Carrolade

Yeah that's more of a hotel thing. I'm guessing this is that influencer trick of intentionally lying about a detail so people will make comments to correct you, giving you free engagement.

The main difference I see is that when a professional wants to read something very thoroughly, they employ techniques of what's called slow reading. That's usually when the highlighter comes out along with note-taking materials.

This is possible with print information because of how much of it is put in front of your eyes at once. Rereading a paragraph, even a half dozen times to guarantee you fully understood it, is very easy with print. It is not with audio. Flipping back to page xxx to check something, also very easy with print and less so with audio. Smoothly speeding up/slowing down your rate of consumption to match the complexity of the current topic, also easier with text than audio. Etc etc.

So, for casual consumption, they're fairly equivalent and both fine. But if you wanted to claim mastery of a complex topic after putting years of intensive effort in, I'd say that probably required some reading that could not have been replaced by listening, and if you did no reading, I'm going to be a little doubtful of your mastery of the knowledge. It's possible to still understand what you need to, of course, but you definitely neglected what is usually the most efficient, reliable method by far.

This Stepan Banderas stuff gets so tiresome.

Your country doesn't have any historical figures it honors for certain things despite an ugly background? Mine has plenty, just because history itself is pretty ugly and extremely messy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_navigation

That should answer all your navigation questions.

Regarding crew morale, I haven't studied Columbus since maybe HS, but I do recall the voyage was a fairly close thing. His calculations severely underestimated the size of the Earth, so he was sailing for much longer than he expected to be. I'm not sure if he had to put down any attempted mutinies, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Smokejumper by Jason A. Ramos and Julian Smith

I don't know about the Spanish wildfires, but I know in America there's a whole slew of challenges associated.

The first is the unpredictability of wildfires. You don't want to over-evacuate, that causes unnecessary disruption. But conditions can change rapidly, and a plan that looked good 6 hours ago can quickly become bunk.

Another is speed. Wildfires can travel much, much faster than people's intuition leads them to think. So, it can go from "over there" to "oh shit" quick enough to be life threatening. Wildfires counter-intuitively go uphill faster than downhill, winds can pick up, blowing embers can cause it to jump, etc.

A third is that some people try to protect their property. This is actually possible if you've taken proper precautions of removing burnables from your property and have a garden hose that you are 100% certain will keep running. This is not recommended, but some people will try and that is their right. It's a calculated risk they have to decide for themselves to take or not.

Fourth might be various other failures to evacuate. Evacuation order didn't arrive in time, elderly resident didn't hear in time/can't move fast enough, someone got stuck in evacuation traffic, mental illness, stubborn conspiracy nut thinks tin foil hats protect against wildfire, who knows, it'll vary case-to-case.

Fifth could be firefighter deaths. It's a highly dangerous job with a significant fatality rate, and our wildlands firefighters (colloquially called "hotshots") are basically like the special forces of firefighting. They airdrop into wilderness areas with whatever gear they can carry, with instructions to change the course of an oncoming force of nature. They have the tools (chainsaws and shovels mostly) and training to do this, but it's still exactly as dangerous as it sounds.

Wildlands firefighting is really fascinating stuff. I got an audiobook ages ago written by a retired one that talked a lot about the process. Was like 100 pages or something and super interesting, highly recommend.

Yeah, they interviewed someone who talked about this on NPR the other day. Neat little tidbit.

So, a few years ago this stuff was fine. You can't spin up a brand new global supply chain overnight, and that was generally understood and accepted, just like how we couldn't find enough 155mm arty ammo for awhile. These things take time, and that's okay. And fine, we weren't predicting the Iran War, and that would definitely interfere with plans. Fine.

This is all getting less acceptable as time goes on, though. Now 2027 is a reasonable goal, that's five years from the start of the main invasion. Let's just hope we can stick to it.

But the dozen or so workers on board didn’t seem bothered.

I mean, yeah, they've still got that whole "earn a paycheck" thing to worry about.

Once you lift the narrative requirement, the number of hits balloons into the millions. I would personally draw the line between education and edutainment on the issue of thoroughness. Education needs to be fairly thorough, while edutainment can skip all the boring (but necessary for full understanding) parts and exclusively handle the fun ideas-based stuff, usually with some oversimplification here and there just to keep things moving in an entertaining way.

I would describe Kings & Generals on youtube as a solid example of good quality military history edutainment.

If you're looking for a medical drama that health care workers seem to find an acceptable representation of their work, take a look at The Pitt. Apparently they put a lot of effort into being as accurate as possible.

Overall I think your definition of edutainment as requiring a narrative is overly restrictive, I think we could call narrative-less science shows like this edutainment, despite lacking narrative:

https://youtu.be/5HKH1ZjGutA

All that said, the specific combination of scientific accuracy, narrative and for-adults does seem to be a rarer combination of traits. I cannot think of very many at all, and those I can do tend to fudge some of the accuracy here and there for dramatic appeal.

Except that in my experience, even a supporter of said party, when talking about how a member of ours "just toes the line" is communicating a negative, not a positive. That's not a good, genuine guy we're proud of, it's someone to watch out for.

Colloquially too, the way I was raised, it's a bad thing, you did not want to be a line-toer. And I'm not referring to discussions of politics, but how it was used in day to day conversation. I've been accused of toeing lines, for instance, with the implication being that continuing may get me in trouble some day and I should be a little more careful.

Perhaps it's a regional thing.