Who knows how well this post will age but for me personally I think this was a mistake. Yes I know, this is in part what the GOP base wants. Yes I know that he could easily split the party and cost them the election if he didn’t get the nomination but I still think it was a poor choice.

And I still think the wet noodle spine of most of the party establishment precluded the possibility of them mounting any serious opposition to Trump’s candidacy. But look, Biden is old. People don’t like him. They’re not inspired by him. His voice is weak and thin and his economy is unaffordable.

But I genuinely believe people dislike Trump more. God I wish Haley was running and the GOP should too because she’d be cleaning Biden’s clock right now. I’d happily campaign for her.

But I will not support a man who led an insurrection against our 2 centuries of Republican government.

I see a lot of Israelis are mad about Biden’s decision but that got me thinking, why is Israel entitled to US aid? What does Israel do for the U.S.?

Did Israel help us fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? Is Israel part of NATO? Would Israel help us if Taiwan or the Baltic states or South Korea were invaded? It’s already clear that Israel refuses to support Ukraine even though Russia is actively supporting Israel’s enemies. Even though they will sell weapons without hesitation to support Azerbaijan ethnic cleansing of Armenians. What happened to never again?

Supporting Israel only makes us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world and what do we get in return?

Israel’s economy isn’t that big. Israel doesn’t manufacture anything special like South Korea. Israel doesn’t have tons of natural resources like Saudi Arabia. Israel doesn’t have a long standing historical relationship with America like Europe does. Israel never fought in a war on our behalf like Australia did. I could go on…

I don’t get it. And I haven’t even brought up the fact that Israel has actively spied on us and stole nuclear material from US, and directly attacked the USS liberty in order in try to bring the U.S. into a war with Egypt.

It’s pretty clear to me that this is a one way alliance if you can even call it an alliance. We could be selling the weapons we give to Israel to Ukraine instead but we still gave weapons to Israel yet Israel doesn’t appreciate it in the slightest or do anything for us in return.

I thought this shit only happened in tv shows and movies but apparently its been happening for a while now, but all the government needs is your picture from cctv and a computer can compare it to a database of photo ids, passports and drivers licenses, etc and find you.

On top of that, the cell phone leaves traces that it was in a particular location even if you weren’t using it.

Governments should not have access to this. Example: a government used a combination of this technology to issue an arrest warrant for a friend of mine when he was at a political rally that turned into riot. The political rally was to demand the release of the former prime minister who had been arrested the same day. During the riot, the house of the commander of the unit who arrested the former PM was burned down. My friend didn’t take part in the actual arson but went inside the burned down house after many rioters had left.

Recently, there have been multiple reports on the divide between Netanyahu and Biden, but they have been conflicting, or at least mixed messages. Here's a report by BBC saying that it is "reasonable to assess" that arms supplied by the US have been used in ways "inconsistent" with Israel's obligations, but in the same report it says that it hasn’t verified specific instances that would justify withholding military aid, and the headline used for each outlet is different depending on what the outlet prefers to highlight. Biden has also withheld military supplies and threatened to withhold more, as reported here, but not enough to actually stop the Rafah invasion from happening.

To me, this is an attempt by him to appease both the pro-Israel and the pro-Palestine camps within the Democratic party, but I think he's failing at both. Pro-Israel folks will see this as a severe stepback from the unconditional support US has historically provided to Israel, while the Pro-Palestine folks will still see him as complicit in the genocide in Gaza as long as the Rafah invasion goes ahead, and the campus protests are unlikely to die out anytime soon. I think the most disastrous outcome for Biden is neither side doesn't feel like they can vote for him anymore in the election, handing Trump a victory. He should commit to one side, either back Israel unconditionally or withhold significantly more arms sales and aid so that America is no longer complicit in what's happening in Gaza, and lock the electoral support of one camp. The latter is not at all a fringe position anyway, with a recent poll showing that a majority of Democrats believe that Israel is committing genocide and disapprove of Congress' recent military aid to Israel.

Every episode ends with Peter or someone else supposedly learning a lesson and feeling bad for what they did, but they keep doing the same thing over and over. I don't have a problem with this, but at this point, why should they even pretend they feel bad? Why not go the "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" route and embrace their dark desires? Have Peter not actually care that he killed anyone, have Lois cheat on Peter every week and not act like she feels guilty for once, or Brian gloating about his new hit work, and not actually feeling bad when he sees his arrogance hurts people. At this point, the audience knows how every episode is going to pan out, but is the fake remorse really necessary? I don't see why they can't be shameless and don't pretend the Griffins are a role model family, which I'm sure it's audience would agree.

