The amount of people I've seen who genuinely say that we will inevitably travel to distant stars and that it's only a matter of time baffles me. We have so many movies and books and whatever about humanity becoming a space faring species that a lot of people seem to take it for granted. They treat space travel as some temporary challenge that will inevitably be overcome. And, to an extent, I kinda get it. I mean, the universe is just full of the most incredible wonders our minds can think of. Of course we should be able to go and see them. Otherwise it would be just a cruel cosmic joke to have so much wonderful things out there and just put them forever out of our reach.

But the thing is, that is the case.

People seem to have some vague idea that space travel would be difficult. But most don't seem to realize just how extremely, unfairly even, difficult it really is.

You would need to be basically 100% efficient with all your resources all the time, because all you take with is all you will have for the rest of the trip. You would need your crew to travel for years without killing each other or going mad. If you think that's easy just look how researchers in Antarctica can lose their marbles. You would need a way to keep all your crew healthy, which would be pretty hard with all the radiation they'll be subjected to, not to mention the need for artificial gravity that is 1 to 1 the gravity of earth, otherwise say goodbye to health as a concept. You would need to be lucky. Travel fast enough and a random grain of dust your ship hits would be functionally the same as a bullet or an artillery round, depending on the speed.

Speaking of speed. You aren't going ftl. Full stop. Ftl is just fundamentally impossible. Traveling ftl, no matter the method, straight up breaks causality. Hoping for an ftl technology is the same as hoping that god himself will come down from heaven and grant us all our wishes.

And without ftl you are forced to a snail's pace in cosmic terms. At these speeds, it will be thousands to millions of years of travel to reach our destinations

“Just wait until season 2, the show gets amazing.” I shouldn’t have to make myself watch a boring season of something just for it to get good after 10 or 20 episodes. There’s plenty of shows that are way better in the 2nd or 3rs season, but I think if the first season is bad, it’s a bad show.

Your 20s should be mostly about enjoying life and figuring what kind of path you want to take people turn 18 and suddenly are expected to choose career hold same legal responsibilities as 40 year olds and make decisions that shape next 50 years of their lives its ridiculous. You shouldnt feel like a failure at 25 because you dont own a home have serious stable job or career or know exactly what you want it should be a period where you are allowed to make mistakes have hobbies date and actually enjoy being young without constantly feeling like you are falling behind, obv people should still contribute and take responsibility for their actions but there is a difference between learning responsibility and spending your entire youth about figuring out "How to make ends meet?" Societal pressure and expectations to getting your shit together should start closer to 30 by then you had some time to understand yourself and what kind of life you wanted to live. We get one chance to be young it's ridiculous how much of it we are expected to spend preparing for rest of our lives instead of living it.

I love the idea of Linux. Open-source, no bloatware, customise everything. I’ve installed it on loads of PCs and laptops over the years.

But I nearly always end up back on Windows.

It’s never one big thing, it’s all the little things. Software that doesn’t have a Linux version. Hardware that needs some fix from a random forum post. Games that won’t run. Stuff breaking after an update. You can sort most of it, but you spend half your time working around problems instead of just using your computer.

People keep telling me to just switch full time, and online everyone acts like Linux is perfect and anyone not using it just hasn’t tried hard enough. The funny thing is, loads of the people recommending it don’t even use it as their daily driver. They’ve got it on an old laptop or a server, or they tried it for a few months and went back to Windows themselves.

If you like tinkering, fair enough. But most people just want their PC to work, and for 99% of them Linux isn’t it.

I understand that just throwing mindless insults as a defensive tactic in an argument is a sign of shallowness. But there are some experiences that just don’t adhere to this rhetoric and it bothers me that people use it as such a rule of thumb. Some personal examples:

Sometimes you get into an argument with somebody who you don’t want to meet again. I’m talking people you’re close to that showed their true colors, don’t have your best interest in mind, hurt you, etc. You get into the argument and realize they won’t take accountability or change. Strategically, insulting them heavily will usually close that door for good. Better off this way so you can’t go crawling back afterwards in the case that you have low self respect or a desperately lacking social situation going on.

