Actually, the body does weird things with food. It doesn't always absorb all of it; it doesn't always process it the same way. Carbohydrates get stored as glycogen immediately (or else you go into a coma and die), and then get tapped for energy while your body racks up and stores anything it can as fat. Fat consumption and protein consumption have different effects on metabolism. Sometimes, the food just doesn't make it in: cholesterol is passed out of the body and only half is absorbed.
You have fluctuations in how many calories you burn and how the non-burned calories are stored based on what precisely it is you've eaten. There are also not 7700kCal in a kg of body weight; a kg of fat will have more than twice the energy content of a kg of muscle. Eating more carbohydrates retains more fat and loses lean mass, while eating more fat and protein retains lean mass and loses fat: there's a difference between the body storing your energy-providing food as muscle or fat.
Income. An income tax. $1.62T of welfare, $1.28T in Federal, in 2012. Cut away the Federal welfare. It's 37% of Federal spending, 48% of taxes taken, and 52% of income taxes taken. You cut those taxes away from the Income and Payroll tax systems, and replace them with a 17% flat tax across all income for individuals and businesses. Income distribution doesn't matter, because it's flat across all income, and so changes in the economy and in income distribution and in employment and profits versus wages don't change the take. Once you've done this, the tax system is wildly unbalanced: the brackets need adjustment, and some of the payroll tax needs to transfer to business income tax.
Once you've done that, you have enough money to divide among all Adult american citizens and just barely provide for food, housing, clothing, and the like. Every single individual can live. Poverty ended.
This actually takes transitions and risk management. You'll notice I skipped out on state welfare: the state provides unemployment, food stamps, and housing assistance; these things would, presumably, go away. In transition, they will be reduced; and any slack in my plans (and there is quite an opportunity for slack, but nothing severe) can be taken up by a small, vestigial system retained by each state. Likewise, there is a 15 year hard grace period for social security, after which benefits there are eliminated: I don't want to destroy anyone's financial position by blindsiding them with a sudden cut; but the amount of money being provided, while smaller, is enough to live on, and any further is only a luxury. Save up for retirement if you want to do more than just survive.
Our welfare system is inefficient. I have leveraged the free market to improve it greatly.
It's more of people being able to follow the flow of context in a paragraph, instead of processing it as isolated words and phrases with no context. A lot of stuff is impossible to explain to anyone who cannot track context; and, besides, I have gotten quite tired of running into people who can't talk about even a simple and straightforward topic without being reminded every third sentence what topic we are discussing (I have dealt with people who insist I have just started rambling out of nowhere if I don't repeat the subject every couple sentences; they're like goldfish).
We will, in all likelihood, mishandle the translation of females into technical positions, drawing in students with no real interest in the topic but with starry-eyed expectations from the fancy posters and sweet words. Then we will learn not that we have approached the effort improperly, but that women are simply not suited for--perhaps not intelligent enough for--science and technology work. This stigma will not just affect education; instead, people will learn that women are directly inferior as engineers, by nature, and so will not hire competent female engineers any more.
And come out with this:
But by dropping sexist ideas into your argument, you defeated yourself.
You are not able to follow a thought from start to finish, to retain context, and to understand what is being said. I said that the sky is blue, and you told me you cannot accept my argument that the sky is green; I told you dogs are descended from wolves, and you said that is ridiculous because they do not seem like any type of cat.
You are an idiot, and you cannot process language. You are processing vocabulary: You are reading words and inserting them into your own schematic to create a self-manufactured narrative. Words convey both the schematic and the components in use, but you are throwing out their order in the layout and instead holding them up as pieces in your image of a whole. The wheels and engine in a diagram of an airplane tell you it is a car.
I more rely on the audience to have the reading comprehension of a five year old; but they often have the reading comprehension of a confused squirrel. My experience is that people read by words, not statements, and interpret what they read by grabbing a fist full of vocabulary and making up a narrative; my reaction to this has been to assume they are idiots and ignore them.
No one is inherently more intelligent about anything. The truth is boys go into computers because boys are interested in computers: experiments with small children under 2 years old have shown that small boys find interests more in trucks, and small girls prefer dolls. Small boys who do play with dolls in such experiments tend to make them fight; we call boys's dolls "action figures" for this reason. In both cases, the children select for what interests them inherently.