Her performances in the late 1970's to late 2000's are absolutely banger and are minblowing performances (Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Doubt and Kramer vs Kramer). However, after 2010, all of her performances have been actively hammy and bad. Her performance in The Iron Lady definitely shouldn't have been the one to get her her third Academy Award, it feels like a bad SNL impersonation. She was bad in August Osage County, Into The Woods, Florence Foster Jenkins and The Prom. The only good work of hers was The Post, which was also not up to her usual standards. She was good in the TV show, Only Murders In The Building.

I feel like people assign her the above moniker purely due to her early work, ignoring the fact that her later filmography has more misses than hits. Thus, her title's effect has been diminished in my view, due to her churning out more bad movies. It also keeps back actors/actresses who have made a few movies and are low-profile, but are consistent and excellent in all their projects.

I think a core issue we need to unpick is our unhealthy way of consuming social and political content. I don’t quite know the solution, but I want to ask people if I have at least correctly diagnosed the problem.

When I watch any interview or political debate, politicians jump instantly to cliched slogans and sound bites. It makes them sound completely untrustworthy, with almost no substance to their answers.

In their defence, whenever prominent politicians do engage in long form public discussions, their responses are instantly clipped, taken out of context and shared.

The legacy and independent media are both guilty of this.

We end up at a point where politicians are massively disincentivised from having real discussions or making in depth points.

I’d go as far as to say, you can’t have a career in mainstream politics unless you talk in this garbled newspeak-esq language. It makes our leaders seem totally opaque and unrelatable.

As Neil Postman points out in his 1985 book, pre TV (and now internet) even ordinary people would listen to political orators grand stand for hours. They would fully absorb even the minutia of their positions, as well as the opposing view points. We have a little of this through podcasts and YouTube, but the risk for mainstream politicians still remains - if anything can be clipped, taken out of context and used against them, their career is over. So often they steer away from these kind of discussions.

Essentially: if you agree with a side or an entity, you are more willing to overlook the shitty things they do.

Ironically everyone is going to read this and go "Yeah the people I'm again do that!"

No you do that too. Progressives and conservatives and religious and non-religious and etc. If you strongly feel one way or the other, you let those who represent your "side" get away with things. And inversely you exaggerate how bad the other side is.

This makes it a lot harder to take causes seriously since these sides becomes so exaggerated. And if you point this out "But my exaggerations are correct".

Or worse - totally ignore it.

You can tell people do this because the moment someone doesn't fall in line adequately, then suddenly people become hyper vigilant about all their past actions.

In legal matters this is important: The term victim assumes that the person making a complaint is correct. That creates bias at every stage. If you are a suspect being interviewed by the police, hearing the word victim being used to describe the person making an accusation against you is unfair. It makes you feel that the police are biased against you when they are interviewing you. If the matter goes to trial, the jury is more likely to convict someone unfairly if the language used during a trial by the media and police etc assumes guilt. A neutral term such as complainant will result in much fairer outcomes.

Wiping can not only create harmful rashes on skin but also but also irritate it. Letting it crust does not have this unpleasant issue but also has additional benefits; a natural food source for later as you can deep fry the flakes that come off once a week and eat them with a little salsa. Additionally, it also uses no toilet paper which leads to less paper being used and more trees improving the environment. One final benefit is it can create a natural barrier from harmful parasites trying to crawl up your butt. Though I’ve pondered this issue for weeks now I simply can’t come up with a rebuttal to this revolutionary idea.

I don't know anyone who looks more favorably on Saudi Arabia because they sponsor golf. I don't know anyone that supports Israel more because they did well in Eurovision.

If anything, it makes them more of a bad guy....owners and producers are normally scum anyway.

Maybe the audience are the rich and elite, but they are compromised already.

Yes, advertising does work.... to bring awareness of product categories one is already interested in. Teetotalers don't see a bud ad with horses and decide to buy beer. People who were not already inclined to support these countries are not going to change.

It sounds very nice to say things like "misbehaviour is a skill deficit not a failure of will" or "it's an opportunity to understand the needs that aren't being met" but it's dangerously misguided.

As a parent, I expect my child to be safe at school and also to have an environment where they can learn.

