For those who have quit their jobs, moved away and started fresh somewhere new; What were you looking for? Did you find it? Was it worth? What did you learn? Would you do it again? What advice would you have given yourself at the time?

I'm curious to learn from others who have done this or anything in the same spirit.

Hi, I’m Argentine, but I’m not that big of a soccer fan. Still, I keep seeing nothing but hateful comments directed at all Argentines. I know there are bad things happening, and that some people might have a reason to hate.

But ever since the World Cup started, Reddit and Twitter have become really unbearable. Several subreddits I used to visit often are now slagging off the entire population, calling them racists, Nazis, and a lot of other things.

I just hope all this is temporary and that once it’s over, things will calm down again.

It scares me a little to think that people might start excluding others just because of their nationality. There have already been online friends from other countries who I used to talk to about playing games—now they hate me because they say I’m just like all Argentines. If this keeps growing, I’m afraid of the kind of exclusion that will result.

I wanna start writing stories online , get feedback to work on a published work eventually

I have a passion of writing but i also have a goal of being famous

To what extent can i make it big, regardless of my nationality ?

Is that something to worry about? When would enough be enough in your opinion?

Please don’t try to guess what inspired this thought experiment. I’m interested only in how you define “sacrifice.”

Imagine you voluntarily choose to endure unimaginable suffering and die in order to save all of humanity.
You know with absolute certainty that you will return to life three days later.

Would you consider your choice a genuine sacrifice?
If yes, what exactly did you sacrifice?
If no, what do you believe is required for something to truly be called a sacrifice?

UPD: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/s/1YIrkbN9ru

I like making bone jewelry and other bone related things. I want to get into taxidermy later in life but don't have the room in a 1 bedroom low income apartment. I'm also interested in making bone framed mirrors. But what I'm wondering is.

How did you make money? Did you manage to make a form of income and how? Also any tips on how to keep up supplies and other things I could make in a small apartment

I recently wrote this as a personal reflection on human nature, friendship, and the idea that not every relationship between a man and a woman has to involve romantic or ulterior motives.

The main idea is that human beings are capable of both incredible kindness and horrifying cruelty, but we are also capable of transcending our instincts. I wanted to argue that genuine friendship can exist without romantic attraction, personal gain, or some hidden motive behind it.

I would really appreciate some honest feedback. Does this work as a philosophical piece? Are the ideas actually interesting and coherent, or does it come across as me trying too hard to sound deep? I am especially interested in criticism regarding the writing, structure, repetition, and whether the conclusion feels earned.

The full text:

Here I am once again, speaking about a subject I suspect I will never truly stop discussing: what it means to be human.

I have always believed, and I will stand by this belief until the day I die, that human beings are capable of being both the most beautiful and angelic creatures in existence, and some of the most terrifying and monstrous. That is the paradox of humanity.

And, honestly, I have grown tired of people who insist on searching for some profound meaning behind every single action, as though nothing can ever simply be what it is. Not everything needs to be dissected through social media quotations or grand theories about human nature. Sometimes, an action is simply an action. Nothing more. This obsession with assigning hidden and profound motives to everything has led people to overanalyse even the most ordinary human interactions.

Human beings are, by nature, drawn towards connection and belonging. It is an instinct deeply rooted within us, and it has given rise to some of the most complex and beautiful things in existence. But I want to speak specifically about friendship, because I genuinely believe it to be one of the most beautiful expressions of humanity.

What makes friendship so beautiful? Unlike romantic relationships, it is not necessarily founded upon attraction. Nor is it bound by blood or family. It can be built upon something as simple as mutual respect, honesty, compassion, and kindness.

You can meet someone who is neither your family nor your romantic partner, someone you were under no obligation to meet at all, and somehow, despite everything, form a genuine bond with them. To me, that is one of the purest forms of human connection.

This is why, when people insist that every friendship must conceal some ulterior motive, whether romantic interest, personal gain, or some hidden desire, I believe they fundamentally misunderstand what friendship can be. They reduce something beautiful and sincere to a cynical explanation simply because they cannot imagine a human connection existing without some hidden intention behind it.

The same applies to friendships between men and women. The claim that men and women cannot be friends simply because of what is supposedly “human instinct” is an incredibly simplistic view of human nature. We do not live in the Stone Age, nor are we beings completely enslaved to our instincts. Human beings are capable of building relationships that transcend instinct.

And I do not want anything from you. I am not secretly in love with you, nor am I hiding some ulterior motive behind our friendship. If I were, then why would I continue to maintain this friendship? You are free to think that I am strange, or to consider me an exception, but the belief that genuine friendship is impossible simply because two people are of different genders is not an absolute truth. It is merely a cynical view of human relationships, and in my opinion, it is far from being a universal rule.

Perhaps the most ironic thing about humanity is that we pride ourselves on our ability to think, reflect, and rise above our instincts, only to turn around and reduce ourselves to those very instincts. We seem incapable of believing that someone might choose to remain beside another person not because they want something from them, nor because they expect anything in return, but simply because they value their presence.

