It depends on the leaf-to-area ratio. We have a lot of trees that are large. Even mulched, the sheer volume of leaves would kill the grass. We have about a third of an acre and let a majority grow taller stuff, or where the trees are really dense have a leaf mould ground condition. It is nice to have some walkable area, grass is the lowest maintenance option for that, and keeping the grass alive requires leaf removal.

Or it’s a fake explanation of the picture, or a fake picture (AI or old fashion photoshop).

I’ve asked my neighbor if an arrow I found in the road was theirs (no, but he was happy to take it) and coordinated removal of dead trees on the property line. Those went well.

I was rather stressed and unhappy when a neighbor, after some passive aggressive comments, reported us to the city weed inspector. The weed inspector determined we didn’t have any violations, and we made extra sure to leave our “wild patch” in the front yard and take our time cleaning up leaves after that.

NotAWheelchair (owned by YouTuber Jerryrig Everything) sells custom models for 1,200 to $2,000. Not sure if the customization they offer is everything you meant, but they seem to be offering some competition to the market.

I work in manufacturing, lots of physical tasks. The work instructions for the physical tasks get out of date with control system and physical machine changes just as much as the non-tangible type work documents.

I have found work instructions that (succintly, no essays) explain when something is a safety protection, or affects quality, are more effective. Most workers want to make a good product, and are genuinely trying to be helpful by making a change, but might not have visibility to the full impact. Explanations can also help reduce change fear: often managers won’t approve change because they don’t know why a rule exists, but are afraid it’s important. Having the explanation right there with the rule can help reasonable arguments prevail over fear.

Aw, thanks. I hope you gain a document savvy coworker!

It’s an unfortunately rare skill set to change documents. If the way it’s being done is better than the document, there is a process to make the document match, but that idea seems to not even occur to most of my coworkers, across multiple industries in my couple of decades working.

I have filled out so many change review forms justification field “updating document to match existing practice. No process change.” Boss always signs.

Equating advocacy for planning for projected near- and middle-term population changes with advocacy for “infinite” growth is exactly the lack of nuance that frustrates me.

The space here is limited… The immigrants are directly competing with me for the in-city apartments.

More desirable locations will be too expensive for many, or most, people to afford. As local economies change, and different locations become desirable, people will be priced out and forced to move. Good city planning decisions can slow this down to allow people to adapt, but trying to freeze things in place is futile.

It’s not really possible to set up city planning regulations so the population stays exactly the same. If a city were successful in making itself an undesirable place to live so that no one new would move there, it would probably start losing its population, which (like growth) forces its own hard planning decisions.

It’s a lack of nuance. Higher rates of population growth can be good, if pressure points like housing are planned for with zoning and permitting systems that promote densification in popular locations. The badness is neither the additional people nor the housing regulations individually, but instead is that they don’t match.

Also, there’s a lot of racism in the mix. The people with legitimate concerns about growth planning (or the lack thereof) end up mixed in with the people who are horrified at the idea of their racial group becoming a minority of the country’s population.

China’s ten-year presidential terms worked well for their people for a long time. That Xi has gone the dictator for life route is IMO a significant threat to their future direction.

Many countries also seem to be on a fine interim path to building up a combination capitalist/socialist economy and bringing up their median and minimum living standards. China is big and influential, but doesn’t have a lock on that.

the unsupported, internal format - that allows for pretty much everything - is in some way exploitable

It prevents AI summaries of the video from including all the video content. Obvious solution: remove the information missing from the summary from the video itself. Now they match! /s

Yup, small percent of people. But those 4% (or whatever it is) are the only possible audience capable of breaking free of living from paycheck to paycheck by following “tips”. And 4% of 300 million people is a reasonably large number of people.

Or AI

It didn’t last. Surely there’s something in the middle that can both lift up the potential floor for standard of living through social safety net and also be sustained long term.

I don’t think the target audience here is people struggling with groceries.

There are a surprising number of households where both people pull in six figures in low or moderate cost of living areas, and they live paycheck to paycheck because they way overspend. It’s not groceries or the heating bill, it’s the extravagant vacations, the horseback riding lessons, the huge wardrobes for growing kids that need everything replaced in six months. These are all nice things, but if you can’t afford them, it’s OK to do without.

In one of the John Green history videos, he covers Viking raids on Great Britain. Often, the Vikings left after raiding an area, so the history was written by the surviving “losers”. John’s comment was that in cases like that where history is written by the losers, they are bitter about it.

I think the bitter comment lines up with your examples like the “lost cause” narrative, too.