The problem is once you look at the definitions it's actually quite hard to exactly define what's Fantasy vs Sci-fi. It's more a venn diagram, than strictly separate genres and everyone has their own definition of which is which. So when someone likes one but not the other, it's hard to discuss books because what one person considers sci-fi, another may consider fantasy pretending to be sci-fi, thus the complaints of the original commenter.
There are definitely things that blur the line and cross genres, or things that may meet one person's definition but not another's.
I do agree it would be impossible to provide an entirely objective division that everyone would go along with.
Even so, I'd love it if all the "medieval dragon witch ghost magic spirit quest" stories could be placed on a different shelf of the bookshop to the "black hole generation ship dark forest faster than light" ones :)
The Pern novels by Anne McCaffrey feature noble warriors riding genetically-engineered telepathic fire-breathing dragons in a feudal society protecting an alien planet's human space colony from toxic spores. Which shelf do I put them on?
Perhaps the author has a voice here? McCaffrey always insisted they were science fiction. Pern was colonized by space travelers desiring a non-technological lifestyle.
"The Cyberiad" by Lem is full of "medieval dragon witch ghost magic spirit quest" stories, but most of the characters in it are robots, and they travel through space.
"Inversions" by Banks is "just" a medieval quest story with magic unless you know The Culture stories, in which case is a interstellar politics story with high tech.
So even those categorisations aren't that straightforward (I would put both in the SF category, but Inversions is tricky - someone unfamiliar with Banks could read it as a straight-up fantasy novel, and if you don't like fantasy it might feel tedious)
I'm good with a few weird edge cases. Just let me find the majority of sci fi books without having to trudge through vast numbers of definitively fantasy books!
The thing is, it's not a "few weird edge cases". But this seems like an odd "problem" to me anyway - I must admit I've never been in the situation of having to trudge through vast numbers of definitively fantasy books to find SF books anywhere...
The majority are really not that hard to categorise.
In the UK at least, fantasy and sci fi occupy the same shelving. Takes me ages pulling books out of the shelf, and immediately rejecting because they are fantasy.
The majority of the books are fantasy, not sci fi. Fantasy seems to have a much bigger audience in the UK anyway.
I particularly hate UI changes. There seems to be a constant trend in phone software to "improve" UI while disregarding the value of consistency and familiarity. Sure UI can be improved but if it's not a massive improvement the negatives of relearning the UI and retraining muscles memory far outweigh the positives. Same applies to features too, though often due to the UI changes that come with those features (Android Chrome's bullshit tab groups pushed me to Firefox).
As someone who does software for NHS Scotland, I can easily believe the tale of multiple difference directorates/orgs believing it was someone else's remit as the NHS is a super complex organization of organizations. But in your case specifically data protection laws probably made it far worse and that's true of pretty much any tech you build/deploy in the NHS. There are strict information governance rules that have to be followed for any personal information, even just emails, which exist for very good reasons and aren't particularly onerous, but they are strict so in situation like your where it's not clear who would own/be responsible for what you were offering I can could see them getting in the way.
There are some rules that exist for very good reasons - and which have been widely undermined by front-line healthcare services though this does at least seem to be improving a bit over time.
There are also plenty of rules that exist for dogmatic reasons and impose absolute requirements that don't always make much sense in context instead of stating principles that should be appropriately applied.
I understand that those administering these rules don't want to leave loopholes where people or cost-conscious suppliers will cut corners for convenience and/or to save money. There is obviously a danger of that happening if you don't write everything down in black and white.
But you have to remember that the starting point here is receptionists at medical facilities asking people to email over sensitive health information or casually discuss it on the phone when they don't even know who they're talking to and what information is appropriate to share with them. Doctors are trying to read vital patient information from scrawled handwriting on actual paper in potentially time-sensitive life-and-death situations. Expensive scanning equipment in hospitals relies on software that runs on 20-year-old versions of Windows from a supplier that shut down long ago.
In this context you probably win a lot just by having clear policies and guidelines that really are short and simple enough for rank and file staff working in a wide variety of different jobs to understand. A reasonable set of basic technical measures would be far better than much of what is in widespread use today. Trying to make everything perfect so we have fully computerised health records and integrated diagnostic and treatment systems and everything is 100% secure and privacy-protected and supported is a laudable goal that would obviously be much better for patient outcomes and also for the daily lives of everyone working in healthcare. And in 50 or 100 years maybe we'll be able to do it. But not today and not tomorrow.
I've written software used across the NHS previously, and a lot for national security purposes since. It wasn't the only option on the table, just one that I was mainly using to ensure cost of development couldn't be used as a reason to reject and so that there was a strawman architecture on the table to help generate discussion.
It certainly wasn't even my preferred option, I'd have been much happier if they said they had a team that could run with it.
Where in the NHS is that? Maybe just an English thing. I had to go private on my own dime and thankfully my GP took over prescribing, which is uncommon and becoming increasingly so. They also put me on the NHS waiting list, back when you could still get on it without being severe, and it was only last week I had my appointment almost 4 years after being put on the list.
Best Software Engineering advice I ever heard was at a conference talk by a guy called Dan North: "Think of code like surgery".
Basically Surgery is a means to an end (patient gets better) and a useful tool for achieving that but it's also dangerous so only used when necessary. If other treatments can fix the problem you try them first. If surgery is required you only do the minimum required to treat the issue.
Code is similar. More code means more maintenance, more tech debt, slower deliverables in future and higher risk of dependencies no one understands. So when coding ask "Can I fix this without code?" because if yes it's often easier in the long run and "What's the bare minimum/simplest code I need to write to fix the issue?".
Similar to comments above there's a difference between poly and open. I've not tried either but I've multiple good friends who are in "monogamish" relationships and it seems to work pretty well. For them the non-monogomy is just fun they have with others, but ultimately their partnership comes first. Otherwise it's very similar to the monogamy you describe but with agreed exceptions to sexual exclusivity.
It's not for everyone and it takes a lot communication (and low levels of jealousy) but it seems to work well at providing the structure and stability of marriage without forcing the full sexual exclusivity that some find constricting.
Why does their partnership come first? Whats stopping you from finding somebody better to make a priority? Isn’t that the point of being poly is to have the ability to shop around?
It takes work, for both people to compromise, to critically self-evaluate and improve.
When it's easy to just "shop around", you never really have to look hard in the mirror. It's easier to just internally assign blame to the other person: "they're not meeting my needs", and go off seeking someone else who will.
There's value in resilience, in building up your character so that you can endure turmoil.
All relationships have stormy times.
A key facet of emotional maturity is to be able to distinguish climate from weather.
That explains it. If it's rare where you are it's probably fairly forecastable. Try living somewhere with regular rain, like the UK, and you'll quickly learn that it's hard to predict and forecasts don't count for much.
I think your hypothesis is correct but your reasoning is wrong. Few people are morbid enough to think "Oh my life sucks so why bother looking after myself". But if you're constantly stressed because you're struggling in life, small indulgences like smoking, alcohol and fast food/sugar are a lot harder to resist as they provide a much needed outlet/release.
I looked into this previously, though it was a while ago so I no longer have the sources to hand. Nicotine is still addictive on it's own but when given to non-smokers in a non-tobacco form it's notably less addictive than smoking. Still addictive but far closer to coffee than cigarettes.
Some of this can be explained by different consumptions methods. For example in lozenges, gum and patches nicotine enters the bloodstream much slower than smoking or vaping so even if you consume the same overall amount the peak is lower slowing adaption. But that couldn't explain it entirely.