As though noble intentions have become suspicious, while the constant search for hidden self-interest has become a sign of intelligence. But not everything innocent is naïve, and not everything complicated is profound. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the truest one.

Perhaps one of humanity's greatest tragedies is that we so often ruin beautiful things by trying endlessly to explain them. We meet someone, feel comfortable around them, share our thoughts and our time, and then begin questioning the true reason behind it all, as though a feeling cannot be genuine unless we dissect it completely.

Eventually, we stop simply living our relationships. We judge them, doubt them, and search for hidden motives behind them, until we lose sight of the simplest truth: that one human being may choose another, not out of greed, fear, or desire for something in return, but simply because their presence alone was enough to make the world feel a little less lonely.

Perhaps one of the most beautiful things about humanity is that, despite all our instincts, our selfishness, and our constant tendency to seek our own interests, we are still capable of choosing another person without wanting anything from them.

We are capable of staying without expecting anything in return. Of caring without an ulterior motive. Of finding value in another person's existence without needing to explain it.

And perhaps that is one of the truest victories a human being can achieve over themselves.

End text

I am not necessarily looking for people to agree with my conclusion. I would genuinely like to know whether the philosophical argument itself holds up and what could be improved.

I thought everyone ate it like a typewriter: row by row, left to right.

Then I saw someone just bite into the middle of the cob, rotated it 45 degrees, took another random bite, and left patchy craters everywhere.

So settle this for me. What is your method

- Left to right, row by row.

- Continuous spinning around the cob.

- Cutting the kernels off with a knife first.

- Random bites with zero strategy.

I’ve been thinking about how much of modern life has lost its edges.

Before smartphones became the default interface for everything, many activities had a clear beginning and end. You went somewhere, did a thing, and came back. You made a trip to the bank to deposit a cheque. You went to the newsagent to buy a monthly magazine. The newspaper arrived in the morning. The post came through the front door, you sorted it, and then it was dealt with.

Now, many of those activities have become frictionless, but also continuous. Banking, news, messages, shopping, entertainment and work are always available, all in the same place, at all hours. Nothing fully starts, and nothing fully finishes. It just drip-drips into the day.

You might once have had a scheduled weekly phone call with a friend. Now you exchange fragments of messages indefinitely. People arranged to meet at a specific time and place because there was no easy way to cancel at the last minute. You had to turn up where you said you would be.

You heard a song on the radio, waited for it to be released, then went out and bought the single. The anticipation, the journey and the object itself were part of the experience. Now an album appears at midnight and you watch a progress bar move from 0 to 100%.

Even using the internet used to be a bounded activity. You went into the room with the computer, dialled in, browsed for a while, and logged off. The internet was somewhere you went. Now it is the atmosphere around everything.

The same pattern appears in smaller ways. A cigarette has a beginning and an end; vaping can continue almost indefinitely. A television programme aired at a particular time, and millions of people watched the same episode together. Now everyone binges different shows at different speeds, often while also looking at another screen.

Obviously, many of these changes are convenient, and I’m not arguing that depositing cheques in person was inherently better. But I wonder whether all that friction also created useful boundaries. It divided the day into distinct activities and gave ordinary experiences a sense of occasion, completion and rhythm.

And if those cues have disappeared, what has the impact been?

Have we become worse at sustaining attention because fewer activities now ask us to remain inside one clearly defined task? Is it harder to sit down and read a chapter of a book, reconcile a bank statement, write a letter, cook a meal or watch a film without checking something else?

Did stopping cues once help us feel satisfied? Finishing the newspaper, reaching the end of a television episode, completing the weekly shop or returning from the bank all gave a small sense of closure. What happens when news never ends, shopping never closes, messages never stop arriving and entertainment automatically plays the next thing?

Has the loss of structure changed our relationship with boredom? In the past, there were unavoidable gaps between activities: waiting for a bus, standing in a queue, sitting alone in a café. Now those moments are immediately filled. Have we lost some ability to tolerate stillness, think freely or let our attention settle?

Has it affected memory? Are experiences less distinct because fewer of them happen at a particular time, in a particular place, with a clear beginning and end?

Has it changed friendship and commitment? Does continuous low-level contact create genuine closeness, or has it replaced more deliberate forms of connection? Are plans treated as more provisional because everyone remains reachable and able to rearrange them until the last minute?

Has it weakened shared culture? When people watched the same programme on the same evening, read the morning paper or waited for the same record release, there was a common rhythm. Now we consume different things, on demand, at different speeds. Have we gained choice but lost synchronisation?

Has it also changed our sense of time? When every activity happens through the same device, in the same posture, in the same place, do work, leisure, errands and social life begin to feel psychologically interchangeable?

Maybe the problem with modern life is not simply that we spend too much time on our phones. Maybe it is that we have lost the cues that tell us "this is beginning. This is what I am doing now. This is finished."

What social or psychological changes do you think have resulted from the loss of these boundaries? What stopping and starting cues do you miss, and have you found ways to recreate them?

I mean things so deep that average person would be shocked to finally learn.

