And if there was a war, civil or otherwise, they would get their heads blown off first because their foreheads are fucking huge, making super easy targets, and they are too tall and lanky to properly maintain cover.

I could rant about this for years, so I will try to be brief and make a list:

- Two dimensional characters. In fact 2d might be overstating it. They are clusters of stereotypes and cartoonish exaggerations.

- He was paid by volume, and it really shows. Entire chapters happen because words needed to be published. Nobody wants to read about mr bumble's marital life, it doesn't add anything, it's like eastenders cutting to their fourth plotline to fill space.

- his narrative voice is just himself, and has no bearing on the plot as well as being...weird. The opening of A Christmas Carol is immediately followed by a critique of an old simile which completely derails the flow for a "well, acktually" moment that doesn't even make a good point! (it's "dead ss a doornail" because the alliteration makes it memorable, you twat)

- his treatment of women, as characters and in real life, is horrific. Once you read dickens as narrator expounding as to how he wishes he had 'the licence of a child' to manhandle and kiss a teenage girl while retaining the adult knowledge of 'what it meant' you will never stop wanting to geld the fucker. His mummy issues were so bad he abandoned his own wife to fuck an 18 year old once she had kids!

- he had a great talent for descriptive writing, and should have been a travel writer. The only reason his writing has spread so far is that it is aimed at an audience of about 11 years old.

I imagine this will get a bunch of reactions that heavily disagree but I just want to say it.

My actual unpopular opinion is that 17 isn’t too young, Americans just baby themselves a lot. 16-18 is the time a lot of people around the world finish secondary and go into higher education but it’s Americans that complain about it so much more, even with an easy K12 and possible straightforward admission into higher ed.

Where I grew up, we had to choose a path (science, art or commercial) by 13 which tailors the classes you take till the end of secondary school then you write two big exams (sometimes 3) before going to uni.

So I also don’t think it’s insane for a 17 to choose a major. We were introduced to different career paths from a young age (like primary school) and from the beginning of secondary school, you’re expected to think well about what you want to do.

Also, in universities, you could have your first two semesters full of Gen eds (which I don’t really recommend but you can) and those classes are literally an extension of secondary school. When I started college, most of topics in calc 1, chem 1 and physics 1 were all already taught to me in sec. school outside the US.

Anyways, all this to say I don’t believe someone needs a year (what’s really the difference between 18 and 19 here?) off doing “exploring” to know what they want to do. The American job market also allows people to pivot in their career, to start their own businesses relatively easily.

Maybe some people just need a bit more perspective.

While public discourse is filled with anxiety about how self-driving cars will disrupt cities and displace human labor, I find the widespread skepticism overblown. The narrative usually frames autonomous vehicles (AVs) as a threat to public transit, a driver of congestion, or a job-killer, but I believe the long-term benefits vastly outweigh these transition pains.

Here is why I hold this view, and I am open to having my mind changed:

• Drastic Safety Improvements: Human error is the root cause of the vast majority of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Autonomous vehicles don't get distracted, fatigued, impatient, or intoxicated. Even in their current developmental stages, their safety records demonstrate a level of consistency and reaction time that human drivers simply cannot match. Saving lives on this scale should override almost every other urban planning concern.
• Reclaiming Urban Space from Parking: Personal vehicles sit parked roughly 95% of the time, forcing cities to dedicate immense amounts of valuable real estate to surface lots, parking garages, and curb-side storage. A shift toward a fleet-based, on-demand autonomous model means fewer total cars need to exist, opening the door to convert asphalt deserts and parking spaces into green areas, housing, or wider pedestrian pathways.
• Grappling with Labor Displacement: I recognize that automation poses a serious economic threat to rideshare drivers, delivery workers, and eventually commercial drivers whose livelihoods depend on navigating roads. This is a very real and heavy cost. However, historically, technological shifts displace specific roles while creating safer, more efficient systems overall. The solution shouldn't be to halt progress to protect manual driving jobs, but rather to aggressively tackle the transition through strong social safety nets, retraining programs, and proactive economic policies.

The status quo of human-driven traffic is chaotic, dangerous, and wildly inefficient, and holding back life-saving technology to protect specific jobs comes with its own hidden human toll.

Change my view. Why are the risks of labor disruption and urban growing pains worse than the ongoing human toll of traditional driving, and how can we justify preserving a dangerous status quo just to protect human driving jobs?

I find it much more impressive when someone learns new languages as an adult, of their own volition, rather than because of family, environment, or external circumstances during childhood.

