But the studies are pervasive. For example, the (flawed) study that found that one cup of wine with each meal was healthier that no alcohol at all is still quoted today, and still "reproduced" in other studies that make the same claim but adding a clause of "given that you also [do good amount of exercise|eat very healthy|are in perfect health already]". Or the flawed studies that Soffriti and Belpoggi pushed (some of them didn't even pass peer review, but reached the public anyway) about artificial sweeteners and other things being carcinogenic: they basically feed mices with whatever they feel until they die, they look the corpses and if there is a tumor, eureka: what they put in the diet is the cause. Nobody took the studies seriously, except the public that now have a "scientific paper" that says Coca-cola causes breast cancer.

In this case some public reads "smoking a joint daily equals invulnerable to Alzheimer, science says so".

> The noise cancellation is also great. I’ll use them if it gets noisier than my closed headphones can block.

You can get the Seinhensser Momentum 4, wireless optional, but closed over-ear and still work without battery, for less than 200. Way better sound quality than the in-ears.

Airpods didn't invent noise cancelling, Bose has been selling them since 2000. Price/quality has been always on the side of the wired devices. Unless you need wireless, get something wired. Airpod, and similar, are almost always less than 1 meter away from the phone.

As if "A" or "C" defined a person capacity. I know some straight A's that went directly for a repetitive and boring but well paid and stable job. Other stayed in academia and turned top scientists.

Academia is a very particular dynamic very difficult to find elsewhere, and some people dig it. You can watch some people finding the same dynamic at Google for example, where they are allowed and encouraged to fiddle around and keep publishing (e.g. the Attention paper, why would Google allow such publication?). Such dynamics are explored in Terence Kealy book "The economic laws of scientific research".

I have found a lot of pearls casually buried in the paper, that there is no way a summary, either human or AI, would extract. Things like changing a method slightly, or recovering an old method to apply to a current problem, menctioned like it is not important but actually you have a project blocked in a similar spot.