White text on a black background is terrible. It's hard to read, creates a massive amount of eyestrain, leaves afterimages in my vision, and just overall looks absolutely terrible. It makes letters appear to be jumping off the screen, and is usually FAR too high contrast to be at all useful.

That is all.

edit: typo

Whenever a vote goes out to get rid of daylight savings it usually falls flat because no one can agree whether they want fall back or spring forward to be the standard. If no one can agree on which is better, because they each have benefits during different times of the year, then switching the clocks makes sense. Most things are digital now so the only thing that really needs changing is the odd watch or car clock. It just isn't as big of an inconvenience as it used to be. And before you cite Arizona, check out their literacy/education ranking. Are they really the bunch of people we want to take inspiration from?

"Take a walk it will calm you down and clear your head" I'm actively fucking irritated. You know that boredom you get on a road trip when you have nothing to do but wait for it to be over? Yeah that, plus you actually have to do engage in physical activity. Every single second I am thinking "Oh God end this misery please!"

Yes I do know in theory that people like to take walks, this is just my weird taste.

The other symptoms that come with whatever virus gave you the fever usually aren't. But the way your body reacts to the fever itself is enjoyable. They don't call it a "fever high" for no reason. It is like a high.

When I have a bad fever I genuinely feel euphoric. The lightheaded-ness and dizziness are comparable to being drunk. Everything just kinda doesn't feel real. As long as you're able to call out of work and stay at home, it actually feels great. After my responsibilities are taken care of I start to be glad I'm sick. Its just so weirdly comforting.

Call me crazy

I think Denis Villeneuve is a genius and maybe the best ever but the talk of dune being the best trilogy and the hype just seems a bit weird... they're very well filmed and acted movies but I don't understand how we're throwing them up there with LOTR for example. The new trailer for part 3 looks cool ill watch it but I don't actually care about any of the characters or what happens really. I'm there for the spectacle not the story. I guess it never really grabbed me like LOTR or the og star wars trilogy.

I say as general rule, lasting friendships require friends who only superficially share your interests, but I don’t mean zero overlap with that, just 10 percent of shared interests, let's say. worst case is someone who shares 100% of them, that’s bad. A novelty is vital for the mind, and a friend who likes exactly what you like leaves no room for it, think of it of incest and DNA deterioration as analogy, it’s the same logic and I apologize for the comparison.

I once longed for close people who were just as passionate as me in my interests. When I finally met some, they was always without fail some of the more boring experiences I've had. One of you will inevitably know more, and one of you will inevitably get bored first and usually it's the one who cared less, which is somehow always the one who was right about everything.

The ideal is surface level. If someone likes classic rock, it's fine if they only know "Stairway to Heaven." If they like Harry Potter, it's fine that they've only seen the movies.

A hobby is like a houseplant,  survives best when only one person is watering it.. a second person just means it gets overwatered and the two will  end up arguing about the drainage and the dead plant.

A friend who knows the subject as well as you do will inevitably correct you, which is the easiest way to ruin a hobby, I mean, being wrong “confidently” is at the heart of enjoying anything, and a knowledgeable friend takes that away from you.

A friend with same interests will buy you exactly what you wanted, and you'll have nothing to be mildly disappointed by. Surprise is important. A candle shaped like a lighthouse, for instance, teaches you something about yourself.

And conversation is a finite resource. If you spend it all on one topic with one person, you'll have nothing left for the weather, which is what holds most of society together.

I say this because lore dumping is never healthy and nobody gives a shit.

It’s probably the most standard/generic theory out of every fan theory in existence. Think of it how like when you first build a wrestler in a WWF/E game, you get that generic bald guy (no, not Maven nor Steve Austin).

It’s just fun to see how the show/movie gets twisted around to fit that premise that everyone is dead. Whether it’s the Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Rugrats, Ed Edd n Eddy, Toy Story, or the Teletubbies, I’m all for it to see how they’re dead.

It’s so overused that at this point, I never get annoyed when I see it. All I can do is chuckle and think “okay, let’s see how they’re all dead this time!”

