From what I understand editors have final call on the headline of a piece.
Unfortunately it’s sink or swim for news organizations these days so they have to resort to clickbait titles.
Unfortunately it’s sink or swim for news organizations these days so they have to resort to clickbait titles.
There is the interpretation of the 10,000-step idea where it’s the necessary minimum for benefits. Or, weaker, some sort of prominent inflection point on the cost/benefit curve. I believe this is closer to how it is generally understood. The study obviously disproves the minimum idea, and arguably also shows that most of the benefits are achieved long before reaching 10,000.
As an aside: This study doesn’t support, or at least it doesn’t prove that more than 10,000 is better than less than 10,000.
We do know that, beyond some point, physical activity stops being beneficial and becomes harmful. Olympic medalists, for example, tend to die earlier than both non-medaling competitors, and the general population they are from.
Yet people still go on about never judging books by their titles and all that jazz.
Is it finally acceptable to use appearances as a heuristic albeit an imprecise one and to expect people to put some effort into their appearance in aid of this?
I mean as valuable as every potential colleague, aquaintance, or other professional contact is I don't have the ability or the wherewithal to get to know everyone I meet on a fundamental level without any external manifestation of their inner nature.
Is there a balance between click bait and utterly banal that we can apply to articles, and people too?
Regardless I think your idea is interesting and, for personal use, would aid my introspective process.