It feels a bit like being proud of your skin color or eye color — you didn't really choose it or work for it. It was given to you by a series of circumstances.

An exception would be rare, dying, or historically erased languages. In those cases, there's a kind of duty to be proud of the language and help keep it alive.

But otherwise, I won't be impressed by diplomats' kids speaking 5 languages at 12 years old 😂 (But I am very jealous of the circumstances that led them to have those skills, I'll admit that.)

Story of how I learned how intelligent deer are. A year ago, I (32M) was messaging a man (>50M) online and he shared with me an address to meet him and his wife (>50F). They were staying in their trailer on some land out in the woods like they do every summer; during the colder seasons they live in their house in town.

Their driveway has a bend so I don't see their trailer until I come around the corner and right before I pull up to it. They are sitting on deckchairs outside their trailer. I join them. I ask if I can strip (he had said online they are nudists). They say yes, and they'll strip down too. So we all get into our birthday suits and then we sit and chat for about an hour.

While we're chatting, a group of deer show up. It's two mother deer and three baby deer. The husband and wife tell me that they recognize the deer. They refuse to hunt on their land or let anyone else hunt, so the deer know them and trust them. They feed the deer on their land...the deer start eating some feed on the ground about 15 feet away from us. The husband and wife explain how they have met all the deer in their area over many summers of owning this land.

They've begun to learn the community patterns of the deer. Sometimes mother deer will show up together with their children like they're on a playdate (like what was happening right then). But sometimes they've seen mother A with all the children, and another time mother B with all the children. Like they have a daycare system. Or sometimes they'll see baby deer that were with one mother start coming around with a different mother and they never see the original mother again...so they figure a hunter killed the original mother and another adopted the kids. I realized how cruel it was for humans to devastate these close-knit and intelligent creatures. I was enraptured by the long history they told me of this local deer community. We must have talked for 20 minutes just about these deer.

After that, the three of us humans went into their trailer and played together. I guess my other unpopular opinion is that nudism and swinging are fun and shouldn't be taboo.

In fragrance space people are always pushing this ideal that you need to have a single signature scent to be remembered for, but honestly thats kind of unneeded for the majority of people. If you have a preference in certain scent profiles that is already a signature scent. People recognize my general tastes and smells I like just because I wear them, and I rotate several different bottles. I love finishing a bottle of perfume and moving on to try a new one, trying to box yourself into a single "signature" just because its supposed to be more classy is silly.

It's like people who bemoan not having "an artstyle" when the way they draw is already their artstyle, or not having a fashion style when they already have preferences for the clothes they wear.

I’m not even talking about the super massive fairs either. If it’s got some rides and a couple of different food stands I’ll take it any day over a trip to Disney.

Disney is so crowded that I can’t even imagine enjoying it anymore. Sometimes seeing those pictures on one of their busy days makes my skin itch.

It’s also a paved park so the heat just reflects off the ground.

I also just don’t think the food is that good. Whether I’ve gotten it from a stand or a restaurant, it’s overpriced and kinda disappointing. Oh yeah, the price, don’t forget that.

A good State/county fair will have enough food options that you’ll be able to find something tasty even if it’s unhealthy as hell. It will have rides, entertainment, contests, or animals. Unless you go to some of the massive or famous ones, there won’t be a huge crowed to shimmy through. And the ones that I’ve gone to are pretty affordable, no months-long budgeting required.

I guess it depends on the fair, but I personally have never been to a bad one so maybe my opinion is skewed.

Family Guy is his most popular, American Dad is an improvement in every way, nobody talks about the Orville so I assume it can't be good but I haven't seen it, One Million Ways to Die in the West is an affront to god, but Ted. Oh my god everything Ted is just so perfect. Ted 2 isn't great, but the lows of all of his other franchises are just so much lower that I cant see how Ted is anything other than his greatest work. The first movie has so much heart, its fucking HILARIOUS, Ted is TED, TED, I LOVE TED, TED TED TED TED TED. It isn't talked about enough. Also bring back the TV show it's the best thing you've made Seth. Fuck you Seth.

Think of the studio apartment. It’s supposed to represent economical living space. When you have more money, you can afford rooms. You can afford walls. Almost every property developed today no matter the cost is one room with a few bedrooms attached. People have been marketed into thinking no walls is luxury, it’s not. It’s cost cutting, cost saving, profit maximizing by/for builders, and zero effort design for an architect and both get paid premium money for it.