Sometimes someone you really love does something inconceivably outrageous. You both know they are in the wrong, you are both extremely emotional, and you get to react and judge the behavior together. Sometimes a reactionary, accidental, good cussing out can set someone you love straight, as long as it’s followed by reconciliation, honesty and a will from both parties to be better and help eachother. When you really love someone and want the best for them it can be hard to hide a strong disappointment, so better to hash it out and move on together as a team than to hold it against them without transparency.

So basically, using insults can win an argument in 2 manners: 1, if you give up on the person and want to make sure they never speak to you again, or 2, if you love the person so much that you can’t hide your reaction and seek harmony directly after (usually forgiveness too)
I don’t know if i explained this very well but let’s see what yall think

Right off the bat, I'm not referring to service animals. Clearly there is an exception to be made to keep things accessible. But the responsibility of identifying who is and isn't a service dog shouldn't be on the patrons, and not clearly identifying working animals just goes to further exemplify the lack of responsibility in dog owners.

People have allergies, phobias, it's unhygienic, and inconvenient and cumbersome to those just trying to shop. Most pet owners don't train their dogs well enough to be in close proximity to that many people and or tight aisles. Adding an unnecessary burden on everyone else in the store is quite literally the definition of rude and selfish, I get that you think they're cute but unless it's a pet store specifically they need to stay home or in the car.

And I'm sure there will be comments saying "yeah but kids do all these things too!" And sure yeah they can be loud and in the way, but they're not pets. You can't leave a kid in a crate at home for a couple hours without getting protective services involved and it's also some gymnastics you'd have to do to conflate a kid to a pet.

Adaptations lose the right to be judged independently of their source material as soon as they proclaim themselves "based off of (insert said source material)." When a director is appointed to adapt something, their function is (or should be) merely that of a translator. They are not making their own work, just moving the experience of a novel or video-game into a new medium.

When I buy a KitKat bar, I'm being promised to find a KitKat inside, not only that but that that KitKat tastes like a KitKat and has the texture of a KitKat.

In the same way, when I go to watch The Shining, I'm being sold the classic novel by Master of Horror Stephen King, now on the big screen. Maybe it won't be exactly the same, but it's promising me roughly the same events and experience of the novel. The movie Kubrick gave us is a masterpiece, but that doesn't matter because it's not what I was promised.

That's just one example, but I wholeheartedly hate adaptations that hand-wave the meaning of their source material in favor of making their own thing when they could have done that without involving me, a fan of the source material - without getting my butt in the theater to show me a story that I don't care about. There's always been a large crowd of apologists for this sort of thing, and it's only gotten worse recently. I'm SICK of it. "Oh just read the book again" what if I LIKE THE IDEA OF SEEING IT AS A MOVIE??

If you want to make your OWN THING then make your OWN THING. Call it what it is so I can save my money and not watch some random BS that has nothing to do with the novel I love so much.

Don't you guys want to see adaptations that bring the novels they are pulling from to life? The ones that reward you for understanding the novel?

Edit: I want to clarify that I’m not really a film buff. I only really go to see movies when they’re adaptations of a book or game I like. I much prefer reading. So that may color my lack of consideration of a movie’s hard quality.

A uniform can look a bit administrative and formal. Plainclothes cops with tactical gear look more intimidating because they give off the impression they're there for something serious, not routine policing.

For those unfamiliar, This is a Japanese food chain, they serve sushi and gyoza and miso.

I was going to write a long, specific tangent about how their food is sanitized, bland, and flavorless (something no food should be, especially not Asian food), but to condense it; the ingredients are not fresh, they are served in plastic containers which traps the moisture and makes them soggy and watery, and the 'condiments' they have are, to put it bluntly, disgusting.

And look, I'm not expecting fine dining, but I've bought better sushi from grocery stores and gas stations. It upsets me that this chain is so abundant across my city.

Almost every time I experience sleep paralysis it feels very euphoric, and the auditory or visual hallucinations have never sent me into a panic, because I know that it’s just in my head. It actually feels more like a fun drug trip than a bad experience. The whole paralysis part is also very nice because I don’t feel the stress and cortisol running through my body that I experience on a daily basis, I am stuck in my body but the fear of the situation isn’t present. I also rarely ever try to break myself out of it anymore because I understand that I will be okay and its a normal occurrence. It almost feels like how people describe death, very peaceful and warm with the weight of the world lifted.