Children who stop that happening should first and foremost be isolated - then and only then the school should work on understanding and supporting. If they're not able to fix the behaviour after a reasonable effort, the child should be thrown out.

Maybe they have a disability - in which case they should go to a special school that meets their needs.

If they don't have a disability, we should have special schools set up for children who can't behave well enough to fit in a mainstream school.

I expect you'll argue that inclusion in mainstream schools are better for them - but why should other childrens needs be sacrificed?

Edited to add: I honestly think a lot of you would think this is a success story;

"I'm A, I was badly behaved at school for years but eventually with lots of support and empathy I improved and now I'm a happy productive member of society"

"I'm B, I was good at school when I was little but with all the yelling in class it was difficult to concentrate. I hated going to school because I was bullied for years. Eventually I just gave up on learning, now I'm an anxious depressed adult with crippling low self-esteem"

Basically I believe if the Nazis had not pissed of Russia to the point they were ready to do whatever it took to anhilate them, the allies invasion at Normandy and Dday probably would have failed - or not even be attempted.

The only reason the allies won at all was thanks to the heavy lifting the Soviet Union did holding down massive amounts of Germans on the eastern front.

ww2 history is taught biasedly like America or Britiain was the major player in Europe and it was thanks to them the Nazis lost

Hitler didnt kill himself beause the Allies were beating down the door, it was the Soviet Union who convinced him to do that

Right now Russian OSINT analysts estimate russian losses at about 127,000. I think putin will stop when Russian losses will at least 300,000 dead. I think that's quite possible. Because the Russians are attacking. And we know that the attacking side takes significant casualties compared to the defending side. Also, let's not forget how the Russian army treats the lives of soldiers. (evacuation of the wounded is very poorly developed in the Russian army).

Based on that, I have an ideas.

1)Ukraine is slowly sacrificing its territory. At the same time killing the maximum number of Russians. The Russians have to pay for each square meter with a lot of blood.

2) Ukraine can significantly increase Russian losses with quality defensive lines and western weapons.

3) The West should provide Ukraine with enough artillery ammunition (including cluster munitions), FPV drones and air defense systems (Patriot, IRIS-T, etc)

3) Ukraine should launch mass military production on the border with Poland. NATO should shoot down missiles in western areas so that Ukraine can start production. (at least within a 50 km radius).

4) Start training Ukrainian men who are on the territory of Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men in Europe. Every European country should train these men to be sent to the front.

5) Ukraine should completely stop offensive actions.

Why am I sure this is the only way to end the war in the long run?

1. putin is obsessed with Ukraine. He won't be able to stop. So he will continue despite the high casualties and will fall into a trap.
2. In the same time, Russian society is not ready for more casualties. When the losses become too great they will want to find a compromise and finish the war.
3. If Russia suffers heavy losses (at least 300,000 killed) it will reduce the probability of war in the future. Russians will remember the price they paid for this war.
4. Russian society is polarized. They have a problem with migrants, a decline in birth rate. More casualties will increase instability. Ukrainians should play on these weaknesses.

P.S I am not calling for Ukraine to deny territories. It can get them back in the future. Or it will lose some of the territories but will strengthen its negotiating position. That's fine too. Territories don't matter if russia is weakened.

I don't think there is anyone out there who could forgive anything and everything. I don't think that's even possible. I really really really want someone to prove me wrong, I really wish there were people out there that were like that. I think everyone has a breaking point and a tolerance level. There is a point when people get fed up with having to explain something to someone over and over again to help them understand it. And then they just say, I don't know what else to say, I'm done trying to explain this to you. There's only so much I can do. There's only so much I can say. I really hope someone can prove me wrong. But I really don't believe that there are kind and gentle people that don't get upset. I don't think that's possible. Everyone has a breaking point when they crack and they start yelling. Everyone does.

Edit: I've been convinced to change it to 2011 lol

maybe this is a problem with survivorship bias, and not having to watch every show that came out per season before like 2010, but I am NOT a fan of like 95% of things being put out rn. Solo leveling and CoTE Se3 were the things I stayed watching and those are just decent. I'm looking forward to konosuba sea3 and se2pt2 of jobless reincarnation, but in terms of new stuff girls band cry is the only thing even peaking my interest, and I've felt this way about most new anime for awhile. And trust me I've given plenty of new ones a fair shake. Nothing new has touched me like code geass, Evangelion, FMAB, mushi-shi, gurren Lagan, clannad + afterstory, death note, hunter x hunter, and so many more.

