probably depends on the type of material too. if it's purely memorization (e.g., I'm learning spanish as an english speaker) then there's probably no difference. If it involves any sort of understanding then I'd be very surprised if there was no difference, at least in speed of learning
of course it would be ideal if everyone could be reasonable and not abuse these processes, but that's obviously not the case. So the decisions seems to come down to maybe having new ugly buildings vs having no new buildings. I think people that need somewhere to live would choose the new ugly building instead of overpaying for old buildings.
yeah of course there's an optimum amount of exercise before it becomes more harmful than helpful. training for ultra distance races definitely sounds like pushing the limits of human capabilities, which means you're probably trading off other parts of your life to make it happen.
for anyone that doesn't obsess over exercise it's probably almost always a net positive, including for sleep (from personal, anecdotal experience).
the only people responsible for this are whichever execs ordered the filtering/censoring. Getting a chat bot to say "naughty things" was doing no one any harm.
This is rational though. Why would you take someone who's a 10x at their current job and move them to a different job with a completely different set of skill requirements where they might not even be a 1x, and almost certainly won't be a 10x. It's a negative for the developer if they wanted to move into management, but I don't think it has anything to do with management feeling threatened.