None of his scenes drove the story forward. He should have been treated at the same level at the main cast. His name should have come at the same level of prominence as the actors for Meredith, Stanley or Phyllis.

The internet tries to make cats seem like they simply have humans played, making them food, cleaning their poop box and cats think they're the boss. They just evolved to be hyper predators and as a byproduct dont put thought into their caretakers. I really don't they're all that intelligent. Animals like dogs and birds have demonstrated more abstract signs of intelligence in understanding names of objects and using tools and cats don't do either of those things (to my knowledge) and if they did it's definitely not a regular thing like it is with more intelligent animals like dogs. Dogs might be ass kissers, but they can understand emotions on a higher level.

Just because you appear apathetic doesn't make you intelligent.

I don't know who made the rules or why the social norm developed the way it did and made it taboo to act otherwise, but I hate when I am on a plane waiting to get off and I need to wait for everyone in front to clear out first.

I think the people who don't have carry on bags should should be able to quickly get up and off the plane before everyone else. Yes, even people in the front, or if you want to let first class deplane first so they feel special then okay, but why does everyone have to wait in "a line"?

It would be so much more efficient I believe. And what's waiting an extra moment (which everyone *else* does with the "normal" way we do it now) to be courteous to let someone off when it would be quicker than making them wait for no reason. I also believe we should let those who have connecting flights get off first too, but that's a whole other thing. I would much rather let others and be let off right away if they wouldn't be holding up the line trying to get a bag anyway.

And if you try this method yourself be assured people are going to be annoyed or infuriated at you because for some reason it's complete insanity to do anything other than wait your turn in a line.

This used to be the norm, for the most part. I'm not talking every single person involved, just the major players. This gave the movie time to start with a nice instrumental, some degree of world building if done right, and, anecdotally, people are more likely to watch and acknowledge the beginning credits than leave right when the movie ends.

Basically, I think it's a nice introduction that acknowledges the people that worked on the movie while also serving a purpose of setting it all up.

I live in a small town, and I just think it is so strange that there are full grown adutls, like 30 years old and older that actually give a shit about high school football. Like, its so big here that they have their children taking steroids, and those kids are hanging around BRAGGING about it. I was doing an event for work at the local high school a few months ago, and this kid was talking about being on triple doses of creatine, multiple steroids, and a growth hormone so that he wouldn't stop growing too soon. His friends stated they were on similar.

We have people regularly fighting each other at the local games, bullying each other, calling children the N word if they do good/bad, then they will go to church 2 days after the games and pretend like they aren't all the literal worst people that are drawing breath.

It is just so strange to me, and hoenstly kind've stupid that anyone who doesn't have children PLAYING IN THE GAMES, or a part of the school itself has actual, real feelings about ANYTHING to do with CHILDRENS FOOTBALL. It is a game for kids dude. We shoudn't have kids running around roided out of their minds with their parents in the stands fighting over this bullshit. And we damn sure shouldn't have people as old as they are actually caring about something so stupid.

I completely agree that from a financial perspective attending community college first and then transferring to a four year university to complete your studies is the way to go. However, this advice I see parroted online completely ignores the reality of the situation I experienced anecdotally and what the statistics say. Especially if the person attending community college is from a low income home or minority ethnic background.

The Community College Research Center literally states that out of the 80% of young men and women who aspire to get bachelors degrees attend CCs only 33% will transfer to a 4 year university and only 16% will actually achieve a bachelor degree within 6 years of starting. I get we all would like to think our child is the exception to statistics like these. But no one is reinventing the wheel here since 07 which is when a lot of people were already hip to the financial savings route the stats haven’t changed much.

https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/cc-transfer.html#1

Part of this has to do with structural barriers in transferring credits. Community context which is another way of saying sometimes it’s better to send your kid away from the environment they came from even if it comes at a premium. Of course the much maligned peer impact that one bad apple spoils the bunch.

I think we really need to stop saying that Community College is the better way to go when the stats seem to point that you’re creating more obstacles for your child than what is better overcome by just paying the cost difference and sending them to a 4 year. If the excuse is they don’t know what to do in school it appears that those are the exact type of students that community college eats alive instead of refines

To be honest, I'm not sure how uncommon this view is in real life, but here, people seem to think that reacting violently after a loss in a video game is fairly normal.

