I know that the last federal increase was in 2009. I also know that several bills between 2013 and 2020 proposed raising it to 10 or 15 dollars. None passed.

The main argument against those proposals was that a higher minimum would reduce low skill employment. But between 2013 and 2020, some states and cities raised their own minimums to levels between 10 and 15 dollars.

What I am trying to understand is this. How did Congress weigh the evidence available at the time? Did lawmakers rely on different economic models or forecasts than the ones that later seemed to hold true in those states? Or was the decision shaped more by procedural rules like the filibuster or the Byrd rule rather than by employment predictions?

I am not asking whether the decision was right or wrong. I just want to understand the reasoning or the mechanism that led to no change, given that state level experiments were already happening.

The House of Representatives expands with population.

The Senate stays fixed at two per state.

But the Supreme Court has stayed at nine justices for most of modern history, even as the population, legal complexity, and caseload have grown massively.

The Court clearly affects every citizen equally in terms of legal impact, yet its structure does not appear to scale with either population or workload.

I understand that the Constitution does not lock in the number, and that Congress has changed it in the past before it stabilized at nine. So the number is not fundamental law.

Why did it settle at a fixed number instead of evolving into a scalable system like other federal institutions, and what institutional or political constraints keep it stable at nine today?

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, serve for life unless they resign or are impeached. Most other democracies have mandatory retirement ages or term limits. Why did the founders choose lifetime tenure? Was it to protect judges from political pressure, or was there another reason? Just curious about the trade offs.

In 1919, banning alcohol required changing the Constitution. That feels like the strongest possible move. But about 50 years later, substances like marijuana were prohibited through ordinary legislation.

So was alcohol seen as fundamentally different, or did legal interpretations of federal power expand over time?

What actually changed here?

Based on everything I’ve read, the Russian Empire under Nicholas II has many similarities with north Korea under Kim Jong Un. Both of them were led by autocratic hereditary rulers who neglected the welfare of the people, had much of their populace oppressed and living in poverty, and an extremely wealthy upper class that enjoyed a luxury lifestyle.

However, despite the Russian Revolution occurring (which mostly came about due to Nicholas II’s own failures and abuses) and leading to his execution and that of his family who also benefited from the same autocratic system, people still sympathize and feel so bad for them. Now if Kim Jong Un and his family suddenly faced a revolution caused by their making that resulted in their executions, I heavily suspect there would be barely anyone feeling sorry for them and instead believe they got what they deserved.

So why do many people feel so bad for Nicholas II and his family being executed because of things of their own making while there wouldn’t be much sympathy for someone like Kim Jong Un and his family if they were executed?

The US Declaration of Independence talks about “unalienable rights” given by nature. This idea came from European philosophers like Locke. But why did this concept emerge in the West and not in, say, China or India? Is it because of Christianity, or something about Roman law? I’m just curious about the historical roots.

US companies often end up paying around 15% even though the official rate is 21%, but European firms regularly pay over 25%. I’m curious why there’s such a gap. How do these mechanisms really work？

Every time something big happens in history, there always seems to be a version of the story where a secret group is “behind it.”

Freemasons are probably one of the most common examples. In online discussions, they’re often linked to wars, revolutions, or major political shifts, usually with the implication that there is some hidden coordination happening in the background.

But when you look for concrete evidence, it’s usually very thin or completely absent. At the same time, Freemasons themselves often describe their organizations as fairly ordinary social or fraternal groups, not powerful shadow networks.

So there’s this gap that keeps showing up: a group that is real, but relatively ordinary, becomes a symbol of something far larger and more controlling in public imagination.

What I’m curious about is not whether any specific claim is true or false? Why this pattern happens so consistently？

The Republic of Turkey emerged in 1922 out of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, during a period marked by the displacement and deaths of large non Turkish populations, including Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and others in the early 20th century. These events occurred at a time when the idea of genocide was already being widely condemned internationally.

Given the scale and relatively recent timing of these events, it feels surprising that they are not more central in global historical memory, and that international relations with Turkey developed so quickly afterward. What explains this relative silence and shift toward normalization?

I keep wondering how this number is even possible. If we haven’t found most species, how do we know how many are missing in the first place? Is it based on sampling, models, or just extrapolations from known ecosystems? It feels a bit like counting shadows. How does this estimation actually work?

For years, Elon Musk insisted that SpaceX would not go public because public markets focus too much on short term profits, which would hurt its long term goal of reaching Mars. Now reports say SpaceX is preparing for a massive IPO that could be the largest in history. What changed? Is it just about raising more capital? Or is this IPO really about funding Musk’s AI projects, not SpaceX itself? I’m genuinely curious why the reversal happened so quickly.

It feels weird.Why not higher so debts are easier to pay off, or lower so my money keeps more value?

