I want to add a fundamental difference in the way science and religion handle being proven wrong: In science I would say that the only "fundamental truth" is "anything and everything I think I know could be wrong". In religion it's the polar opposite: "What I believe is the truth, the whole truth and the only truth".
Thus, when a scientific theory is shown to not match reality, that doesn't challenge a scientist's fundamental world view, in fact it backs it up.
To me, that is what fundamentally separates science from other approaches to understanding the world (i.e. religion): If your most basic truth is that you can never truly know anything for sure, then no evidence can ever come into conflict with you world view. This leads scientists to accept new models and evidence, while religions prefer to reject evidence.
I've grown up learning to type on my regional layout. Why would I go through the hassle of re-learning key placements when most laptops/keyboards sold in my country use the regional layout? I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I've had to work on any other layout for more than a few minutes.
I've always wondered why we should assume that life that evolved separately from us for some reason had to be carbon based. We know (as far as I know) next to nothing about how life arises from non-living chemicals, so as far as I can tell, there's no reason to believe that carbon based life is more common than other life forms (except for the fact that 100% of observed life is carbon based of course).
Bak in "Ye Olde Times", it was said that the king was ordained by God, who is infallible. The king must therefore be infallible. As such, the King only selects infallible subordinates. If someone is sentenced to death by one of the kings subordinates (or the king himself), they have been indirectly sentenced by God, through his infallible messengers on earth. Therefore, the hangman is only acting as the "Hand of God", carrying out the judgment indirectly passed by God himself.
I think you should congratulate yourself a bit: You didn't make it due to dumb luck, but because you were smart enough to have several redundant safety measures in place, so that even though two of them failed (cutting the wrong way, with lock engaged) the last one (face shield) saved you. It wasn't luck, but routine and skill that made sure you were fine, even though your brain was completely turned off that day :)
Apparently there have been issues when US and British forces have worked together before du to the "I thought you were exaggerating" mindset.
The brits have a tendency to downplay really bad situations to the point where, "It's actually quite chilly" means "We're in deep shit". I read somewhere that this caused serious miscommunications several times, because Americans didn't understand that brits were downplaying things, while brits though the Americans were always exaggerating.
I've always had a natural grasp on running, but never really enjoyed running over 5k, and at anything above 10k I'm quite bad. If you ever decide to pick up running again you might find that shorter distances (1-5k) are a better fit for you, people are different :)
I think a central point you're overlooking is that we have to be able to assess people along the way. Once you get to a certain point in your education you should be able to solve problems that an AI can't. However, before you get there, we need some way to assess you in solving problems that an AI currently can. That doesn't mean that what you are assessed on is obsolete. We are testing to see if you have acquired the prerequisites for learning to do the things an AI can't do.
Norway has been pushing digital exams for quite a few years, to the point where high school exams went to shit for lots of people this year because the system went down and they had no backup (who woulda thought?). In at least some universities most of or all exams have been digital for a couple years.
I think this is largely a bad idea, especially on engineering exams, or any exam where you need to draw/sketch or write equations. For purely textual exams, it's fine. This has also lead to much more multiple-choice or otherwise automatically corrected questions, which the universities explicitly state is a way of cutting costs. I think that's terrible, nothing at university level should be reduced to a multiple choice question. They should be forbidden.
I agree that it's bad for editing anything more than a page, didn't think of that as I only really use it to make figures, which I think it's pretty great for.
In a sense, I agree that it makes sense to train people to be better technical drivers. The issue is that for avoiding accidents, your time is orders of magnitude better spent practicing planning and avoiding potential situations in the first place.
Being able to see where you need to pay extra attention, what cars to keep extra distance to, and being able to judge what a safe speed is saves far more lives than building the technical skills to get out of a situation once you're in it.
To be fair though: at least in Norway we have an obligatory course where we drive on sleet/ice or oil to practice controlling a car in winter conditions. However, the main focus of the course is on recognising how fast you can go in different conditions, and how far of a breaking stretch you need to plan for.
The UI isn't the best, but is it really that bad? I've used some adobe software as well, and I don't really find Inkscape's UI that hard to use in comparison. Whether it's pretty is another question.
What issues have you run into on macOS? I use inkscape on my quite new mac very often, and don't have any issues. The command line tools for inkscape are also pretty good I think, and work without any issues (I get some critical warning's every now and then though, but nothing has affected output yet).
Not only mathematics, pretty much everyone in the world of science/academia uses LaTeX. For git, I've seen some stuff, but most researchers that program a decent amount are reasonably familiar with git as well.
I want to add a fundamental difference in the way science and religion handle being proven wrong: In science I would say that the only "fundamental truth" is "anything and everything I think I know could be wrong". In religion it's the polar opposite: "What I believe is the truth, the whole truth and the only truth".
Thus, when a scientific theory is shown to not match reality, that doesn't challenge a scientist's fundamental world view, in fact it backs it up.
To me, that is what fundamentally separates science from other approaches to understanding the world (i.e. religion): If your most basic truth is that you can never truly know anything for sure, then no evidence can ever come into conflict with you world view. This leads scientists to accept new models and evidence, while religions prefer to reject evidence.