Edit: for everyone who thinks I’m Willis and asking what I’m talking about.

and nobody should get engaged or married if you have not even been dating for a year. there should even be some sort of a law against this. you haven't even gone through all the holidays from your culture or cultures if you are from different cultures together. how, in that sense, can you even be sure that you will be able to work with your partner long term, let alone for the rest of your life? dating for less then 1 year should barley be considered a serious relationship, let alone you should be getting married in. at least go a year, a year and a half minimum, PLEASE. people wonder why they get divorced go quickly. People stay in relationships for a little while and then are quick to get engaged thinking that it was long enough, that now at least, they get their dream wedding (sometimes it's just only for the wedding...) Now i get wanting to get married quickly because of, for example, your stricter christian or muslim or hindu religon and or culture, but if those religions and cultures value marriage and commitment so much, why not build a real, deep, loving, serious and stable relationship first, not one you jump into almost spontaneously? Now i get the whole sex before marriage is banned thing in those cultures, and i get that it's hard, but still...

One other thing i also don't get is believing that you can really "love" the person after a few months. I feel like a lot of people don't understand the difference between love and infatuation. No, that's not love, that's your crazy brain really liking that person, and that, in itself, is okay. what gives me the ick about that is the fact that many people still like calling this early stage love. NO. love is something that develops and deepens and strengthens over time. that goes back to my point about marriage. Love can absolutely develop over time, but not that quickly, and i personally believe that not under about a year.

brutalism is hated on for absolutely no reason. the only valid and objective reason I can think of is that concrete is an unsustainable material. But brutalism haters more often just accuse it of being ugly.

I think its relaxing and very grounding to look at. The greyscale and the sharp angles are aesthetically pleasing.

Others also say that it's only fine if there is a lot of greenery surrounding it, but I don't think it strictly needs it.

What I mean by things done to fool treatment programs: some people with EDs do things while in treatment to make it look like they eat more than they do or to make it look like they're gaining weight when they're not.

The reasons I think it's irresponsible to include these kinds of details in media about people with eating disorders:

1. People with eating disorders are competitive. If you say that someone weighed X number of pounds or are X number of calories per day, a person with an eating disorder will hear that and say, "I need to weigh less than that/ eat less than that."

2. Describing things like how people hide their EDs or how they try to fool treatment providers can effectively provide instructions to people with EDs on how to do those things.

If you're going to say that people with eating disorders should just not watch that kind of content, I will just say that it is extremely common for people with EDs to obsessively seek out any media about eating disorders. Both times I had an eating disorder, I watched every documentary and read every book about EDs that I could get my hands on.

I will also say that it's not unreasonable for media depictions to leave out specific details about something potentially dangerous. As an example, Breaking Bad intentionally did not show certain key steps of the process to make methamphetamine because they didn't want to teach people how to make methamphetamine. It's totally reasonable in my opinion to say that someone was at a very low weight or are significantly fewer calories per day than recommended instead of saying the exact weight or exact amount of calories per day.

Everyone know that in a normal society, you must work a job.

But finding a good paying job is difficult. If you are working a low wage job, you may not have the time and energy to find a better job.

This is where the government can step in. The government will apply to good paying jobs on your behalf and help you with interview skills. That way, everyone can get a good paying job in not too long.

Edit: when I say I high paying job, I mean job that pays enough for rent and groceries

In bed, that is.

As a straight guy, blowjobs are sooooo overrated. It looks hotter than it actually feels. But k whatever, it feels much better to be in her lower holes anyway.

But going down on her?! Goddamn delicious, you get to explore her all you want and hear her satisfaction. Much more of a turn-on to me.

I fully expect to be torn to shreds in the comments, so I want to keep the hypothesis as non-specific and non-anecdotal as possible, as evidence-based claims would just end up being more fuel for off-topic ad hominems.

In terms of the older partner, assuming age = maturity, mindfulness, life experience etc. is demonstrably inaccurate for a large portion of any population. People can age without becoming strategic masterminds or even remotely self-aware. It often is not linear and age has diminishing returns when it comes to wisdom and maturity for most people.

When it comes to the younger partner, calling people in their late teens/early 20s children entirely absolves them of any agency or personal responsibility for their decisions. No, they are not likely to be at the pinnacle of maturity, but neither are they a goldfish with zero life skills or experience - and people of the same age (any age) can be dramatically different in terms of life experience and personal growth.

The older partner isn't always going to be a cunning manipulator/groomer with an evil plan, and the younger partner doesn't necessarily lack the life experience and autonomy to make sound decisions.