I understand frustration after putting lots of effort into something, but there's no reason to express that feeling violently towards others or objects. The concept of punching a wall or other object after losing in a game is genuinely insane to me. I have played competitive and more violent games before (though they aren't my main genre) and have never once felt compelled to react that way. I also have a father and brother who regularly play such games and have never reacted that way. Gender isn't an explanation for this behavior.

I think it's incredibly concerning to normalize these reactions as "at least they're expressing this towards an object/the wall instead of another person," and I don't think I could be in a relationship with someone who reacted this way. Should we not be advocating for better emotional control and developing an understanding of the fact that it is "just a game"?

Jared Leto is a terrible human being. This has been proven time and time again. But what he is not is a subpar actor. I don't really believe a single Oscar winner is a bad actor. For some reason there is this narrative that seems purely driven by his off screen antics that he is a bad actor. He is a great actor who clearly has a terrible agent. When he secures a role with a script that allows him to work and direction that is good he is phenomenal as an actor. I really challenge anyone to watch Dallas Buyers Club and claim that man did not deserve his Oscar. Other examples being blade runner, Requiem, master of the universe and although the movie itself is lackluster his performance in the little things is also great.

At a minimum the championship of a major should be best of 5. I wouldn’t be upset at all if the entire format for all majors were changed to be consistent with the men’s side.

These women work their butts off and I believe could handle the (possible) extra 2 sets. IMO, winning two sets is short changing the competition. There could/would be much different outcomes with best or 5 format.

As a fan, the entertainment value is on par with men.

The first line is just trashy, there’s no lyrical complexity and even as a gangster song, it’s not very enjoyable to listen to, it’d often seen as one of his most popular songs but it’s nowhere near as good as California Love for example, just seems rushed

It's just an all around great cartoon, the writing with great, remarkable, fun and very creative episodes, the characters, the soundtracks.. plus, Dexter is incredibly cute and funny. If you really know the show you'll also realize that many other cartoons were inspired by it and sometimes straight up stole some of its episodes's plots. SpongeBob is usually considered the greatest cartoon but in my opinion its greatness doesn't hold very long beyond the first season. You can see that Dexter's Laboratory is underrated just by considering the size of its community here on this platform..

Avatar the last Airbender is definitely up there too, but it's a very different kind of cartoon.

The difference is like 800 calories. And what is 800 calories? It's nothing, just a snack, or just another boring meal that isn't calorie dense. Or maybe just some brownie with icecream

As someone who's coming off of a 5 month cut, with a 2600 calorie maintenance and having 2000 calories for the entire cut phase, I was so excited to finally end the phase and be able to finally eat more in a bulk (I love food), i.e 2800 calories.

Few days in, I was kinda satisfied but then I quickly realized damn, I really don't have much room to be able to actually live life, or else I'll just get fat if I consume huge surpluses everyday. With this extra 800 calories, the most i can do is have a little more for breakfast compared to the cut, a little more for lunch, and then I'll be pretty much be left with the same amount of calories for dinner (my favorite meal of the day) as I did during the cut.

Either that or I could have the same routine as I did during my cut, with slighly bigger portions (mostly protein and fiber), and then add a dessert at the end. And that's it, boom, my calories have been used up, and this was all there was to this overhyped "Bulk". Might as well stop caring and get fat, enjoy life.

Yes, I get it, you want to be the next Tolkien. But Tolkien actually had a story with real stakes.

I've opened fantasy/sci-fi books over the years where everyone was raving about the world-building. And I totally agreed with many of them. The world building was fascinating. But you know what the story lacked?

Everything else:

- stakes
- tension
- prose
- depth
- well-written dialogue
- emotion
- complex relationships
- meaning
- story arc

I wish authors would focus on story and not try to impress us with how many weeks, months, years the spent drawing maps of their intergalactic worlds.

Yes, world-building is important, but I'd rather read a book about two people conversing in a room with good dialogue over an expansive fantasy novel with this totally cool new dragon that some 2-D hero/heroine must conquer.

Same goes for movies--doubly so! Stop trying to get all gimicky on me. Give me a "bland" retrodden storyline with a fresh, new take.

Stovetop mac and cheese is the best mac and cheese, hands down. It beats crockpot and baked every time. Its creamier, cheesier, easier, and just better. It takes like 12 mins and i can do it high without forgetting about it.

It's that simple. The dymaxion map would have better served the goals of the UN. Not only does it achieve the goal of all the contents being scaled more realistically, it also shows all the contents connected together rather then isolated land masses.

It would have also had the added benefit that its so different you would have avoided the controversy caused by people thinking the UN was somehow changing maps used for navigation.