The selection criteria for a career is, similarly, based on what interests people. As G'Kar once said, all people do everything for precisely the same reason: It seemed like a good idea at the time. Some people select a career for money, for power, for working hours, for its attractiveness to women, its ease, its challenge, or its interest. Women, for example, may select a career for its monetary benefits, as a way to command their own independence; while men may seek a career for a perception about women being hot under the skirt for doctors, lawyers, and executives. Overwhelmingly, the decision is based in what is interesting.
The most obviously interesting career, the one selected for when no planning nor cunning nor foresight is applied, is the one which essentially amounts to playing with toys. Women like children, and select teaching jobs to interact with children; men like computers and machines, and become programmers and lube techs. Often this leads to hating your job and having your primary loves in life destroyed; nobody thinks that far in.
Ultimately, the women who get into computer science are largely there for the money, to assert their independence and their ability to challenge a male-dominated society; the small minority actually like computers. The men are, of course, only interested in tech. We see this pattern most clearly in casual conversation: outside the office, men talk about computers, about networking hardware, about software, about computer games they're writing at home; women mostly complain that their coworkers want to keep talking about work, instead of something interesting, and wish they could just talk about something else and enjoy their lunch break.
It hasn't occurred to most people that a pool of 100 men and 100 women produces 10 female programmers and 90 male programmers because women just aren't interested. Most people probably haven't considered a career choice as a multi-factor decision, but rather a matter of "what do you want to do?"; some are viewing it as a "what do you believe you're allowed to do?" problem. I wonder how long before the crisis of the male-dominated penis market will come up.
There are a finite number of successes. 74% of STEM degree holders are running fries while their coworkers apply their liberal arts degrees to the art of flipping burgers. There are also limited college seats.
A balance is needed, of course. A homeless vagrant may have nowhere else to go, and so for what will you punish them? For an undesirable and embarrassing failure of our society? A millionaire is just being a pompous ass.
By the same token, not everyone can be an astronaut; not everyone is worth giving the chance, either, as it is costly, and selecting by maximized probability of success is more efficient. Less fair? Yes. I will never be an astronaut, and I will have trouble getting my feet into politics. Justifiable? Of course; we can do it this way, or we can not do it at all. Even if we could do it in a mode of linear fairness, the costs would sacrifice some other effort entirely, which would not be fair.
Equal treatment is not always the correct path: sometimes, the disadvantaged require special attention to keep society functioning. The entire concept of jurisprudence founds itself on this principle, right down to providing the preservation of life and limb as the ultimate defense against all crimes, and as far as applying the harshest penalties offered to their discretion simply because the judge and jury have determined you are a vindictive asshole who knowingly brought harm to others. A civilized society hinges greatly on identifying when to proceed with a different tactic.
People don't seem to understand the necessary impact. They think, oh, we won't persecute boys; we'll just incentivize the special treatment of women. You get $100 per female seat and $10 per male seat, so you're encouraged to seat more women; we don't dock you for having too many boys in class.
Cue consideration that expanding the number of seats is expensive, while selecting for more women to fill the limited seats is not. The profit motive here is to push male participants away and lure female participants. Even worse, some may use propaganda to lure unqualified female participants: make the whole thing seem more attractive to girls, but don't actually change the curriculum to be more enjoyable for girls, so that it becomes an annoying struggle. Worse, but less likely, is the change of the curriculum to appeal to and interest girls, at the expense of actually being useful; we've taken long strides down the road of impressing parents and entertaining students with changes to the education system detrimental to actual education, but appealing to the public opinion as better marketing.
We will, in all likelihood, mishandle the translation of females into technical positions, drawing in students with no real interest in the topic but with starry-eyed expectations from the fancy posters and sweet words. Then we will learn not that we have approached the effort improperly, but that women are simply not suited for--perhaps not intelligent enough for--science and technology work. This stigma will not just affect education; instead, people will learn that women are directly inferior as engineers, by nature, and so will not hire competent female engineers any more.
This is not a prediction of the future any more than would be the answer to a physics question: I know what I am looking at, and I know what effect these things have. As a boulder rolls down a hill, so does misplaced effort generate misunderstood outcomes. I have seen these things before, I have seen them repeated over thousands of years, and I know what form the misunderstanding will take: it is always the fault of those in the system, and never the fault of those who designed the system.
What about Steam on Linux, Microsoft charging a yearly subscription for Windows 10*, and nobody wanting to pay to continue using the computer they already bought?
