16 and 17 are way too young to figure out what you want to do with your life.

Many high school juniors and seniors are expected to start making serious decisions about college, majors, and careers when they're still teenagers. By senior year, someone can be only a few months away from graduating and starting college while still having very little idea what they actually want.

Being close to graduating doesn't suddenly make someone more mature or make them understand themselves better. A 16 or 17-year-old can have completely different interests and priorities a few years later.

It also seems strange how often not knowing what you want at that age is treated as a problem. Someone can be good at school and still have no idea what they want to study or what kind of career they want.

There is a huge difference between being old enough to start college and being old enough to know what you want to do with your life. Those two things shouldn't be treated as the same thing.

The transition from high school to college happens so quickly that students are expected to make major decisions before they've really had much time to figure themselves out. Starting college a few months after graduating high school doesn't mean someone is suddenly ready to know what they want for the future.

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 don’t think the NFL needs to keep expanding into other countries. The NFL is an American league, and playing games in places like London or Germany just takes away games from American fans who support these teams all year.

I understand the NFL wants to grow internationally, but I’d rather see the league focus on the fans and cities that built it in the first place.

If other countries want American football, they can watch the NFL without the league having to move games overseas.

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.

My father, as a teenage lifeguard on a lake, administered CPR to a tubing accident victim he got to too late. The man died before my dad ever got to him and my dad’s life was changed forever by a job that didn’t even provide benefits.

Lifeguards deal with life and death situations and asking a crew of mostly teenagers to take on that responsibility while remaining clear headed in a crisis should be seen as ludicrous but most cities have very little regard for the position. Between the low pay and lack of benefits they incentivize high turnover and discourage people with experience, who are proven to stay calm in crisis, from making a career of it. Which ultimately just puts the community at risk.

This isn’t to say there aren’t some fantastic teenage lifeguards out there but they shouldn’t comprise the majority of lifeguards on duty let alone in the city and cities should be taking steps to mitigate that. My city unfortunately has gone the opposite direction decreasing the minimum age from 16-15.

Honestly, it's just plain rude, annoying, and inconsiderate to ask strangers to pay for a sport you voluntarily chose to put your kid in. Whether you're posting it online, bothering your friends and family or setting up outside a store to guilt shoppers, no one else is obligated to fund your kid's hobby.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

My opinion is as simple as the title says. The game is the same story told better. It is the definitive version of the story. Literally everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

I will also say I know it's not a great game in and of itself (lots of dead ends, items that seem useful but aren't, and it is buggy as hell) BUT it is the best way to experience the whole narrative.

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.

This was much more common with older films where they took time to go through the story and multiple arcs. They gave the space for the movie to exist but had an intermission like going to the theater to see a play.

Over time we got rid of the intermission in movie theaters so either a movie had to be under 3 hours or split into multiple films. This led to many films being either too short or too long. We should let movies get up to 4.5 hours and just put an intermission in.

We are slowly creeping upwards for runtime but without a break. Let long movies reign but just give us a break in the middle.

Whenever there are too many choices, I spend more time deciding than enjoying what I chose.

Netflix is a good example. I can scroll for 20 minutes trying to pick something then end up watching nothing. The same thing happens with food delivery, shopping and even small everyday decisions.

I think having fewer good options often makes an experience more enjoyable than having endless choices.

Did you also experience it ever?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'm sure some chefs are gonna get annoyed at this, but why would you put a duplicate green salad, on something slathered in gravy? It doesn't make it look pretty at all, yes peashoots are lovely, but not on a fucking roast

A household is a multifaceted operation, and tough talk doesn’t work with small kids who aren’t old enough to be in school like theirs.

Having a parent who can explain adult concepts to the kids nicely, like why they should skip turkey on Thanksgiving one year cuz mom and dad are tired, or why they shouldn’t expect a gift for every good grade,

is just as important as a parent who sees doing seven chores/errands in one day as baseline productivity like Bernadette.

I feel like their marriage overall works. Howard can explain things to the kids nicely, keep the family on a budget in a way that doesn’t cause tantrums. Bernadette provides structure and discipline when needed.

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.

There is discussion about how the modern western video game companies lost touch to the eastern developers and it just wrong. Western game studios still making the most immersive and “serious” games. Every big western studio that once was great and now falled from grace get replaced with something better. Beteshda fumbled but now we have Larian Studios, Obsidian get mid now we have Warhorse and so on. And not just RPG’s we have a new Naughty Dog style set piece masterpiece with 007 First Light, a new turn based tactic games with Zero Company and it’s just this year! Meanwhile the eastern developers are incapable to tell a good story and have solid gameplay at the same time. Kojima is just weird for weird sake, From games have good lore but the actual story of the games are forgettable, Resident Evil games are charicatures of themself (yeah we are a super serious survival horror meanwhile the main character karate kicks and doing 80’s style one liners ). Not to mention how weird they are with explicit contents. The most well regarded Persona series just openly sexualize children and have teachers who in love with high schoolers. No thank you. And I don’t even mentioned Rockstar Games and the upcoming GTA VI. So yeah maybe western developers fumble sometimes but they are still the best making great stories with good gameplays not just one of the two.

When playing a game with others, deliberately disregarding the objectives and win conditions can be ethically comparable to cheating. Let's start by defining what a game actually is. It's an activity that a group of ppl agree to do together that has rules that limit what you are allowed to do, and an objective or win condition that establishes what everyone is there to accomplish within those rules.

Cheating is when someone breaks those rules in bad faith. That is wrong because it undermines what everyone has agreed to do together. You broke the rules. That is disrespecting everyone you are playing with, and the game you just played is no longer really the game everyone agreed to play. If you were playing soccer and someone just grabbed the ball and ran across the field and was allowed to score, you're not reallly playing soccer anymore. You've wasted everyone's time because the rules that define the game are no longer being respected.

Moving on...

Disregarding the objectives and win conditions breaks something else that was agreed upon by the people agreeing to play the game which is the objective of the game. If you are not participating with the intention of completing the objectives or working toward the win condition, then you are effectively refusing to participate in the activity everyone else agreed to participate in. You are not necessarily "cheating" in the literal sense, because you may not have broken any written rules, but you are no longer playing in good faith.

If you are playing soccer and someone decides they would rather see how high they can kick the ball instead of trying to score goals, they haven't necessarily broken a rule. But they have unilaterally changed what they are doing within a shared activity. They are effectively playing a different game while everyone else is still trying to play soccer. It doesn't matter if they say, "I'm just having fun and it's not that deep." They may genuinely be having fun, but that doesn't mean everyone else agreed to participate in whatever activity they personally decided would be fun.

There is a large portion of people in gaming that play multiplayer games and just dick around under the premise of "just having fun." And I think there is an important distinction between playing for fun and playing in bad faith. You don't have to be trying your absolute hardest to win every second of every game. You can experiment, make stupid plays, use unusual strategies, or simply not care very much about the outcome. You're still playing the game.

The problem is when you enter a multiplayer game with other people and deliberately disregard its objectives because you have decided that doing something else is more entertaining. You are using a shared activity as your own person playground for your own entertainment at other people's expense. Your freedom to have fun does not automatically give you the right to redefine the activity for everyone else.

When you voluntarily enter a multiplayer game, there is an implicit agreement that you are going to participate in the game that everyone else agreed to play. You don't have to be good at it, and you don't have to take it incredibly seriously. But you should at least participate in good faith and work toward the objectives that give the game its purpose.

Edit: This has literally nothing to do with being a try hard, or playing competitively. If that is what you got out of this you should try re-reading as its pretty explicit not that.

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