The tendency to judge all age-gap relationships based on the very worst examples humanity has to offer is lazy thinking at best and puritanical torches and pitchfork mobbery at worst. And it's honestly disappointing that the implication is, more often than not, that there are no shades of grey. That the older person is always a monster and the younger is entirely incapable of making informed choices. Relationships without a significant age gap can and regularly do become toxic. Age-gap relationships are entirely capable of functioning healthily if both partners are fundamentally well-intentioned people acting in good faith. And finally, relationships themselves are not a judge of an individual's character, and should not be used as the litmus test of good vs evil. They are always a third space created by two people, together, for as long as both choose to remain in them, and should only be evaluated as such.

Review scores are practically useless because any kind of positive review has to be a 7/10 minimum. The approach most reviewers take is to start at a 10 and work their way down based on subjective merit. Of course reviews are inherently subjective, I’m not arguing they should be more objective, but this method makes the score effectively worthless.

IMO 5/10 should be the starting place for any product. The. You should work your way down or up based on any standout positives or negatives. I’m annoyed we live in a culture where “mid” is an insult. The vast majority of things are mid. That’s how the law of averages works.

In theory, a 5/10 reviewed product (I’m talking movies or books here, not cars) should still be enjoyable to a large number of people. As it stands, anything with average score below 6 is usually considered garbage by the review-reading majority.

If you're blunt and honest as a person, a lot of people get too easily offended. The problem isn't in honesty, the world lacks honesty. The problem is that there's too many people that can't take it.

EDIT 2: This didn't go as expected. I think people get triggered before they figure out the specific situation I wanted to write about. It's probably my craft error, not the situation.

So... Example: Another person: "I missed my bus today. The whole day is a disaster, why does everything have to be so bad. etc.etc."
Me: "You're stressed and I don't think it's just about today."
Another person gets offended.

I "love" Red Dead and the Arkham series... Well the story anyway. I have zero interest in playing single player games but I still want to watch well written stores. The real 10th dentist portion is I said fuck the gameplay and watched the GTA V game movie instead - Playing GTA is just not fun at all

I don't like those games. Give me a real god damn Arkham Asylum movie!!!!

Imagine your neighbor installs a bright light that shines directly into your bedroom at night. He tells you it's a ward against evil. When you complain that it's keeping you awake, he responds, "I don't have to justify my personal beliefs." You don't care what he privately believes. You care that you can't sleep.

Another neighbor was the first on the block to install one. His light only illuminates his own yard. "I'm just following what the brochure says," he explains. Your neighbor says the same thing, but they can't agree on what the instructions actually mean. Meanwhile, the second neighbor's light has never bothered you.

At what point are you entitled to question their beliefs? Are the beliefs still purely personal when their consequences affect you?

Now imagine your neighbor starts lobbying the HOA. Soon, everyone in the neighborhood is required to install these lights. The entire policy rests on his testimony about their evil-repelling properties and a sales brochure from 1991. When evidence emerges that the lights may actually cause headaches, the HOA refuses to reconsider.

The second neighbor asks if he can keep his light as he had it before so that it only illuminates his yard and doesn't disrupt the local insects too much.

No. The HOA president is friends with your neighbor, and most residents have already been convinced that the wide-angle lights are essential and find his interpretation of the brochure most sensible.

You point out that the lights don't seem to do anything.

"They provide a deeper kind of protection that can't be measured."

Then how can you prove they are working?

"You can't prove they aren't though."

If they ward off evil, why has the neighborhood had an uptick of break-ins and maulings?

"Perhaps their protection works by allowing bad things to happen for reasons we can't understand."

Could we at least demand better evidence before making these mandatory?

"Why are you discriminating against people who want to ward off evil? My wife's boyfriend has used these for decades, are you calling him a liar?"

Meanwhile, you still can't sleep. Your kids get headaches. You can't understand why your neighbors are so convinced, and you just want the light out of your window.

Bonus after-credits scene - The lights become so entrenched that better lighting technology is dismissed as incompatible with the neighborhood's sacred traditions. Research stalls and innovation is discouraged. The insect population, already on its knees, plummets further due to light pollution.  generations continue living under an inferior system because questioning it has become socially unacceptable. This is a caricature, but there are ripple effects.