*Windows 10 upgrades within the first year of release come with a free lifelong subscription until Windows 10 is discontinued. Corporate subscription is per-user on unlimited devices, rather than per-device.
Often, the reason something's been done the same way for 100+ years is because we know it works, and experimentation is dangerous. Sometimes, it doesn't even really work.
... this is what we all need to reject — a group of extremists trying to silence the voices and opinions of everyone else around the world. I won't let that happen on Facebook.
Facebook hasn't silenced the voices and opinions of everyone around the world. It's just applied some tact in Turkey, where culture and leadership don't tolerate certain things. As for extremists coming from Turkey to blow up Chicken, well, people in Chicken can post pictures offensive to Rude and Reno at their own peril.
People believe that more businesses mean more competition. I've had long, drawn-out arguments that centered around this ideal that a basic income or citizen's dividend, creating a ton of people with guaranteed income streams, would draw out tons of landlords, who would create tons of housing, and then rent that housing at the bare cheapest "because of competition".
I tell people a Citizen's Dividend must be the minimum to get all basic needs. Basically, if landlords can rent a micro-unit at $300/mo, and people need $300/mo more to get food and utilities and such to live, you give them $600/mo. People want to give everyone $1500/mo, to which I say: the landlords will raise rent like fucking crazy and rent you the same shitty $300 apartment for $1000 (like in New York: $1500/mo for 425sqft studio; 425sqft rents for $500 here), because people just have $1000 to burn, and need houses. The overwhelming response? "Nuh-uh! Competition! Other landlords will get in on that, and the price will run down to the same price it would be anyway! Giving people more money doesn't cause inflation!"
They fail to consider risks, inelastic markets, the extreme cost of having empty units, and so on.
That's not as magic as people want it to seem; but it is a force to be reckoned with. Do note that most goods are priced substantially above the minimum business viable price: there's huge mark-up on all kinds of shit, at all levels, even in markets with healthy competition. Apartments are practically divorced from price competition, for example, and tend to only shift prices with general demand (e.g. they get cheaper in a tough economy, they get more expensive when more middle class move to an area, but they don't become cheaper when more landlords own the same limited number of apartments).
The sympathy isn't for the poor, destitute, unworking American; it's for the hard worker who isn't making enough. We'd rather have 100,000 starving, jobless leeches and 20,000 upstanding, comfortable workers than 50,000 starving leeches and 70,000 struggling workers.
You're thinking too much about laws and not enough about socialization. People make agreements between each other; lying is a violation of such agreements. By recognizing that a person has a certain expectation and then violating that expectation without addressing that it is wrong, you are lying.
No, the nicotine does that. Everything else just causes cancer.
Nicotine in cigarettes is the equivalent of flaying open your skin when you're sitting in raw sewage: there's all kinds of nasty shit in the sewage, but removing your biggest layer of defense is kind of a bad thing.
It's Star Wars. The characters have always been tropes. The epic hero who finds the power within himself versus the evil empire. Hell, the original movies are easily likened to such epics as Final Fantasy 6 (which came later).
Most people are complaining because Jar-Jar is a goof, Anakin has a lot of teenage angst, the Jedi Council is entirely docile, Padme flips between a stiff diplomat and a flappy-mouthed chick, etc. Thing is, Jar-Jar is from an entire race of people who appear mentally retarded and act like overgrown children; Anakin was a slave child whose only social life was family life (with his mother) before he was ripped away from her, put up on a pedestal, manipulated by an evil sociopath, put into huge emotional conflicts, then faced with the death of his mother and the prophetic and eventual death of his girlfriend; the Jedi Council is made of deeply orthodox monks who value emotional stability and deep contemplation above all things; and Padme is exactly what real-life diplomats and politicians are.
People wanted Anakin to be this bland, cookie-cutter hero who magically turns villain at a small trigger, instead of growing through emotional turmoil and coming out evil. "Oh no, my wife died! Time to be Darth Vader!" is preferred over "Oh man, my childhood was so hard, there were all these people, saying all these things, I'm so confused, I've lost everything, I'm now just pissed at everything, fuck it all!" How do you complain about a teenager acting like a teenager?
Slashdot Mirror
Human bodies have evolved away from maximum absorption. Neanderthals had longer digestive tracts and absorbed much more.
