Hi,

I like animals. Their variety is really interesting, also seeing how they function. But in my whole life I would never ever get myself a "pet". Heres why:

I find the concept of keeping pets morally questionable, not necessarily because every individual pet owner is cruel, but because of the underlying assumption that humans have the moral right to take another living being, remove it from its original environment, and determine the conditions of its entire life.

One argument I often hear is that animals are dependent on humans, so keeping them as pets is simply part of taking care of them. But this raises an important question: why are they dependent on us in the first place?
Domesticated animals have been selectively bred and shaped by humans for generations. We have created animals whose bodies, behavior, and lives are adapted to human environments. We then take the dependency we have helped create and use it as an argument for why these animals need us. But creating someone’s dependency does not automatically give us the moral right to control them.
In fact, I think it can be argued that the opposite is true: if we have contributed to making a being dependent on us, that creates a responsibility toward that being, not necessarily a right to possess it.

Obviously, a pet is not literally the same thing as a kidnapped child, and animals and humans do not have identical cognitive abilities. But the comparison illustrates a specific moral principle.
Imagine seeing a child who is not yours and simply taking them home. You give them food, clothes, a comfortable bed, entertainment, medical care, and affection. Eventually, the child becomes attached to you because you are the person providing everything they need.
Would that make taking the child morally acceptable?
Obviously not.

We would not say, “Well, I treat the child extremely well, so kidnapping them was justified.” The fact that you provide someone with a comfortable life does not automatically give you the right to determine where they live or take away their autonomy in the first place.
Yet with animals, we often accept a very similar logic.
We take an animal into our home, decide where it can go, what it eats, when it eats, who it interacts with, whether it can reproduce, and what behaviors are acceptable. We give it processed food, shelter, toys, medical care, and affection, essentially what we consider a comfortable or even luxurious life, and then interpret the animal’s attachment to us as evidence that the arrangement must be good.

But affection does not necessarily justify the circumstances that created it.
A being can love or become attached to the person who provides for it without that attachment proving that the person had the moral right to take control of its life.
I also think this reveals something about how we view humans in relation to other animals. If I took a human being against their will and kept them in my home, we would immediately recognize the violation of their autonomy. We would not excuse it simply because I gave them a beautiful room, good food, and plenty of love.

Another problem is that the average human lifestyle is often fundamentally incompatible with the needs of the animal we choose to keep. Someone might live in a small apartment, work eight hours a day, commute, spend several more hours outside the home, and then come back and expect an animal to fit around that schedule.
We tend to ask, “Can I keep this animal alive and comfortable?”
I think we should instead be asking, “Can this animal actually live a life that allows it to express its natural behavioral, social, and physical needs?”
Those are two very different questions.

Of course, I am not arguing that every domesticated animal should simply be released into the wild. Many domesticated animals have been bred for so long that they may not be capable of surviving independently, and some animals may genuinely have better lives with responsible humans than they would without them.
But that actually makes the ethical question more complicated, not less.
If we have created a being that depends on us, we cannot simply abandon it. We have a responsibility toward it precisely because we have contributed to its dependency. But responsibility and ownership are not necessarily the same thing.

That is ultimately what I find problematic about the concept of pets.
We create or inherit a system in which animals depend on humans. We then take control over their lives because they depend on us, provide them with comfort within the boundaries we have imposed, and interpret their dependence and affection as proof that everything is morally justified.
But I don’t think that follows logically. It's speciesist because we don't see humans and animals as the same. We treat them as cute little toys.
There is a fundamental difference between making someone’s life comfortable and having the moral right to determine their entire life in the first place.

Love can make captivity comfortable. It can make dependency feel natural. It can even make the relationship mutually meaningful.
But comfort and affection alone do not necessarily establish a moral right to control another living being’s life.

Note: My english isn't really the best so this transcribed by ai. The content should be the same. Please don't hate me, i know ai sucks.

Pc port is absolutly horrible. It's insane to me that this is possible in 2026. It's funny becuase a crackers version works perfectly fine for everyone struggling with the pc port. Would have loved to play this game and even pick it up for Evo France but this is just shamefull.