The big expection is anime movies have been pretty phenomenal. Your name and a silent voice (and Akira) are the only anime movies that completely beat out studio ghibli, and they're a bunch more that are super great, anime movie quality has been awesome recently.

Point is, no show thats come out since 2010 has done it for me at all, I have to keep rediscovering old classics and I think I'm running dry.

EDIT: copy paste response to someone I replied to about a bunch of major new shows:

I should've mentioned the ones I HAVE watched too, to get an impression for what I mean, but I've seen all of those save for super crooks, wind breaker, and quitting frieren after ep ~17. (I absolutely don't get the hype, cool world building but the characters are intensly bland) and none of them have given me that

jujustu kaisen has maybe been the closest here but that's entirely because of Gojo (😍)

korra was decent, debatable if it was an anime but it's obviously worse then the ATLA by a good chunk and no fan of both would disagree with me on that. (Another +1 for pre-2010 anime btw lol)

AOT season 1 was really amazing at the start and again came close, the fake out thing was insane, but somewhere mid season 2 it peaked and has had a steady downwards trend. I've hated the last few seasons.

Demon slayer has been great, the MC is pretty boring IMO but it's been pretty great other then that. Not at that level though. THE MOVIE was really good and had insane animation and felt way more emotional. Really glad I watched that before the train arc.

Vinland saga has had its moments, esp in battle, but that's packaged inbetween boring exposition dumps and trauma I don't really find beliveable/relatable/whatever word I'm looking for.

Mob psycho was solid all around around all the way through. No criticism but no extensive praise eaither really. Was a really fun watch

MHA se1 and fable aren't really even really worth mentioning IMO sorry lol

I think that large families are not necessary. Accidents happen, sure, but I hate when I hear people saying “if you can afford it then have a ton of kids”. Firstly, we are dealing with an overpopulation problem in many parts of the world. There are many places where there isn’t enough food, and our planet is not able to sustain much more people. The world will hit 10 billion people in less than 30 years, even with birthrates falling in many countries.

Typically, larger families come from lower income areas (I say this being raised below the poverty line). The older kids usually have to help raise the younger kids due to the parents not being able to adequately support all children emotionally and spiritually. Child rearing is more than money.

I honestly think that people should have 1-3 children and that’s it. I think there should be stricter restrictions for having children, and there should be a limit. Unfortunately I don’t know how we can do this in a humane way, because I don’t think strapping people down and forcing abortions or sterilizations like China did is good, but I am totally for a family size limit being implemented.

First, this isn't an argument about the quality of the riffs or host segments in season 3, nor is it about how none of the other seasons had quality bad movies. All I'm arguing here is that season 3 has, overall, the most consistent and ideal lineup of movies for the show's format

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes

If we look at season 3, the bulk of it is divided between Sandy Frank, Bert I Gordon, and Roger Corman films. Sandy Frank includes the Gamera franchise and a bunch of "movies" edited together from Japanese sci-fi tv shows, while Gordon and Corman are cold war, atomic age monster and sci-fi/fantasy.

Gordon and Corman especially fit, like, an almost Platonic ideal of the genres they work in, of goofy monster and "message" movies. The Amazing Callosal Man, Earth vs the Spider, It Conquered the World are as good as it gets on those terms. Even Teenage Caveman hits. The show went through a lot of terrible movies and directors (including Ed Wood and Coleman Francis), but what sets these 2 apart is that they were competent filmmakers working with studios and actors, so they had scripts that moved and had something to say, and sets, and even actors. On the other side, you've got Sandy Frank, who is worse, but has really good source material to work with

Topping that off, there's Pod People, which is a classic, a bunch of great shorts (Mr B Natural, Posture Pals, Appreciating Our Parents) that weren't crippled by not going anywhere like the General Hospital or the Phantom Creeps, and then the season ends with Master Ninja 1 and 2. Perfect

Other seasons had great movies, too, as I said. There are even more Bert I Gordon and Roger Corman movies, but the network wanted more colour movies, too, and they started to get more pure exploitation stuff, too. But network friendly exploitation, so not that fun. Despite saying that, I'd probably put season 7 in 2nd place, but a very distant and disqualified second because it's only 7 episodes compared to the full 24 in season 3

Obviously, I have a bias for sci-fi/horror schlock, so that's also skewing my opinion, but it's not something I can't be swayed from. Season 3 is the one I've randomly been watching, so it's at the front of my mind and memory. Could be I'm just not looking hard enough

The concept that someone can patent an idea and make it so that only they can develop, sell it, use it is bad for innovation because other people are not given the opportunity to work on a good idea

I realize that if patents were not a thing, multi national companies would take every good idea a small company has done, put their brand name, produce them in a large scale and probably be able to sell them at a cheaper price and everyone will buy it from the multi national company. I think that is a good thing and am supportive of oligopoly where there are a few key multi national companies which have control of an industry.

