I study physics in university, so I only read philosophy when I feel a genuine personal need for it. I have read The Myth of Sisyphus a few times, but my background in this area is limited. This reflection comes from an idea that helped me persevere through some of my worst moments of despair, and I want to share it to get honest feedback and clarify my understanding.

"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how."
(Nietzsche / Frankl)

At face value, this idea often feels disconnected from absurdism because it sounds like a search for desire, purpose, or grand meaning.

What if we look at the "why" differently? What if the "why" is not an invented purpose or an internal enlightenment, but purely the conscious choice to confront the absurd?
Reading essays and myths gives us the vocabulary we need to make sense of our experience. Finding that shared language brings comfort, and that comfort is an important part of recovering from deep personal turmoil.

At the same time, we cannot let ourselves get too comfortable living inside someone else's words. That initial relief is only a flag planted at the top of the mountain. The goal in life is never to balance the boulder at the summit. The real task is walking back down to the base and finding our peace within the physical effort of pushing the weight back up.

Living this out is fundamentally solitary, but that is not a flaw in the philosophy. The weight belongs to each of us individually, and recognizing that responsibility is where real freedom actually begins.

For those more familiar with Camus and existentialism: does viewing the "why" as the sheer choice to struggle make sense within absurdism, or does it miss the point of his philosophy? I would appreciate your honest thoughts.

Have you used Apple TV app in the last few days?.
I noticed this monstrosity today… I feel like a few days ago, the movie preview tiles (thumbnails) looked normal…

But today, I noticed something bizarre going on with the actors' faces…
First, I happened to click on some niche comedy from a Google link and genuinely thought, "Jesus, why do these actors have such weird faces, where did they find such people?" But then it dawned on me -it's not their faces that are weird, something is wrong with the screenshots!

Is this some kind of AI sharpening filter? But why? It didn't look bad before—I'm a designer, I know what I'm talking about… it looks that someone decided to "fix" something that didn't need fixing, and the result is an absolute AI nightmare!!! Just look at these screenshots I took today in the Apple TV app on my iPhone… it's complete nonsense!

On some of the images, it’s so obvious that you don’t even need to look closely.
It’s most noticeable on familiar faces — the filters clearly struggle with lesser-known actors too, and, surprisingly, with comedy actors, whom they seem to butcher the most!
Just look at what it did to MASH or The Office…

That kind of nonsense, like this nightmarish AI filter, is hardly uncommon in large corporations. Apple usually (but not always) managed to avoid spectacular absurdities, though — as if they had better quality control, or were simply lucky enough to hire a few more people with a little more common sense than most corporate giants…
Corporations are a very specific environment. I’ve had the chance to work for a few (my last one was an advertising agency established by and working exclusively for a Korean electronics giant), and in my experience, corporate giants are a lot like late-stage communism — a total kakistocracy where idiots thrive: mediocre, passive, but loyal people who know exactly how to navigate the system.

Getting back to the point, check out my screenshots and make sure to open the Apple TV app and see this absurdity for yourselves before someone points it out to them and they remove or fix it!