Actually, the body does weird things with food. It doesn't always absorb all of it; it doesn't always process it the same way. Carbohydrates get stored as glycogen immediately (or else you go into a coma and die), and then get tapped for energy while your body racks up and stores anything it can as fat. Fat consumption and protein consumption have different effects on metabolism. Sometimes, the food just doesn't make it in: cholesterol is passed out of the body and only half is absorbed.
You have fluctuations in how many calories you burn and how the non-burned calories are stored based on what precisely it is you've eaten. There are also not 7700kCal in a kg of body weight; a kg of fat will have more than twice the energy content of a kg of muscle. Eating more carbohydrates retains more fat and loses lean mass, while eating more fat and protein retains lean mass and loses fat: there's a difference between the body storing your energy-providing food as muscle or fat.
Income. An income tax. $1.62T of welfare, $1.28T in Federal, in 2012. Cut away the Federal welfare. It's 37% of Federal spending, 48% of taxes taken, and 52% of income taxes taken. You cut those taxes away from the Income and Payroll tax systems, and replace them with a 17% flat tax across all income for individuals and businesses. Income distribution doesn't matter, because it's flat across all income, and so changes in the economy and in income distribution and in employment and profits versus wages don't change the take. Once you've done this, the tax system is wildly unbalanced: the brackets need adjustment, and some of the payroll tax needs to transfer to business income tax.
Once you've done that, you have enough money to divide among all Adult american citizens and just barely provide for food, housing, clothing, and the like. Every single individual can live. Poverty ended.
This actually takes transitions and risk management. You'll notice I skipped out on state welfare: the state provides unemployment, food stamps, and housing assistance; these things would, presumably, go away. In transition, they will be reduced; and any slack in my plans (and there is quite an opportunity for slack, but nothing severe) can be taken up by a small, vestigial system retained by each state. Likewise, there is a 15 year hard grace period for social security, after which benefits there are eliminated: I don't want to destroy anyone's financial position by blindsiding them with a sudden cut; but the amount of money being provided, while smaller, is enough to live on, and any further is only a luxury. Save up for retirement if you want to do more than just survive.
Our welfare system is inefficient. I have leveraged the free market to improve it greatly.
It's more of people being able to follow the flow of context in a paragraph, instead of processing it as isolated words and phrases with no context. A lot of stuff is impossible to explain to anyone who cannot track context; and, besides, I have gotten quite tired of running into people who can't talk about even a simple and straightforward topic without being reminded every third sentence what topic we are discussing (I have dealt with people who insist I have just started rambling out of nowhere if I don't repeat the subject every couple sentences; they're like goldfish).
I've decided they're just idiots.
What's pathetic is you read something like this:
We will, in all likelihood, mishandle the translation of females into technical positions, drawing in students with no real interest in the topic but with starry-eyed expectations from the fancy posters and sweet words. Then we will learn not that we have approached the effort improperly, but that women are simply not suited for--perhaps not intelligent enough for--science and technology work. This stigma will not just affect education; instead, people will learn that women are directly inferior as engineers, by nature, and so will not hire competent female engineers any more.
And come out with this:
But by dropping sexist ideas into your argument, you defeated yourself.
You are not able to follow a thought from start to finish, to retain context, and to understand what is being said. I said that the sky is blue, and you told me you cannot accept my argument that the sky is green; I told you dogs are descended from wolves, and you said that is ridiculous because they do not seem like any type of cat.
You are an idiot, and you cannot process language. You are processing vocabulary: You are reading words and inserting them into your own schematic to create a self-manufactured narrative. Words convey both the schematic and the components in use, but you are throwing out their order in the layout and instead holding them up as pieces in your image of a whole. The wheels and engine in a diagram of an airplane tell you it is a car.
I more rely on the audience to have the reading comprehension of a five year old; but they often have the reading comprehension of a confused squirrel. My experience is that people read by words, not statements, and interpret what they read by grabbing a fist full of vocabulary and making up a narrative; my reaction to this has been to assume they are idiots and ignore them.
You are an idiot and I am ignoring you.
No one is inherently more intelligent about anything. The truth is boys go into computers because boys are interested in computers: experiments with small children under 2 years old have shown that small boys find interests more in trucks, and small girls prefer dolls. Small boys who do play with dolls in such experiments tend to make them fight; we call boys's dolls "action figures" for this reason. In both cases, the children select for what interests them inherently.