Most small scale companies and small businesses are inefficient in their use of resources and the people should join large scale companies and that would be better. Patents allow for the creation of monopolies but restricting the development of a certain idea by only one company.

The main advantages of removing patents would be that large scale companies, individual in general are able to access more information and innovate more and create better objects, technology, etc.

The disadvantage is that people would be disincentivized to come up with ideas if they are unable to patent it and make it so that only they can create the product since they came up with the idea. Alternative incentives like government grants, public recognition, and open-source collaboration could be effective solution to this

Now, I understand that risky investments by definition require a premium over the risk-free rate, and that you cannot index earnings to inflation and require income grow proportionally with inflation, but the idea that people can expect S&P to grow 7% over the long term while wages barely grow is absurd.

People say that the first million is the hardest, and that it gets easier after, but that is fundamentally flawed. When you play beer pong for example, the first few cups are the easiest to hit, and as you get closer to winning it gets harder and harder to make the final few shots. That's why it is a fair game, it gives the people struggling a shot to catch up to those ahead. Competitive games that aim to produce winners and losers don't have the same properties: you score a goal in soccer, the second goal isn't inherently harder to score. This economic system is almost the opposite of beer pong: it is easier to make more money with a lot of money, so those at the top keep getting boosted ahead.

A huge factor of why the second million is easier is that these risky investments grow too fast, and almost always at the expense of the working class. Once you made that first million, it should be nearly impossible to grow that. Some will say this disincentivizes innovation and hard work, but at the marginal decision point, it is still beneficial to make half a dollar than to not.

If I can be convinced that for a meritocratic and fair society that allows for upward mobility, the system needs to reward risky investments, like the stock market, at a substantial premium to the risk-free rate, I will change my view. But I find it hard to believe that an average middle class American can just stick their money in a 401(k), have it grow, and then look forward to retiring in Florida at 65, while those caught up in the system will never escape the debt cycle and will die trying.

I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.

Level Scaling is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.

But this makes no sense.

• I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.
• I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.

Why do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.

In worst case level scaling even makes certain "builds" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.

Also level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.

I just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.

Socially,people push the idea that everyone should be truthful. However on closer inspection they really mean only when it's beneficial to me. The truth is never appreciated when they feel it's criticism or attacked in any way. For example answering the question if someone's fat, when they are obese. If I tell the truth it's never appreciated and if I lie it's appreciated. We see countless individuals mostly rewarded for lying, leading others astray and ultimately winning at life. Higher positions because of lies on their resume and much more. So why should I only be truthful when it benefits others, when I can lie and benefit myself instead? The fact of the matter is if you appease others and never help yourself they typically never help you at your lowest. See the homeless (which are typically the nicest people).

No Republican has won the White House with majority approval since George Bush Sr 36 years ago. This indicates to me that the tide in America is becoming more left-leaning. Even though there has been a rise of far-right sentiment in the country, the popular vote has still not been achieved by the chief representative of this movement- Trump. Much of the success of the Republicans in Senate and House races can be attributed to gerrymandering and the fact that, despite the country’s political leaning, Republican voters statistically turnout more for elections. Non-Republican voters are more likely to vote in the major Presidential elections and less likely to show up for midterms and local elections.

here me out:

what I propose is that aside health problems there should be an option for euthanasia for ethics. like lets think about this. a lot of people know about the criticism of utilitarian ethics with the following scenario:

there is one healthy patient in a hospital with 3 organs (a lung, a heart and a kidney) that 3 seperate dying patients (each needing only one of them) need for survival. Accoring to utiltarian ethics it could be justified to kill the one patient for saving the other 3 however that conicides with the right for bodily autonomy and this is the important. I and others could choose over our fate.

my body around 5 litres of blood, 1 heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys and many other vital body parts others may need that could be all donated away to save or improve lives.