A) The peel becomes easier to tear faster than the inside gets softer. You don’t need to snap it, it doesn’t need nearly enough tension to count as a snap once it’s ripe.
B) The banana’s been selectively bred to want to be as delicious as possible. It only wants you to be happy.
Bananas are the way they are through millenia of selective breeding, so there’s no reason to think that monkeys know anything we don’t. If pinching the bottom is easier than bending the stem, your banana isn’t ripe yet and doesn’t want to be eaten until later.
Again, you’re reading things into my comment that I specifically avoided saying. If perfect, good and mediocre can’t exist, then obviously what I said isn’t applicable, and you shouldn’t be applying it in that context. It’s just like you wouldn’t reply to a post about it being necessary to outlaw the slavery of elves by saying elves are fictional and the author is demonstrating that they’ve not considered this.
This segues nicely into my original point - if you try applying adages to situations they’re unsuitable for, dumb things will happen.
I didn’t, otherwise I’d have said bad was always better, which would be silly. It’s pretty reasonable to assume that most of the time, at least one of the perfect, good or mediocre solutions would be actually achievable, so settling for a just barely tolerable one would be unwise if it was going to block one of the better solutions happening later.
Anyway, my main point is that people have a tendency to bring up the perfect being the enemy of the good when the thing people were objecting to wasn’t even good, and a better solution would be perfectly feasible.
The perfect, good, mediocre, and just barely tolerable are all enemies. Sometimes bad is better as it doesn’t erode the motivation to solve the problem and means you’re more likely to end up with a good solution later. Often, when people accuse others of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, the option was neither perfect nor good, just mediocre or barely tolerable. The exception is when one solution can go on to evolve into a better one, but it can still be better to wait until it does before deploying it.
I’m not convinced this is exactly applicable to the story in the OP, though. The compromise would have eroded the motivation to vote for the original legislation in that election, but probably made it more likely that it could have happened in the next one, and made the consequences of putting it off that long slightly less bad.
You should only get rid of computers when your home, your parents’ home, and your parents’ garage have all run out of space. My parents’ garage used to be an industrial building and is about as big as the house, so can fit many ancient computers.
Plenty of people are calling for Amazon to be stopped, whether it’s by being broken up in a trust-busting operation, fined to the point of bankruptcy for various things including illegal exploitation of its employees, or as an extreme example, starving former Amazon employees simply eating Jeff Bezos. Whether or not someone agrees, and whether they think it applies to brothels, multinational mega-corporations, or any other category of business, it’s not a particularly controversial take that some kinds of business are inherently too exploitative of their employees, and should therefore be unable to legally exist.
Yes. Every time, it’s gone less well than opening a banana from the stem end, unless the banana was horrendously underripe. I’ve never had the problem the alternative approach is claiming to fix unless I’ve intentionally opened the banana badly on purpose to prove a point about the problem really being people opening from the stem end incompetently.