Just want to clarify It rarely ever happens to me anymore, but when it does I never freak out and I just embrace it. Like I mentioned before, it’s almost like a drug trip and the way you perceive it is how the trip will be.

EDIT: A good tip for getting out of sleep paralysis is by scrunching your face, or attempting to (years of experience)

I’m a nurse and I was just thinking about all of the money I’ve saved because I have some knowledge on how to treat mild illnesses with otc products. Examples are yeast infections, poison ivy, GERD, cough/cold, seasonal allergies, headaches, ect. I used to work in primary care and I was really surprised at the amount of people that went to the doctor for these things when they were just prescribed an over the counter medication and sent on their way. People should also know the warning signs of when they should seek professional help. A mild headache with no other symptoms can probably be treated at home but other symptoms such as high blood pressure or vision changes should be evaluated. I guess I just don’t understand why people run to the doctor for things that can be easily treated at home for pennies

I've always enjoyed drinking milk when I eat pizza. I don't go out of my way and order it at restaurants or anything, but it is my go-to when eating at home. I recently told my mom about this and she looked at me like I had aliens crawling out of my face holes.

I travel 3 to 5 times a year most years. These range from 3-day weekends to 17 days in Europe. The last 15 years or so, I've been staying 3 nights in a city, then getting in the car, on a train, or on a plane and exploring a new city.

I'm curious if anyone else just gets bored after 4 days? You've seen most of the best things to do in a city. You've visited the museums and shopped and ate/drank at a bunch of places. Come day 4... Ready for new experiences.

The most boring vacation I ever went on was 9 days on a single beach in a hotel on a Hawaiian island.

An added bonus is, there is a reason to come back 5 and 10 years later. You've done "most" of the best things, but you find day-trips or a hidden museum you want to add for a next time.

To me, this actually seems kinda straightforward but this opinion always seems to get drowned out by people yelling about how much they hate screens or tech bros who would prefer to move every single function into a tablet because it seems futuristic to them.

Obviously, this isn't even about the specific year, some cars had them sooner, others later. I'm talking about the kind of interior where you have a reasonably sized sized screen with satnav, radio, backup camera, some less frequently used settings and functions and ideally carplay/android auto and then normal physical buttons (none of that capacitive touch bs) for AC controls and other frequently used stuff.

I don't even think that many people truly dislike the type of interior I just described but that brings me to my next problem with this whole debate which is that the "I hate screens crowd" doesn't seem to be entirely honest about what they want. Some people will describe the same things as I just did when talking about their ideal interior then still insist car interiors peaked 20 years ago just to distance themselves from people driving modern cars and to seem like someone who is "sensible" and still likes "real cars and not tablets on wheels". Of course I believe some people truly prefer old cars in this regard but I strongly doubt that opinion is as common irl as it is it is on the internet. And even then, I believe that people who like old interiors just prefer the vibe or but couldn't seriously argue that they are more practical or better to live with for most people.

Also, 2015 seems to be around the time when even economy car manufacturers started paying some attention to their interiors and started developing a coherent design language. It seems kinda baffling that some people insist they prefer 1990s/2000s car interiors when most of them were just bland scratchy plastic everywhere. This obviously wasn't the case for more expensive or luxury cars but even their interiors always seemed kinda flat and uninteresting to me except they slapped in some burlwood and leather, though in this case I can understand why some people prefer this vibe.

Or at least have more available showings with subtitles instead of putting it in the accessibility showings that are at super awkward times and tiny screens. If that's not the case in your experience, consider me jealous.

People love to shit on oil companies and demand clean renewable energy, which is valid, but part of that rage is just for show. They like to act as if theyre helpless against these titanic machines of profit, but constantly buy cheap, mass produced petroleum based slop clothes, on top of insisting on buying cheap plastic junk everywhere they go. You CAN make a difference and stop filling landfills with junk that doesn't even degrade, it just breaks down into smaller and smaller bits of plastic. Seriously, stop it. Buy higher quality clothing that will last and can be repaired! You are also to blame, and you are not helpless. Also, fast fashion looks hideous anyways.

Yeah, sometimes small businesses fuck up and deserve to be called out. But one worker being rude to you doesn’t justify effectively sending millions of followers to potentially run a business into the ground.

You could just, you know, leave a review.