The selection criteria for a career is, similarly, based on what interests people. As G'Kar once said, all people do everything for precisely the same reason: It seemed like a good idea at the time. Some people select a career for money, for power, for working hours, for its attractiveness to women, its ease, its challenge, or its interest. Women, for example, may select a career for its monetary benefits, as a way to command their own independence; while men may seek a career for a perception about women being hot under the skirt for doctors, lawyers, and executives. Overwhelmingly, the decision is based in what is interesting.
The most obviously interesting career, the one selected for when no planning nor cunning nor foresight is applied, is the one which essentially amounts to playing with toys. Women like children, and select teaching jobs to interact with children; men like computers and machines, and become programmers and lube techs. Often this leads to hating your job and having your primary loves in life destroyed; nobody thinks that far in.
Ultimately, the women who get into computer science are largely there for the money, to assert their independence and their ability to challenge a male-dominated society; the small minority actually like computers. The men are, of course, only interested in tech. We see this pattern most clearly in casual conversation: outside the office, men talk about computers, about networking hardware, about software, about computer games they're writing at home; women mostly complain that their coworkers want to keep talking about work, instead of something interesting, and wish they could just talk about something else and enjoy their lunch break.
It hasn't occurred to most people that a pool of 100 men and 100 women produces 10 female programmers and 90 male programmers because women just aren't interested. Most people probably haven't considered a career choice as a multi-factor decision, but rather a matter of "what do you want to do?"; some are viewing it as a "what do you believe you're allowed to do?" problem. I wonder how long before the crisis of the male-dominated penis market will come up.
There are a finite number of successes. 74% of STEM degree holders are running fries while their coworkers apply their liberal arts degrees to the art of flipping burgers. There are also limited college seats.
A balance is needed, of course. A homeless vagrant may have nowhere else to go, and so for what will you punish them? For an undesirable and embarrassing failure of our society? A millionaire is just being a pompous ass.
By the same token, not everyone can be an astronaut; not everyone is worth giving the chance, either, as it is costly, and selecting by maximized probability of success is more efficient. Less fair? Yes. I will never be an astronaut, and I will have trouble getting my feet into politics. Justifiable? Of course; we can do it this way, or we can not do it at all. Even if we could do it in a mode of linear fairness, the costs would sacrifice some other effort entirely, which would not be fair.
Equal treatment is not always the correct path: sometimes, the disadvantaged require special attention to keep society functioning. The entire concept of jurisprudence founds itself on this principle, right down to providing the preservation of life and limb as the ultimate defense against all crimes, and as far as applying the harshest penalties offered to their discretion simply because the judge and jury have determined you are a vindictive asshole who knowingly brought harm to others. A civilized society hinges greatly on identifying when to proceed with a different tactic.
People don't seem to understand the necessary impact. They think, oh, we won't persecute boys; we'll just incentivize the special treatment of women. You get $100 per female seat and $10 per male seat, so you're encouraged to seat more women; we don't dock you for having too many boys in class.
Cue consideration that expanding the number of seats is expensive, while selecting for more women to fill the limited seats is not. The profit motive here is to push male participants away and lure female participants. Even worse, some may use propaganda to lure unqualified female participants: make the whole thing seem more attractive to girls, but don't actually change the curriculum to be more enjoyable for girls, so that it becomes an annoying struggle. Worse, but less likely, is the change of the curriculum to appeal to and interest girls, at the expense of actually being useful; we've taken long strides down the road of impressing parents and entertaining students with changes to the education system detrimental to actual education, but appealing to the public opinion as better marketing.
We will, in all likelihood, mishandle the translation of females into technical positions, drawing in students with no real interest in the topic but with starry-eyed expectations from the fancy posters and sweet words. Then we will learn not that we have approached the effort improperly, but that women are simply not suited for--perhaps not intelligent enough for--science and technology work. This stigma will not just affect education; instead, people will learn that women are directly inferior as engineers, by nature, and so will not hire competent female engineers any more.
This is not a prediction of the future any more than would be the answer to a physics question: I know what I am looking at, and I know what effect these things have. As a boulder rolls down a hill, so does misplaced effort generate misunderstood outcomes. I have seen these things before, I have seen them repeated over thousands of years, and I know what form the misunderstanding will take: it is always the fault of those in the system, and never the fault of those who designed the system.
The point is competition is a factor, but not a magic bullet. Be careful when invoking it, because it won't always happen that way.
What about Steam on Linux, Microsoft charging a yearly subscription for Windows 10*, and nobody wanting to pay to continue using the computer they already bought?
