Why would it not be? It's like the distinction between "a crocodile" and "being mauled" or "a credit card" and "crippling debt"; while they may frequently co-occur, either can exist without the other. Further, recognizing that they are distinct allows you to build causal models, which are vital to taking productive action.
Various other viral (and even less commonly, microbial) challenges, though it's rare. HIV is special in this regard because it's the only example (so far as I know) that's transmissible.
> It seems like every organization in America is compromised in some way if you dig deep enough.
I agree, and my view is that it goes much further. Quoting author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.".
I certainly believe that if you want to be a successful musician, not even a pop star necessarily just one that's able to draw crowds large enough to sustain you financially, you probably are bound by certain norms and expectations. Not necessarily because audiences hate women (or men for that matter) that break the mold, but they're not as easy to digest. It adds friction. And when there are thousands of other artists out there to listen to, that friction can be the difference between success and failure.
I agree with you though, if you're willing to live a small life where you only need the love and respect of a small handful of people, you can do almost anything and very few people will genuinely hate you.
> I wonder if one or both of us have biased vision
The more common term you're searching for is "privilege", and yes, you both have it.
Do you hang a lot in professional entertainment circles? I'm not saying she's certainly correct, but if I were to wonder what problems a mid-20s female pop star faces, I'd buy her anecdata over a 50-ish man who posts on HN.
I know Veritasium gets posted here a lot, but a few days ago he posted a deep-dive into the the engineering of jet engine turbine blades. Turns out they're made from a single crystal of a superalloy that entangles itself at a molecular level such that it actually gains strength as it's heated, only losing strength above 1200 degrees C / 2200 degrees F. Below that temperature, as long as the strain on the part is below the plastic deformation threshold, it's not really losing any strength at all over time.
No; roughly, yes. Based on the crystal structure of the metal, fatigue works differently.
> The fatigue limit or endurance limit is the stress level below which an infinite number of loading cycles can be applied to a material without causing fatigue failure.[1] Some metals such as ferrous alloys and titanium alloys have a distinct limit,[2] whereas others such as aluminium and copper do not and will eventually fail even from small stress amplitudes.
