theory, and the limits and quirks of the photolithography process you're using (which is a whole other can of worms with a million things to consider).
Not everyone needs to know everything about every part of the process (that's impossible), but when you're pushing the limits of high performance chips each layer of the design is entangled enough with the others to make everyone's job really complicated.
EDIT: Some interesting links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U885cIhOXBM
It's the combination of FPTP voting and the presidential government structure.
In a parliamentary system third parties are more viable because they can act as "king maker" to one of the two larger parties.
Of course a proportional voting system like STV is even better for party diversity.