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?

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 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.

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.

What the FUCK do you need a helium tank for? If u need to inflate a balloon that badly there should be special helium hubs you can go to for that, but people shouldn't be able to just buy a personal helium tank! have we not heard about helium suicide? ban helium sale!!! jfc. helium (for personal use, i don't mean scientific or medical use) is basicly useless except for inflating balloons so this shouldnt be a problem. no it shouldnt be illegal to inflate a balloon but we as a society have to put stricter regulations on helium. helium hubs forever.

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.

Your employment relationship shouldn't be all that special. It's mostly a vendor-customer relationship. IT shouldn't control your access to random shit like health insurance, dental care, retirement plans, travel insurance, life insurance, 401(k), meal vouchers, grocery, fuel cards, phone plans, gym memberships, childcare, and whatever other bullshit employers pepper in.

Jobs are already the single biggest economic dependency for most people. Tying all these services to the same relationship concentrates risk unnecessarily. Lose your job, and you will discover the joys of getting double fucked.

Pay people in cash. Let them choose how to spend it and which providers to use. Raise the base exemption so it's tax neutral. Benefits should be portable and independent of employment.

I am watching Liaison on Apple TV and she's pretty much ruining the whole thing.

She has the acting range of Mark Wahlberg, but because she doesn't look dumb and fits a certain aesthetic that people associate with good acting, she's considered a good actress.

Acting goes beyond alternating between a squint and a frown while pursing your lips.

And bro what the fuck is wrong with that Master Splinter looking-hair? I now she's French and the water sucks there, but she's a millionaire too, get a fucking water filter and wash that shit. From a Brazilian point of view she looks dirty AF.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?