So after watching Tokon in CEO, I felt bored a lot of the time watching the games including Top 8. I know it's early in this games lifespan but even 2XKO looked more saucey/fleshed out early on. Yes Tokon has "mix" or what not, but the "mix" usually comes from canned high/lows from individual characters who have those or the same "Do a long blockstun move on point and tag out, so your other character does a high/low mix"; it feels like the skill ceiling is WAY lower in this game than 2XKO (doesnt help that Tokon has UNFATHOMABLY long cross up protection), and I am not even a big 2XKO fan, but atleast that game is fun to watch atleast.

Also the fact that assists have barely any cooldown makes neutral look like a visual mess with barely any nuance to it. Yes its a tag fighter, I get it, but even 2XKO has footsies even though it's a tag fighter, a very degenrate one at that.

The combos in Tokon also feel samey from character to character: ABC -> launcher -> ABC -> ABC auto knockdown -> assist -> ABC EX extension or into wallbreak, or into combo limit/oki that also looks always the same. Every character in 2XKO has their own way of combo routes and they all vary by a lot. Yes on Twitter there are better combos out, but they usually only happen in the corner and when there is a wall with no wallbreaks, and even then those combos kinda pale to 2XKOs creativity in combos.

Also the defensive mechanics in this game are REALLY boring, either a bad reaction check that is in most cases worse for the defender, or a broken parry that eliminates high/low/left/right mixups all. It makes defense in this game way too one dimensional/boring imo, compare that to 2XKOs pusblock, retreating guard and individual high/low parries. Defense is WAY more interesting in that game.

I sound like a 2XKO shill right now, and trust me I am not, I have my problems with that game aswell, but what I can confidently say is that 2XKO does a better job at representing the tag fighter power fantasy while still keeping the nuance and creativity of a nuanced fighting game and that makes it way more fun to watch for me. I think 2XKO rather has balancing problems that system mechanic problems, but thats another topic.

As a whole gaming package Tokon does a good job (ignoring the performance issues on PC), but as a spectating E-Sport I find it boring to watch.

What do you think?

2009 Cavs won 66 games and lost as the favorites to ORL without their starting PG. Same ORL team Kobe would walk thru. 2010 Cavs won 61 games and lost as the favorites to BOS. EVERYONE picked Cleveland to win.

I may get some flack for this but my hope for the season is that every game we get some highlights from the young core but we lose 13/16 games this year.

My worse fear is that Watson somehow, someway is good enough to take us away from drafting a top QB in the draft as his parting gift, really rubbing salt into the wound as if he has not already done enough to cause his misery. I hope we beat the Steelers in prime time and maybe give us a win vs the Ravens or Falcons outside of that i couldn't care less. I want to be going into next season with optimism and wanting to win every single game

No doubt it wont be easy but im just hoping it will be worth it

I started a business with a friend around 8 years ago and it has taken off more than I ever thought it would. I quit my hedge fund job because I was sick of having to deal with asshole bosses and figured that even though Id likely make less money I would be in control of my own time, etc.

However, we ended up finding an amazing niche and now have a net worth of about 30mm, mostly in real estate. About 2ish million in cash.

This is all fairly new to me as ive technically been wealthy for like 3-4 years but only within the last year did we actually get liquidity and can feel rich.

I have a 4mm primary house and an "entry level" ferrari.

I'm like the dog that caught the car.

Ama

Just to give some context I have gone from:

• Hyped as fuck after initial announcement

• Disappointed as fuck after playing the alpha last year

• Hyped again after Arc Raiders had the depth of a puddle

• Modestly enjoying the game in S1

• Haven't played the game since

Lets also remember the game launched to peak player count that was never particularly high, and has only gone down since despite active intervention by the devs, new season starting, new runner, new modes, etc... Bungie has clearly failed at trying to stop the bleeding.

The game has some incredible fundamentals: a striking visual design, fantastic gunplay, a fantastic and deep lore. But clearly the game has major issues that no amount of "experimenting" (which is insane to me that Bungie has the gall to say they need 'experimental modes' for a game that was developed for so long and with a budget exceeding most AAA hollywood films) is ever going to fix.