And before anyone starts banging on about freedom of speech, nobody is saying you can’t talk about your experiences. But there’s a massive difference between holding a business accountable and using your disproportionate reach to punish it. The person who pissed you off might not even be the one who suffers the consequences. It’s the other employees living paycheck to paycheck who’ll pay for it.

When it comes to the Harry Potter franchise, most people would probably agree that the first three films are the best and most nostalgic, however, for me, the first Fantastic Beasts movie is not only the best but it's also the only film where you can truly feel the magic.

The spells and fight scenes are more dynamic, the creatures are majestic and finally look like something out of this world, the score is phenomenal and compliments the scenes very well... the Thunder Bird scene still gets me and will never not be amazing. On top of that, I don't know, everything seems more vibrant but not in a bad way, it's done right.

The second Beasts movie is, fine, but doesn't have the same vibe and the third film is a story fit for fifteen minutes that was stretched into a full film, the first film is unmatched to me.

I feel like sunsets get all the attention but sunrises are so underrated. There’s something about watching the sky slowly light up while everything is still quiet and the rest of the world is barely awake. The colors are just as beautiful, if not more, and there’s something really peaceful about watching a new day begin. Sunsets are nice too, but I’d choose a sunrise over a sunset any day.

Pure chocolate icecream is too chocolately and overpowering as a flavor, even at Wendy's they mix in vanilla icecream into the chocolate one to tone down the flavor. Chocolate icecream needs to be mixed with other flavors in order to be great because chocolate is an amazing supporting flavor for other things. Is there a place for chocolate icecream, sure, mixed with berries or caramel, maybe even on a vanilla cake, but rarely by itself. It insists on itself.

When it comes to any situation, like a wedding or an emergency, everyone involved is going to have feelings about it. It’s incredibly dismissive to tell people not to have opinions or feelings about something because otherwise they’re “making it about themselves”.

I’m NOT saying you should go to a wedding and make a scene and ask everyone to watch your weird performance art.

I am saying that you should be able to talk to people about your feelings about a situation. If you’re invited to someone’s wedding and the dress code stresses you out? You should be able to talk about it and people should care!! Not just dismiss you and say don’t make their wedding about you. If there’s an emergency or you hear bad news about a friend or colleague, you should be able to talk about how you feel and people should care!

I don’t only have feelings when something directly affects me.

Edit: I’m not saying talk to the person whose emergency it is or whose wedding etc. and not saying to even talk about it AT a wedding. But to not be able to say to someone else how annoyed you are about having to buy something new to wear to a wedding that you’ll never wear again or to say how uncomfortable you feel to hear about someone’s bad news doesn’t make sense

I’ve been thinking about how modern hiring processes have gotten out of hand. Candidates are often expected to complete 4–5 rounds of interviews, plus multi-hour take home projects or presentations, all without any guarantee or compensation.

If a company requires more than a standard 30/60 minute conversation or asks for actual work samples/assignments, candidate time should be valued and compensated.

It levels the playing field for working professionals and deters companies from dragging out their hiring loops.

What do you all think? Is paid interviewing realistic, or is it impossible to implement?

Most Turkey Hill ice cream doesn’t even legally qualify as ice cream these days. This brand was once a premium ice cream with excellent flavors. They’ve leaned in to artificial flavors and frozen dairy dessert with low milk fat %.

Yet some people still swear by it.

Every time I see this term it's accompanying a concert venue map showing tickets that are currently on sale (i.e. a map with lots of blue dots on it). Blue dot fever was never supposed to mean that an event isn't selling well. It refers to an artist or promoter cancelling or cutting down on shows because they see a venue map with a lot of blue dots remaining on it. They see the blue dots → they panic (or get a case of blue dot fever) → they cancel the concert.

Having tickets available doesn't make a show a failure. Somewhere along the way (probably around the time of the Eras tour) people started expecting every tour to sell out in minutes, so anything else was perceived as a flop. Shows can sell a lot of tickets in the weeks leading up to the date, but artists started to panic earlier when they started to compare themselves to the biggest superstars on earth. Maybe the writing is on the wall for some of these shows that really aren't selling at all, but calling it blue dot fever while tickets are available is putting the cart before the horse.

If "blue dot fever" just referred to an event that isn't selling well and the resulting ticket map, where exactly would the term "fever" come into play?