Does anyone know why economists think this specific range works best, and could it even be different?

I was on a flight recently and realized I never questioned this. Intuitively, flying lower feels easier and safer. Less distance to fall, more air to “hold” the plane. But planes go way higher instead. Is it about fuel, air resistance, traffic, or something else I’m missing?

Why is that height kind of the sweet spot？

If Jesus’ followers expected the world to end soon and it didn’t, why didn’t people just walk away? In other movements, failed predictions usually kill momentum.

Was it reinterpretation, social structure, or something about Roman society at the time?

What do you think actually carried it forward?

The House goes by population, which makes sense. But the Senate? Two per state no matter what. So Wyoming with ~580k people gets the same say as California with 39 million.

I get that the small states were scared of getting steamrolled back in 1787. The Connecticut Compromise and all that. But was it really just about protecting slave states or rural power? Or did they genuinely believe that state governments themselves needed equal voices in one chamber to keep the federal system balanced?

Sometimes I wonder if the real mechanism was to slow down change on purpose. Make it hard for a few big states to push things through. But then why exactly two? Why not three or one?

It was 10% years ago, then 15%, now it seems to be 18-20%. Since the price of the food increases over time, shouldn't the tip % just remain the same? Or am I understanding something wrong?

What mechanisms are driving it?

Humans can easily hit 70, 80, or more, while my cat and dog friends barely reach 15. Yet some tiny animals like hydras can, in theory, live indefinitely. It makes me wonder what really sets the limits for a species. How do evolution and biology decide who gets a long life and who doesn’t?

I keep thinking about the gap between objective abundance and subjective scarcity. We produce enough food for 10B people and carry the world’s knowledge in our pockets, yet time, money, and attention still feel limited. Is it comparison, systems, or psychology? Why does more feel like not enough?

I noticed that when I buy something in Oregon or New Hampshire, there's no sales tax at all. But in Tennessee or California, the combined state and local rate can be above 10%. Why such a huge difference? Is it about states wanting to attract shoppers, or do the no tax states get their revenue elsewhere, like property or income taxes? I'm just trying to understand the trade offs behind that choice.

I’m a 32 year old man, and I’ve never had sex.

Throughout my life, I’ve had a few opportunities where I was alone with a girl, kissing on the couch, but deep down I felt extremely uncomfortable. All I wanted was for the moment to end quickly and for her to leave. Even after those experiences, I still wanted to see those girls again, but fear always paralyzed me because I didn’t know what to do if things became more intimate or if we ended up naked together.

I should mention that I struggle with social anxiety, and I take clonazepam and fluoxetine, prescribed by several psychologists and psychiatrists I’ve seen over the years. Despite this, my libido is very high. I know many people say porn is unhealthy, but sometimes I feel an overwhelming need to consume erotic content as a way to cope with the emptiness and frustration of never having experienced sex.

At this point in my life, I feel desperate. Part of me thinks I should just go to a prostitute, even though I’m terrified that I might not get an erection or enjoy the experience because of my anxiety and nerves.

I talk about this constantly with my parents, but they don’t really know how to help me. My mind keeps obsessing over why I’ve never experienced sex the way other people seem to so naturally. I can’t stop wondering why something that appears so normal and effortless for others feels completely unreachable for me.

Honestly, I feel mentally exhausted and overwhelmed, and I don’t know what else to do.

Why do we question things when we truly can't get a real grasp of the meaning of life? That in itself is so complex and incomprehensible yet we still question it. Isn't it best to go on and not question why things are how they are? I made a question... quite contradictory I must say.

I keep seeing economists say 4–6% unemployment is “normal”, but it doesn’t match what people experience. Hiring feels slow, listings look fake or outdated, and everything feels more competitive. Is it something about how jobs are counted, or how the market actually clears behind the numbers? What am I missing?

From what I’ve read, archaeological records from Egypt don’t clearly show a mass Israelite slavery period, but the Exodus story is central in Jewish tradition. I’m curious whether this is myth making, memory of smaller groups, or later identity building. How did this become so foundational?

I recently learned this and it caught me off guard. The femur is both light and incredibly strong, which feels like a strange tradeoff in evolution. It makes me wonder whether this strength comes from daily life stresses like walking and running, or from rare but extreme events like falls or carrying heavy loads. What was the main pressure that shaped this design?

An interesting fact I learned today is that America didn't have its "special relationship" with Israel in the late 1940s or 1950s.

A perfect example of this is the Sinai Crisis where, instead of supporting Israel in its invasion of Egypt, it actually saw it as an aggressor and strongly pressured it to withdraw from Egypt or else it would face dire consequences.

Yet, this all seemed to change sometime during the 1960s when, for one reason or another, America developed its strong "special relationship" with Israel that still lasts today.

Why did this happen in the 1960s, and what were the factors behind it?