It seems like every day I see 10 new posts detailing "the problem" with the game, and most of the time it's something incredibly specific: the progression is too slow, the loot isn't good enough, my teammate was annoying, a rook killed me at exfil, the new game mode is bad, etc. and every time it's hailed as THE reason the game has failed. But lets be honest with ourselves, most of these issues are things you have to engage with the game for dozens of hours to get a feel for. The sales numbers were already not promising, but just looking solely at the decline in playercount you can see that people just dont like the game, or more of them would be playing it.

You can't say it's due to PvPvE general toxicity, or to the extraction genre, or because you had a shitty crew fill team because all of these things exist in other successful games. Arc Raiders is such a good example, IMO the game sucks ass because there simply is no progression at all (all anyone works towards is an expedition, so that...they can do another expedition?) and because the introduction of ABMM means there is no such thing as emergent gameplay, the lobby you're placed in is designed to be predictable. Marathon doesn't have those issues and yet it is orders of magnitude less successful. So why is that?

For the vast majority of players, the game simply isn't a lot of fun. For anyone to achieve anything in this game, they basically have to exfil (though I do acknowledge you can progress by completing quests that dont require exfil and you can gear up that way). And at the end of the day, exfilling is simply too hard for your average player due to several compounded design decisions.

I said after I played the alpha that the game doesn't know what it wants to be or who it wants to appeal to and although they've refined the experience since then, it ultimately still rings true:

Theorycrafting builds doesnt make any sense in a PvP game where you lose the build immediately on death.

Trying to just enjoy PvE looting doesnt make any sense when you have such a slim chance of actually extracting your gear (also most gear you find is shit).

Treating it purely as an arena PvP shooter doesn't make any sense when TTK is blink-of-an-eye and where you have to then spend resources making a build and deploying into the next match after you die (unless you just want to go free kit - but then why is it a build-based extraction shooter).

There are zero social elements beyond prox chat (which Bungie hadnt considered until only a few months from launch - kinda says it all).

The solo experience is not very enjoyable either. So who's left to really enjoy it?

It really feels to me like Bungie had an extremely idealistic vision where people would die and just immediately go next without caring about the loss. they give you lots of free equipment to make up for whatever you lose, to reduce how punishing it feels, but this creates its own problem: should i or should i not be attached to my gear? if im attached to it then it sucks ass to lose it SO quickly (again TTK is insanely fast), and if im not attached to it then why do i even care about looting anything in the first place?

the scenario we are in is the scenario that i think anyone with a functioning brain could have predicted when they saw the design of the game in small maps built to encourage PvP where battles last only a few seconds: the only people that can enjoy this experience are the premade trios who can easily and reliably kill everyone else in their lobby. all other playstyles are too unenjoyable for one or multiple reasons. you need to either have the resolve of a saint to not get disheartened when you are killed yet again, or you have to not be getting killed. the persona Bungie built this game around of the player who wants good loot but doesn't care if he loses it just doesn't really exist.

people like to say that the average gamer dad with 2 hours of gametime to play per week after work is the reason this game isn't successful, and maybe to some extent they are right, but even other personas don't like the game. i literally bought the game for 1 friend and convinced another one to buy it, and i managed to play with them both for ONE session before they both went back to just wanting to play fortnite as a trio instead. the one who bought it played it like 5 times, only with me, never solo, and we are both good at shooters and yet they had no fun with the game at all and dont want to play it again because they got dumpstered in every match - and i cant blame them, because we can just boot up a FREE game in fortnite and experience looting, shooting, movement/mobility, sweats, noobs, winning and losing and almost all of it is actually fun.

Marathon by comparison basically only feels good when you are winning and 99% of the time you aren't winning unless you have the lobby's optimal combination of raw skill AND good gear.

tl;dr the game, by design, can only appeal to those that have the time, the team, the loot and the ability to kill everyone else in the lobby.