*Windows 10 upgrades within the first year of release come with a free lifelong subscription until Windows 10 is discontinued. Corporate subscription is per-user on unlimited devices, rather than per-device.
Often, the reason something's been done the same way for 100+ years is because we know it works, and experimentation is dangerous. Sometimes, it doesn't even really work.
Yeah that's not going to be 100%.
Elevators already have phone and electricity to their control panels.
Actually...
... this is what we all need to reject — a group of extremists trying to silence the voices and opinions of everyone else around the world. I won't let that happen on Facebook.
Facebook hasn't silenced the voices and opinions of everyone around the world. It's just applied some tact in Turkey, where culture and leadership don't tolerate certain things. As for extremists coming from Turkey to blow up Chicken, well, people in Chicken can post pictures offensive to Rude and Reno at their own peril.
People believe that more businesses mean more competition. I've had long, drawn-out arguments that centered around this ideal that a basic income or citizen's dividend, creating a ton of people with guaranteed income streams, would draw out tons of landlords, who would create tons of housing, and then rent that housing at the bare cheapest "because of competition".
I tell people a Citizen's Dividend must be the minimum to get all basic needs. Basically, if landlords can rent a micro-unit at $300/mo, and people need $300/mo more to get food and utilities and such to live, you give them $600/mo. People want to give everyone $1500/mo, to which I say: the landlords will raise rent like fucking crazy and rent you the same shitty $300 apartment for $1000 (like in New York: $1500/mo for 425sqft studio; 425sqft rents for $500 here), because people just have $1000 to burn, and need houses. The overwhelming response? "Nuh-uh! Competition! Other landlords will get in on that, and the price will run down to the same price it would be anyway! Giving people more money doesn't cause inflation!"
They fail to consider risks, inelastic markets, the extreme cost of having empty units, and so on.
I bet i could outfit this thing with a lawn dart.
That's not as magic as people want it to seem; but it is a force to be reckoned with. Do note that most goods are priced substantially above the minimum business viable price: there's huge mark-up on all kinds of shit, at all levels, even in markets with healthy competition. Apartments are practically divorced from price competition, for example, and tend to only shift prices with general demand (e.g. they get cheaper in a tough economy, they get more expensive when more middle class move to an area, but they don't become cheaper when more landlords own the same limited number of apartments).
The sympathy isn't for the poor, destitute, unworking American; it's for the hard worker who isn't making enough. We'd rather have 100,000 starving, jobless leeches and 20,000 upstanding, comfortable workers than 50,000 starving leeches and 70,000 struggling workers.
They still need to eat, too.
You're thinking too much about laws and not enough about socialization. People make agreements between each other; lying is a violation of such agreements. By recognizing that a person has a certain expectation and then violating that expectation without addressing that it is wrong, you are lying.
I know a fair bit of history; you've said nothing useful here.
No, the nicotine does that. Everything else just causes cancer.
Nicotine in cigarettes is the equivalent of flaying open your skin when you're sitting in raw sewage: there's all kinds of nasty shit in the sewage, but removing your biggest layer of defense is kind of a bad thing.
It's Star Wars. The characters have always been tropes. The epic hero who finds the power within himself versus the evil empire. Hell, the original movies are easily likened to such epics as Final Fantasy 6 (which came later).
Most people are complaining because Jar-Jar is a goof, Anakin has a lot of teenage angst, the Jedi Council is entirely docile, Padme flips between a stiff diplomat and a flappy-mouthed chick, etc. Thing is, Jar-Jar is from an entire race of people who appear mentally retarded and act like overgrown children; Anakin was a slave child whose only social life was family life (with his mother) before he was ripped away from her, put up on a pedestal, manipulated by an evil sociopath, put into huge emotional conflicts, then faced with the death of his mother and the prophetic and eventual death of his girlfriend; the Jedi Council is made of deeply orthodox monks who value emotional stability and deep contemplation above all things; and Padme is exactly what real-life diplomats and politicians are.
People wanted Anakin to be this bland, cookie-cutter hero who magically turns villain at a small trigger, instead of growing through emotional turmoil and coming out evil. "Oh no, my wife died! Time to be Darth Vader!" is preferred over "Oh man, my childhood was so hard, there were all these people, saying all these things, I'm so confused, I've lost everything, I'm now just pissed at everything, fuck it all!" How do you complain about a teenager acting like a teenager?