What do you mean by "option" and who is suggesting it is the only one?
If you mix and remix a bunch of cans of paint in place, some of the time not paying attention to which colors you mix, over time the chances keeping original colors unmixed gets small. A lot of genetics doesn't work that way, but even if you had a random mix of the classic recessive-dominant genotypes, you would end up with a majority having the same phenotype. That all has nothing to do with what options are available, but with trends in the choices already being made by people with priorities that have less and less connection to various aspects of visual appearance.
I think a lot of calls to read more comes from the idea that reading improves your writing, communication and language skills. I don't have citations on hand, but remember several studies showing even trashy reading can improve such skills. The linked article suggests it for education as there still is a lot more information available in written form than in video form (especially if one doesn't want to count online videos in "TV"). Either way, it doesn't seem to be a judgment of the quality of story telling available in either medium.
I feel this comes down to how you want to define "successful." If you mean someone who comes close to being the type of person most of us hope everyone strives to be, someone who is both good for themselves and others, then it can work very well. If by successful you mean someone who achieves the goals they want in life, it is going to be hit or miss depending on the type of person and goals, as some get what they want by blatantly doing the opposite of those recommendations.
I haven't found either to have to be too packed inside excluding the rush when 8-5 people get off from work (although parking is a different story). But then some cities have something like a Woodman's, which despite being larger than a normal supermarket, can be packed and difficult to move a cart through unless you can go shopping after midnight and/or don't work normal hours. Though, the only times I've been inside a Whole Foods is when I needed something unusual on short notice, that I could have found somewhere else in town a lot cheaper with a little more diligence in looking/asking, or online with more patience.
I found this rather disappointing. I don't want to be discouraging to upcoming students, but the paper amounts really to just plugging numbers into an equation, something on par with an intro level physics class homework problem. At best it seems to be an exercise in formating and the process for submitting a paper. There is a long list of reasons a speeding camera would fail to capture an image of a speeding car, most of which would be at much, much slower speeds, possibly in reach of a real car depending on the particulars of the camera. A review of previous attempts and discussion of multiple methods would be much more on par with something appropriate for a simple paper, and could still easily be done by a class of students by splitting up the methods between different students. I've seen class projects like that were before, that were a lot of fun for the students over analyzing something silly in great detail.
I was going to say engineers too, although a few of them that I know seem to get by and end up on juries once in a while. I think one of the formal reasons for rejecting such people is wanting experts as witnesses, not jurors. Although a lot of fields of research that doesn't apply to (outside of some comedy sitcom situation), and kind of points toward your reason instead. It hasn't actually happened to me yet though, as I haven't been summoned since the one incident years ago that I mentioned above.
Another way to get out of jury duty: get a PhD. Considering the effort put into avoiding jury duty, that might be the path of least resistance for some... But seriously, about every friend and coworker I have working in science fields, PhD or not, has gotten rejected for jury duty when asked what their job was.
Although some judges still try pretty hard to keep people from getting out of jury duty, as I once had a judge tell me that attending a school 2500 miles away was no excuse. He did eventually say I could ask to reschedule it for when I was home on break, although I guess the clerk didn't want to deal with that and just had my summons dropped.
I have been looking at cans closer since posting that though, and see some that looked welded. I would still be surprised if any companies would bother with lead-free solder. Leaded solder would seem kind of difficult to use legally, considering how hard it is to use these days in things not even intended for contact with food.
Solderless cans have been in commercial use for over a hundred years now and the only type of can I'm familiar with using solder later than that was milk cans with a solder plug into something like the 50s. Cans are mostly closed by crimping these days, although maybe things are different in some parts of the world still.
Except in this case it appears to be connected to papers using actual quantitative data on the issue of how important practice duration is. Although I don't have access to the full content of the paper at the moment to see exactly what data they took.
There exist plenty of horribly worded questions that get higher (or lower) scores by changing the wording that pop up in such studies. Although in this case, it looks rather neutrally worded, even making it kind of difficult to confuse revolving with rotating. And I've unfortunately seen several examples that more explicitly ask people to describe, using a marker and pad of paper, the paths the Earth, Moon and Sun make relative to each other, and seeing college graduates fail.
Sometimes people know better if you give slight pushes or reminders without pushing them right toward the answer ("What was the deal with Galileo?"). But stuff gets weird in these topics, and studies showed that you could ask a person a physics question, then ask the person, "What would a smart person say the answer is?," and they would change their answer giving something more likely to be correct. Although some effort to use that to help teach physics, in my personal involuntary experience (coursework I had no control over as a TA), it backfires and adds confusion or an insulting tone to homework.
If you mix and remix a bunch of cans of paint in place, some of the time not paying attention to which colors you mix, over time the chances keeping original colors unmixed gets small. A lot of genetics doesn't work that way, but even if you had a random mix of the classic recessive-dominant genotypes, you would end up with a majority having the same phenotype. That all has nothing to do with what options are available, but with trends in the choices already being made by people with priorities that have less and less connection to various aspects of visual appearance.
Although some judges still try pretty hard to keep people from getting out of jury duty, as I once had a judge tell me that attending a school 2500 miles away was no excuse. He did eventually say I could ask to reschedule it for when I was home on break, although I guess the clerk didn't want to deal with that and just had my summons dropped.
Sometimes people know better if you give slight pushes or reminders without pushing them right toward the answer ("What was the deal with Galileo?"). But stuff gets weird in these topics, and studies showed that you could ask a person a physics question, then ask the person, "What would a smart person say the answer is?," and they would change their answer giving something more likely to be correct. Although some effort to use that to help teach physics, in my personal involuntary experience (coursework I had no control over as a TA), it backfires and adds confusion or an insulting tone to homework.