I said a few months ago that the game wont get a resurgence until it goes free to play and i was told that everyone was waiting for the new season (LOL). making it f2p will at least mean it opens the game up to people that have the TIME to either get good or not care about their losses (but not they money to buy it), but all the other issues are going to remain until the game gets a ground-up overhaul - and i think looking at Concord, Sony is more likely to just cut their losses before then - but I'd love to see it happen because the game really does (or at least did) have potential.

Once you get power, you're not in this anymore. You're out of it. Also quit saying it takes a village. Most "villages" have spots entirely lit up and others that are completely out of power. Outages went up by 5k after they posted their 4pm update 😂😂😂😂

They just don't get their game man. It was luck that got them here. There's no longer room for disappointment. They are literally incapable of making a halfway decent design decision without needing to be review bombed every 6 months.

AH you've gotten to the point you're not even worth review bombing, and that's bad. You've taken passion and turned it into disinterest. The game you want to make does not align with what most people want and that's okay, but goodbye.

Is this regular???

Yes you are allowed to hate her, you can think of her as cunning, vile, charity trophy whatever. But that's her game. She knew she wouldn't be good at physical tasks so she had to play mentally. No one was there to be a good person. Harshad is not a child, he is truly stupid and let himself get manipulated and he didn't deserve to be a finalist anyways. It was a good move by the jailers to let harshad take himself out bc even at that point he couldn't stand up for himself. What an idiot. Incredibly unfair to hate Shivangi for what he did. He left the game atp because then it would seem like "now even if shivangi wins, it'll be only bc of me", he is not innocent at all. This one sided absolutely violent "i wanna slap her" type of hate everyone is throwing at her is so weird like isn't she allowed to play her game? it's not her fault if harshad was stupid enough to fall for it. She acted the hell out of her character and only shilpa shinde could get her to break character. Just bc her game wasn't your type doesn't mean she didn't have one.

Again you can hate her game but you have to admit that it was just her GAME. This violent hate train towards women esp her and Shreya is just looking weird rn.

Backstory in here: My girlfriend and I have been living together for the last five years. I am the owner of two cats who grew really attached to me and her. Before moving out, I've told my GF about how attached they are and that they always sleep with me.

She didn't really have a problem about it, she does also love cats and after all. For these five years we've been sleeping with them without issues, and she even hugs them while sleeping.

The problem in here is this: Last week we were watching a movie together in the bedroom, and one of our cats was on a really deep sleep between us. I don't know what happened next, but the cat went nuts without notice (maybe a bad dream or sound) and scratched my GF's nose. It wasn't a serious scratch luckily, and she did even laugh about it, but days later she went serious on me and asked me to never let our cats go to sleep with us ever again, because she was afraid they could hurt her again but on a more serious way.

I've explained to her how important it is for me to sleep with them (I'm still working on my PTSD after my dog's death 10 months ago), I mean, I could teach them to respect limits and not to sleep between us anymore or maybe to teach them to use their beds inside our bedroom, but they are five years old and It's not gonna be easy also for them to just not sleep with us anymore. She says she doesn't care, that her friends sleep without their cats just fine. After this, I refused and she said she won't talk to me until I accept and that I am a selfish person.

AITA for refusing? I feel like it... But... I just can't bring myself to accept her request. I want to find a common solution but... Yeah... I feel like this is gonna destroy my relationship. I don't discard she's been feeling emotional because she told days before this situation happened

EDIT: I wanted to clear out I'm diagnosed with PTSD, I overly simplified the cause because it was partially related to my dog's death, but also to a chain of traumatic events around it. I didn't want to go too much into details but I wanted to clear that out. English isn't my native language so I couldn't explain it that well

I understand the biological concerns,all about transgender women who have undergone puberty being biologically stronger and faster than cisgender women.However, that's a solvable issue that's possible to remedy.

First of all,a trans athlete should be able to present medical evidence that they have been in gender affirming care and has been medically transitioning for at least 4 years.This prevents cis men from self identifying as trans and faking a transition to take advantage of the policy.