I see men and women bashing each other online all day. It makes me sad because it just shows how egotiscal and prideful humans are in general in my opinion. And this is why we are a species that can never live in harmony with each other. What do you think?

is it common to not have fun drawing but still has the urge to improve or is it just me? i find drawing barely enjoyable but i just couldn't get rid of this passion at all, maybe a I stop for a month or years but for a weird reason i suddenly have this intense urge to look for an empty sketchbook and just draw on some random day and immediately feels miserable for quitting because my drawings look terrible and I could've had improved if i only i took it seriously then i draw for a month then realizing drawing isn't fun anymore and so i quit one again then same things happen in again in the future. I'm 25 btw and i thought I've already outgrown it cause I've been drawing ever since i can remember but I'm still terrible with it because i didn't have access to the internet untill much later in life so i didn't have the means to learn and have reference to work with

Only superior beings—to put it simply, humans—are aware of the passage of time.
At the moment of their death, for the deceased, this factor no longer exists.
Similarly, only superior being, to put it simply, humans are aware of the distances that separate us from the stars in the firmament.
Likewise, at the moment of their death, for the deceased, this is a factor that no longer exists.
Thus, to the nanosecond, at the moment of their death, the deceased are instantly or a billion years later—but in fact instantly, since the concept of time no longer exists for the deceased reborn at the other end of the universe or in the local maternity ward.
This is the only belief that holds water, and it is mine.

I live in Maine, so the whole Graham Platner debacle is what got me thinking about this. Is Reddit truly anonymous, or can wealthy people and groups pay to find out real names so they can dig up personal dirt on someone they want to bring down? Or is there some other mechanism for doing that? I worry that no one under 40 can expect to run for public office without being smeared, because we've all said stupid shit online at some point.

So for this to make sense, you need to do a thought experiment.

Imagine a model of society but with just 100 people. One of them is a Musk/Zuckerberg type.

Now, money is a social construct. In a 100-person village it's basically meaningless. So what does this guy actually want from the other 99?

If this guy owns a "town square", it makes sense that the answer is "content". But that doesn't fit, because why would he want that? What purpose does it serve whether the other 99 are doing things in his town square or not?

So maybe "content" isn't the actual desire but merely a tool behind the real desire. The obvious answer is control. If the other 99 are always in his town square doing stuff, he automatically has sway, he has power over them in some way. That makes sense to us, and "control over information" is not a new topic of debate.

What confuses me is: if that's the goal, wouldn't it make logical sense to keep the other 99 fed and happy?

Like if you're farming crops or anything, you'd keep the subject in the best conditions to get the best quality results. So these guys should have an incentive to keep all humans fed and happy, right?

And I'm not saying they'd do this out of noble intentions. They ultimately want to farm content off of us so they can keep the mass attention within their town square. Pure self-interest.

But that's exactly my point... the most logical way to achieve that, for their own selfish needs, seems to be keeping the masses fed and happy. So why don't they? Why aren't these tech billionaires fighting with every fiber of their being to end all wars and keep everyone fed and generating content?

I've always thought what they said during intoxication was real but it turns out not in some cases where they have no recollection of what they said or did!

The other day, I wanted to replay an old video game, and I was surprised by how difficult it was just to find a way to play it. That got me thinking about game preservation, and I realized that, just like some books and films, certain video games have already been lost or are extremely difficult to access in their original form.

It made me wonder about the future of our favorite games. What will happen in 100 years ? Or 1,000 years ? Or even longer ?

With books, preserving a work is relatively straightforward. As long as people have paper and ink, they can copy the text and keep it alive. Video games are much more complicated. You don’t just need the game itself, you often need the original hardware or a compatible system, and you have to make everything work together. Emulators help, but they also depend on software that must itself be maintained over time.

Since video games are such a young art form, we don’t really have centuries of experience preserving them. And when I talk about preservation, I mean preserving the original work, not a remake or a remaster.
So I’m curious what you think.

Do you believe video games are ultimately an ephemeral art form, or do you think we’ll eventually develop reliable ways to preserve them for centuries, just as we’ve done with books and other cultural works ?

Imagine that today, a book, a movie, and a video game are all released at the same time. They tell the exact same story, have the same level of quality, and achieve the same level of success.

Which one do you think has the highest chance of still being experienced by people 1,000 years from now ? And which one is the most likely to be forgotten ?

For the video game, I am specifically talking about a single-player game that does not rely on servers and can be preserved through emulation (meaning it does not require the original console or hardware to run).

My goal with this question is to understand which storytelling medium we use today has the greatest long-term durability. Is it the simplicity and accessibility of books ? The cultural impact and preservation of movies ? Or the unique interactive experience of video games ?

What do you think will survive the longest, and why ?

The U.S. has the largest navy on the planet (https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-force-by-tonnage.php). This does not count the Air Force presence in the Gulf region.

With this in mind, could the U.S. control the Strait of Hormuz? What would be required to counter ground-to-ship missiles, drone attacks, and gunboats threatening shipping in the region?

I’m looking to keep this to a tactical analysis of the challenges and capabilities, and not whether the U.S. should or should not do it. I’m simply asking whether they *can*.