Your neighbors are free to believe in spiritual protection and install whatever lights they want on their own property provided they respect others' rights.

When you try to impose rules on everyone else while treating the beliefs underlying those rules as exempt from scrutiny, that isn't going to work.

This should be obvious, but your right to believe in something without evidence is not everyone else's obligation to live by it.

I’m a F20 and I go to college in NYC, where I like to use a lot of public libraries and cafes to study.

I often get to a library right as it opens in the morning, and I find myself waiting outside near a lot of homeless people also waiting to get in. A lot of homeless people use the library and cafes as a third space to rest, have internet access, and get a wealth of other resources.

It genuinely makes me happy to know that they find the library to be a calm and safe place for them. I think homeless people should be encouraged to use libraries and cafes more.

Sometimes an old homeless man (or woman, but it’s usually men I notice at libraries) will end up sitting at a desk or sofa near me to use a computer or sleep. I don’t mind it, and actually enjoy the shared company and connection we form.

Some people complain about it, especially online, complaining about potential smells or disruption. I find that homeless people are no more smellier or loud than any other person I encounter at the library. The loudest, most disruptive people are the parents bringing their children with them, or big college friend groups.

Also, I find it satisfying because it makes other, often wealthy people uncomfortable, and it forces people to acknowledge the existence and humanity of the homeless. Homeless people are less likely to be disrespectful and rude at the library, because they do not take this resource for granted.

If I hear about a new artist & I don’t know anything about them, I will judge them based on 2-3 seconds of the middle of one of their songs. I know enough about music for that to be enough for me to know if I’ll like their work. Lyrics are secondary to me so I don’t need to spend the time paying attention to whole verses from someone who I don’t even know sounds good yet.

Most people who say AI images or advice is bad are usually saying that because they don't know a good way to ask it questions or to prompt an image. Of course your image will be poor quality with a piss filter if you ask it "generate me an image of a burger". How else is the AI supposed to know how you wanted the image to look without asking it correctly? It's obviously going to make a shite image because it has to make every creative decision itself. If you want the image to look how you intended you need to learn how to tell it what angle you want, lighting, the atmosphere you're going for etc.

I think the negative discourse around it online comes from lazy people who think you can just write "make burger" then it should be perfect and if it isn't then it's the AI's fault. Obviously there's an art to prompt writing and I suspect that it'll open up specific jobs for writers in the future.

Responses may say "That sounds like effort just learn to draw". But does the average struggling small business have time to spend designing a poster or paying someone to do it when they could just easily be more descriptive in their prompt writing and they'll get a good image for free and in less than 5 minutes?

I just can’t believe that people are able to sit down for like 50 hours and just play through a story game.

Basically all story games are slow and lonely because you’re alone. I’ve tried playing GTA five story mode, but it is just unbearably boring. online is where it’s at. No one has been able to explain to me how RDR two is a better games than 2K or fifa. Those games have unlimited content you can play with your friends. They’re insanely fun.

I just think story games are so focused on the story that the gameplay is trash and slow and repetitive.

I’m also not gonna play GTA six or buy it until online comes out.

Quick edit to add to my post because I forgot something: it’s not just the gameplay. I feel alone interacting with fake characters in video games makes me feel a sense of derealization and overall it just feels pretty creepy and lonely.

EDIT: i’d like to clarify there are still some story games that I like, but that’s only because of nostalgia for when I was a kid. (Games such as half life 2).

EDIT 2: i’ll be ignoring emotionally charged insults that regurgitate the same two sentences. “you’re a ball and gun gamer”, and “just say you can’t comprehend the game”.

I will now only be interacting with literate people that actually address the points I made in the post, because there’s no point in arguing with people about things I never said.

I genuinely think people who get off to lolicon, fictional rape and sexual abuse have some seriously disturbing sexual tendencies.

I don't buy the whole "it's just fiction" argument. You're still getting sexually aroused by depictions of children being abused or people being raped. Just because it's drawn or animated doesn't suddenly make the subject matter any less disturbing.

I don't understand. The internet makes it seem like I'm the only one on earth who doesn't do it. I turn the shower on, pee, then get in. I don't want vaporized piss smell rising up while I'm trying to get clean.

Edit: Relax guys, my pee doesn't smell that bad, but like you smell it a little sometimes, and I imagine that would be carried upwards by shower steam.