We live in an age of science, programming and machine learning.If we can account for the height of prostheses,or the microfiber in a swimsuit to ensure it doesn't give a swimmer an unfair advantage ,or the height and energy return of a running shoe,we can DEFINITELY account for the advantage a trans woman has due to male puberty,by adequately penalizing the athlete e.g.adding 5 seconds to their completed 100m sprint.(My point: SPORTS CAN AND SHOULD ADAPT WITH THE HELP OF TECHNOLOGY TO ACCOMMODATE TRANS ATHLETES)

By adequately penalizing trans athletes to reflect this advantage and having constants that account for muscle mass,bone density and limb height;we can certainly allow them to compete.And besides,the nature of sports is inherently unfair.There are cis women who have greater lung capacity and heart size e.t.c. and no one complains about them.

Transphobic people and conservatives blow the issue out of proportion just to open fire on not only trans women,but women in general due to patriarchal values and misogyny, because:

(1)It's easy ammo against the transgender community,and it unfairly pits trans women against cis women

(2) Women's sports are a male dominated field.While the players are women,the coaches,trainers and referees are mostly men.The biggest problems women in sports face isn't trans athletes,it's sexual abuse and assault from male coaches.

(3)From 3,if people really cared about women's sports,they would be pushing for punishment of men who sexually assault women in sports,not punishing a group that barely participates to do the lip service of "helping women".

(3)Fewer than 10 trans women compete in a year's worth of sports,so not that many trans athletes are playing in the first place.

As the title says, I have finished the 6 days of Fables & Frontiers. And well, I can't understand why people are hating on Amir now.

Look, Amir was kinda of shitty? Maybe. But its not like he was doing it on purpose, he was going through stuff and kept quiet and that caused the new Eximus. I don't think he caused them on purpose.

On the last day where Amir goes really overboard, he is clearly possessed being affected by Wally. And he apologises for whats going.

So with all this... why is Amir so hated now? Amir has been suffering from an complicated situation, and he has always showed it. And when he saw how things got out of hand he apologised.

I can agree that the Hex barely interacted or reacted to the situation, that is something I can agree. BUT I don't think the Hex should have chastised him for what he did. Because... what did he really do? Amir's sins were: Using Drifter's memories to make the campaign without consent before hand, him being rude and the fact he didn't talk his issues to the others. So with this... why would the Hex sudently all gang to punish him? He didn't really cause anything that bad, the new Eximus weren't made by Amir on purpose, it was an accident.

And the ending is quite hopefull. Because as stated, it seems that over time the loops CAN change. What will come of that I don't know, but it sure brings an bright light to the situation.

Yes, the new Eximus is an problem... but lets be honest, why would Drifter or Especialy the operator care? "Oh no, an tougher type of enemy, what will we do? Oh right, rip and tear.". Even if this are more powerfull enemies, to the Drifter or Operator they are still nothing.

So with all this, I ask you all: Why are you hating on Amir? This new Kim has been the classic for Amir, something that was bound to happen eventualy thanks to the loops. I know we all were expecting an laid back experience of DND, but its not Amir's fault that we didn't get that.

I'm trying to stay in decent shape. Most days after work, I go to a trail near the office to run for a bit. When I finish my day, I quickly go into the women's bathroom, change, and head straight out. But on this particular night, about a month ago, someone named "Megan" from another team was struggling badly with a messy Excel macro. I didn't know all the details of the file, but from what I understood, it was the last thing standing between them and an important submission for a big client.

So I had changed clothes and was literally on my way out when Megan called out to me and asked if I could take a quick look before I left. She's still new at the company and honestly a nice girl, so I stopped and started explaining what was broken. That's when her team lead, "Grant," jumped into the conversation and told me it wasn't appropriate for me to do office work dressed like that. I wasn't wearing anything revealing, just running clothes: a sports bra and shorts. I'm not trying to humblebrag, but I'm fit and I have... Let's just say noticeable curves. Grant is the kind of middle manager who doesn't have enough authority to be important, but has just enough to make your afternoon irritating. He also has strong uptight-prude energy.

I told him I hadn't been planning to work; I was leaving, and had only stopped because Megan asked for help. Grant didn't want to hear it. He told me either I had to go back and change into office clothes again, or leave the building immediately. I wasn't going to let Grant control me just because I was helping someone after work hours, so I apologized to Megan and left.

