SkepticalButOpenMinded

What super majority?

That's good to know. Though I wish people I knew, both apple and android, would switch to Signal instead.

One of the common definitions of “regularly” is “frequently”. E.g. “We used to meet regularly, but less and less as time went on.” This is also why frequent customers are called “regulars”.

edit: "Happening or doing something often" is even the first definition of the Cambridge English dictionary. Misinterpreting OP's use of "regular" just feels like Stack Overflow level pedantry.

The problem is that, in the US and Canada, android users don’t tend to use those apps en masse. The vast majority use SMS.

I see people on the internet often criticize the sample size of studies, but I think this is a misunderstanding. Due in part to the central limit theorem, sample sizes can be surprisingly small, provided the sample is actually representative. And if the sample isn’t representative, then a larger sample won’t necessarily help.

For example, there are about 60 million 18-29 yr olds in the US. With a sample size of 300, and a confidence interval of 95%, that gives us a margin of error of just ~5%.

Edit: to clarify, the study might still be wrong because the sample is biased, but not because the sample is too small. And it might also be wrong by chance, despite no methodological problems. 95% is still a 1 in 20 chance of a long tail result. D&D players know: critical failures happen!

Criticism is not a scarce quantity to be preserved. It spreads, like a fire. Take literally any social movement, like #metoo or BLM. People don’t suppress smaller stories to “save” criticism for bigger stories. The small stories add up. Right now, the F150 is one of the best selling cars in the US. The average American is no where close to criticizing it. But everyone already makes fun of the cyber truck. We can use that.

“Let’s not criticize this dangerous truck design because we should save our criticism!” is the worst way to get people to criticize dangerous truck design.

“I don’t like x but it can’t be worse than y” is a construction which serves to minimize how bad something is. Instead, let’s scrutinize both: “This cyber truck is ridiculously dangerous. While we’re at it, let’s also regulate the 4 feet tall wall of grill on other trucks.”

Implying they would be giving up their famous “quality” now? You need a certain quantity for quality. The burgers now are so small, with such paper thin meat, that the proportions and texture are all wrong. The value proposition is terrible either on quality or quantity.

Your wording makes it sound like the existence of even more dangerous trucks somehow excuses this dangerous truck. Both the 4 ft wall and the sharp metal blade edges are dangerous and irresponsible designs.

I agree with you. I feel like there is too often a “throw the book at them!” reaction to every wrong or mistake, maybe especially in the US. Which explains the hyper punitive justice system and the highest prison population in the world.

Canadians are considering voting in conservatives at every level of government. I would love for it to be true, but what makes you think Canadian voters are pining for more left leaning policies. If anything, absurdly, voters seem to want to punish Trudeau for going too far left!

But Canadians keep voting in conservatives at the provincial level, across the whole country. Only two NDP provinces (BC and Manitoba), and MB is very recent. This really seems like "voting against our interests".