Great explanation. Thank you so much for all the effort. But the part you explained in the most depth was the part I did understand, I'm so sorry.
But I did understand the part where I was confused anyway, to some degree
What I wondered was why giving humans that ability would make the cold extremities feel worse. The answer seems to be that by reheating the returning blood, the outgoing blood gets pre-cooled, and starts at a lower temperature. So the feet are even colder.
Now the question I still have is: so the birds' get are still super cold, probably even colder than humans'. They probably even reach freezing temperatures, considering birds don't disappear even at -20 °C. Why don't they get frostbite, lose toes to necrosis, and all that stuff that a human going out barefoot in the winter would be sure to get?
What I don't understand is that, say, for a human, if you're warmly dressed everywhere but your feet are bare, like a bird.
The danger isn't really that you'll die because you didn't have enough heat overall. The danger is the your feet will not get enough heat to compensate exposure and will freeze by themselves.
So if birds have a mechanism to survive that, I have trouble understanding how except by sending more heat into the feet overall. Unless their feet can just survive being below freezing unlike ours?
Wait wouldn't more heat exchanged mean that the fingers would be closer to the average temperature of the rest of the body? That sounds comfortable to me, unless I'm missing something
I'm kinda shocked people have strong opinions on fighter planes of all things. I barely know those two models of plane exist. I would answer "don't know".
That text is not devoid of merit. It's true that often when my coworkers are spending an unexpectedly large amount of time on a task, it's because they're getting sidetracked or being too stubborn to ask for help or, as the article describes, are way overthinking something.
But.
That's only generally a relatively minor problem; and the times when it's a major problem are rare.
What's a major, fundamental problem that regularly explodes in our faces is speed. Decision makers pushing for unmaintainable, barely functional crap under the excuse of pressing client deals and MVPs, and "go fast it's just a prototype I swear" that gets shipped straight to production and never gets cleaned up.
No, slowness is not the main thing you should be focusing on.
That implies that even Montreal doesn't go below 50% car use. I honestly didn't expect that. Everyone knows it's dumb to try to even get a car into the island.
Just one more lane bro, I swear. I just need one more lane and we'll solve traffic.