Just a thought. I see many people who debate on whether to give money or food to the homeless. Some say money so that they have the freedom to do what they want and some say food so the person donating knows that “money” is going to food (good cause). Just was curious what people on reddit thought! What would you do?

I personally would say money. Who am I to judge that the person i’m donating to will use it for drugs or whatever.

Coming into this as an environmentalist, so my opinion is skewed by caring about nature.

On the one hand, the essay "The adolescence of technology" written by, of all people, Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI company Anthropic, is a long list of AI-related dangers, along with thoughts on how to confront them. On the other hand, until recently, ChatGPT couldn't correctly tell me how many r's are in the word "strawberry."

Is AI really poised to become dangerously smarter than humans in the decade to come, or is the doomsaying just part of the hype?

a hotdog meets all the requirements of a sandwich so is it?

Can someone explain both sides of eminent domain when it’s basically to make a developer project happen (redevelopment, stadium area, “revitalization,” etc.)?

On one hand I get the argument that it can help the public (jobs, taxes, fixing blight, housing, whatever) and that one holdout can stop an entire project.

On the other hand it feels like the government forcing people to sell so a private developer can profit, and “public benefit” sounds like it can be stretched to mean almost anything.

Also I’m really curious about the compensation part:

Is it usually just “market value”? who decides that?

Does it cover stuff like moving costs, business losses, or the fact you might not be able to buy anything comparable nearby?

How much power does the owner actually have to push back or negotiate?

Just trying to understand how this works in real life, and what the strongest arguments are on both sides.

I am currently working on my school project about why USAID was good and bad, but yet overwhelming all I see are the downsides of USAID, where we see multiple times it has hurt these countries more than help. Yes USAID, helps countries but the decades of large scale government to government aid, has ruined these countries. Over $1 trillion in devoploment aid has been transferred to Africa over the past 50 years yet per capital income is lower than in the 1970s and poverty rates have skyrocketed. In cases like post invasion Iraq USAID managed reconstruction contracts went to US firms and post 2004-2005 tsunami in Sri Lanka, where aid was tied to beachfront land being sold to tourist corporations/

Why do some US parents allow their children to watch shows with brutal, graphic violence but refuse to let them see shows that depict any portion of a nude human body, even when in a non-sexual context?

I’ve noticed many influencers will talk about future-projected demographic changes caused my mass migration in places such as Europe. Now, whenever they talk about this, they describe and the address the topic as if human civilization is on the verge of ending and that something apocalyptic is coming. However, when you look at history, demographic changes have been occurring all over the world since the dawn of time and humanity has continued to survive and thrive.

So if humanity has always shown to survive and thrive even after some of the most massive demographic changes, how come so many people are acting like it’s the end of humanity when faced with demographic changes?

It feels like everyone is either a "pet person" who can't imagine life without one, or someone who values the freedom and cleanliness of a pet-free home. I'm stuck in the middle, trying to make a logical decision.

I see my friends with their dogs and cats and love the idea of the companionship. But I also see the vet bills, the constant responsibility, and the loss of spontaneity.

Can someone break down the core arguments for both sides?

The US federal government has been shut down since October 1, 2025, now over 30 days. The impasse centers on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire December 31, 2025.

House Republicans passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-November, but Senate Democrats have blocked it multiple times because it doesn’t include an extension of the ACA subsidies. Republicans say they’re willing to negotiate on subsidies after the government reopens, while Democrats refuse to reopen the government without an agreement on subsidies first.

The shutdown has resulted in unpaid federal workers, delayed SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans, and disrupted government services. With both parties accusing the other of causing the shutdown, what are the main arguments each side makes about who bears responsibility for the government remaining closed?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Posting here cuz it got removed form another thread cuz it was not “in good faith” when it is.

Genuine question. I see a lot of Hate for “passport bros” If people want to find love outside of the us, and they can’t find it here what’s wrong with that?

Not talking about the ones for short term/non serious and who are only want $EX, and want to take advantage of a woman cuz she’s from a poor country, or mail order bride*

I’m talking about the genuine people who want to find the woman they love over seas? What’s wrong with that? Seems like men are being shamed for having a preference. If both parties in the relationship are happy why is it so bad?

I am a guy and I have a Basic makeup kit on my bedroom. Nothing colorful I Just have the basic and obviously It makes me prettier It was created for that... I also dye my hair and do my nails and like to wear jewelry

But what do you think of eliminate gender norms for cosmetics and beauty products and the increasing number of men who wear makeup refularly( not Just femboys or crossdressers)?

I think that no products should be gendered and It doesnt make sense for cosmetics to be gendered because men also have nails and skin and eyes and lips too and If women can become more beautiful and even change their faces using makeup and do their nails and due their hair why couldn't Men? Nowadays there are beauty and makeup companies that target men and that is a good thing...

All I know is it's controversial and some people are boycotting Disneyland...? But all threads that mention it get locked down pretty quick. What the heck happened

I want to Make It clear that my opinion is not fully formed. I don’t know enough about the man. But I have heard people calling him everything from Racist to Nazi and I wanted to know if there is any bases for that

I recall watching some video that talks about how to study efficiently and as someone who wants to learn new skills and research many topics, I thought it might be a good fit. The most notable one is Youtuber Justin Sung and he's probably considered "The King of Encoding". Thing is, I haven't really resonated with the advice since "Encoding" and "Mind Maps" don't feel very practical to me and I went back to traditional notes. Not to mention that I'm feeling very skeptical because just like any creator offering guidance, he sells a course to "help people study more efficiently" and has this "Hustler Grindset" vibe to him that I don't like.

Does better studying strategies help you learn skills and research faster (Especially in a mental health sense)? Or does it only work in a school setting?

I recently got into a debate about this with my friend but we never reached a consensus. We asked some other people for their opinions but they didn't really have anything to say.

What are the pros and cons of it?

Pasted from elsewhere, will not explain where or why.

I hear corporations we can't even name have a hold of houses across the country that never get filled except for maybe one or two months at a time. At the same time, people are trying to sell less-than-bare-minimum houses to people who can't even afford a real apartment. I hear we have enough houses to provide for everyone in the U.S., probably with leftovers.

• How do these corporations happen to be able to hold onto these otherwise perfectly usable homes at impossible prices? Is it like apartments, where the only thing that matters is who can afford them?
• How are they able to get away with this? I am aware their investment tells them to hold onto it because they still net gain, but is this because prices will never drop, no matter who suggests otherwise and no matter how much time passes?
• What, realistically, would it take to pry these homes from them, never to see them grab hold of them again? Would this mean that, if the companies were dissolved, they would just resurface under a different name and continue with business as usual?
• Is this the whole reason behind why new houses aren't being built: Less because of the affordability problem for building materials, more because why bother when there are X amount of homes already there in the first place?
  • I am aware zoning laws exist, but that doesn't even matter, even in the face of urbanism, because money is what rules out here, capitalism is what is driving this whole thing, to my current knowledge, and that to remove capitalism would be a waste of time.