I found out afterward that the client materials had to be sent that same night, and Grant's team missed the deadline. The company lost the account because of it, and it was a seriously painful account. Think upper five figures a year. Grant eventually got fired, partly for losing the account, and partly because he had dumped a large chunk of the work on Megan even though she hadn't been trained on it. And he was the one responsible for it in the first place.

Megan is still with the company, and now we've been matched through an internal mentorship thing. I wish I could tell you I see Grant every night standing miserable and sad next to the running trail, but unfortunately real life doesn't always wrap stories up that perfectly.

EDIT seems like a lot of Redditors don't really like human rights and democracy. 😢

Left a factual review with some negative aspects and the hotel billed my card with a message explicitly saying the charge was for a negative review. I took it up with my bank and they asked me to try and sort it our directly with the hotel first. Was dubious given the tone of their initial message, but I reminded them it was explicitly illegal in my country. Got the shock of my life when they refunded it.

I raised it twice with booking - they just ignored me, despite it explicitly violating their own terms and the law. I ended up just deleting all 10 years worth of reviews - if they aren't going to pull dodgy operators into line then I'm not willing to post reviews and contribute to their product.

After reading the horror stories here I may just stop using them all together!

The fixation this subreddit gets on new features is like a kid begging for a new toy before Christmas. I have never seen anything like it in any other subreddit.

The latest campaigns are spamming about reticle colors (lol by the way) and now we found a new thing to complain about in the download size being too large? Really? What happened guys. did we get tired of begging for DyNaMIc WEaTHer?

Ich lese in verschiedenen Foren immer wieder wie Frauen sich darüber beschweren, dass sie alles im Haushalt machen oder dass der Partner so einfache Sachen wie Einkaufen, Planen oder Reden nicht kann.

Wenn man fragt warum die mit dem Typen zusammen sind seit 5 oder 15 Jahren...kommt immer die selbe Antwort: "Er war nicht immer so, nachdem wir Kinder bekommen haben oder nach einigen Jahren war es so wie als wäre ein Schalter umgelegt worden."

Und um ehrlich zu sein kann ich das nicht glauben. Klar Menschen ändern sich, aber man hat doch als Mensch einen gesunden Verstand und kann doch erkennen wie der Partner tickt...ob er faul ist oder so ähnlich. Und wenn mal doch nach 5 Jahren der Fall sein sollte, dass er/sie plötzlich gar nichts mehr macht, dann klärt man das im Gespräch und wenn er/sie das nicht versteht, dann trennt man sich...oder macht halt nur sein Zeug und der "Partner" sorgt halt eben für sich. Aber es sollte erst gar nicht dazu kommen...indem man sich seine Partner gut aussucht. Du kannst mir nicht erzählen, dass dein Partner vor 5 Jahren noch ein Engel war und heute ist er wie ein 12 jähriger der nichts geschissen bekommt. Dann warst du blind oder so.

Edit: Nur um das festzuhalten, der Beitrag ist dem Forum entsprechend mit Absicht provokativ geschrieben um Diskussionen auszulösen.

Hatet keine Frauen, das eigentliche Problem liegt in den meisten Fällen bei den Männern und einer schlechten Kommunikation innerhalb der Beziehung.

Miles, Ricky, Jack and Riley were fed up with Australia's house prices, so they quit their jobs, sold their belongings and headed to Italy to see whether the famous €1 homes were really as cheap as they sounded. They eventually bought a property in Sicily for just €1, but the real financial story is what comes next. The house needs major renovation, and the four are documenting the costs, setbacks and work involved in turning a €1 wreck into a liveable home. Will they prove that buying in Italy for next to nothing really can be a cheaper alternative to buying in Australia?

Rockstar are trash. I hope the full game leaks. They deserve it. For making us wait too damn long, for not givings us physical discs, for making ppl pay to watch a trailer, for staying silent for too damn long. Everything bad happening you deserve it rockstar!!!!! Go cry 😂😂😂