BleakBluets
"That's okay baby, it happens to a lot of girls. I keep some Tubby Custard in my nightstand."
"I'm gonna Dipsy my Tinky Winky in your Po until you Laa-Laa"
I helped my parents sand their log walls just before Christmas. After we stain and seal the logs, they want to tear up their ugly grey carpet and install hardwood floors. The argument now is how dark they want the floors to be. Yours looks so good! I'm sending them your picture for reference. (They have Wheaten Terriers)
Or the window popping up when you exit steam from the system tray just to show you "steam stutting down" and a spinning icon for 5 seconds.
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong!
I remember someone porting Mario 64 movement to Minecraft a few years ago. The original is outdated, but here are a few mods I just found for version 1.20.1. Note that I haven't tested these yet.
Obviously vanilla Minecraft wasn't balanced around these movement techniques, but they certainly can't be any more overpowered than elytra+rockets.
I would rarely choose to fast travel if I had engaging and interesting means of travel like bunny hopping and strafe jumping in Quake, or wall-riding like Lucio in Overwatch. This assumes the world was built to facilitate this kind of movement and there were challenging obsticles, enemies, treasures, secrets, and other points of interest scattered among a variety of paths for the player to choose. Obviously much easier said than done; Super Mario Oddessy and Sonic Frontiers tried to do something like this on a smaller scale (relative to the large open worlds of other games) with varying levels of success.
Exploration was fun in the BotW and TotK Zelda games, but I found myself relying on fast travel by the midpoint of each of those entries because the enemy camps and treasures just weren't worth the time nor effort. Dashing on horses wasn't mechanically deep enough and Ultra Handing vehicles was either too inconvient or resulted in "path of least resistance" designs that led me to hoverbike to new locations very cheaply and easily.
I may be remembering this video essay from Shaun a little inaccurately, but I recall that Japan was preparing a surrender anyway, and was in talks with the USA, but the argument was whether the surrender would be unconditional or conditional (Japan wanted to keep the emperor in power). The US was worried about an impending Soviet invasion of Japan because they didn't want the Soviet Union to have influence in post-war negotiaions (i.e. landgrabs). The US didn't want to send in troops for a land invasion, so they decided to hasten Japan's surrender with the atomic bombings of major cities (terrorism tactics, in my opinion, just like the much deadlier firebombings).
Americans (including me) are commonly taught that the bombs were the only choice in order to prevent lost lives of American troops, but the impression I remember getting from the video is that (my opinion) there was never a risk of an American ground troop invasion, and not a risk of another Japanese attack. Japan would have either surrendered or been invaded by the Soviets.
The kicker is that Japan surrendered unconditionally to the US, but in the end, the US decided that the emperor should stay in power anyway, so those civilian deaths to the atomic bombs were always unnecessary.