Just a reminder to people: if you remove anyone who has (or will have) children, from a certain moral perspective you’re responsible for them never existing, which could be considered akin to murder. Just take that into account in your considerations. Might make this a much thornier question, ethically, for some.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Clearly any video that asks a question or implies a strange phenomenon or situation is click bait.
That seems like a gross oversimplification. I wouldn’t agree with that statement at all.
It’s explained in the video. I’m not going to entertain your sarcastic bullshit.
It’s an in-depth explanation of rainbows and the physics that create them, much of which contradicts the layperson’s understanding of them. How is the title clickbait if it’s accurate to the content?
This is the correct answer. Remy would skewer him from ass to mouth and then roast him on a spit (after seasoning him, of course). I’m sure he’d be delicious.
No, not having any money to buy food and pay rent is a real problem, no matter what your mental state is or how you choose to think about it, much less anybody else.
One major difference: bankruptcy is real.
He is indeed poor. I don’t feel bad for him though.
You can’t rely on someone who is suffering to make a rational decision about weighing a very permanent choice with the chances of maybe someday getting better.
That’s just not true. People dealing with chronic pain can absolutely make informed decisions about their own healthcare, including voluntary euthanasia. Psychiatric and neurological illnesses could potentially impair a person’s judgment enough to bar them from making the choice themselves, but this notion that anyone who is “suffering” can’t be relied upon to make a rational decision because they’re somehow too biased by their own pain is pure idiocy.
That would depend on the person I’m talking to. Not everyone is well-suited for it. Generally, I recommend people find jobs that they enjoy doing most of the time.
No. Most of Reddit’s population has proven they don’t care about changes that much more directly affect their user experience. I can’t see a significant portion of them caring about who owns the platform if they don’t care about that.
Therapist here. This is correct. While almost any activity can be addicting, OP isn’t describing an addiction, which would involve distress in the absence of a particular activity, even when other activities were engaged in. What OP is describing is much more like the apathy/lethargy we see in depressed people, which often results in persistent engagement with easy distractions.
I think it’s a bit ironic that Wikipedia hasn’t succumbed to the modern era of misinformation the way other information sources have, particularly given the warnings about it that have been given in the past. Not saying those warnings aren’t warranted, just that the way things have played out is counter to said expectations.
Forgot to pick up the magic mirror before leaving the brigand leader’s office, didn’t you?
Around 19, I’d say. 42 now.
Try to find a job you enjoy from 9-5. That means focusing on activities you enjoy that are the main activity of said job. I worked in a pet store because it afforded me 30% of my time playing with puppies, even though the remaining 70% was cleaning puppy shit and stocking goods. I now work as a therapist because I spend 70% of my time talking to people about their problems (which I enjoy), and 30% doing paperwork and correspondence. Make your job something you enjoy most of them time and it gets much easier. Then, you retire and collect Social Security. As long as you’ve worked for most of your life, that’ll be a decent retirement. You’ll have to live frugally, but it’ll be livable.
Also, if you can manage it, invest $10,000 as early as you can in a stock market index fund and pay for a fund manager. By the time you retire, that will provide you with a substantial cushion to rest on.
Quest for Glory series. Got me into RPGs.
Energy-to-(organic)matter conversion + futuristic power generators makes feeding your population a triviality. That simplifies just about any economic system, which takes a lot of the complicated stuff out of government and class hierarchies.
But Star Trek is a fictional utopia, much like Communism.
In reality, corruption would still mess up government in a “real world” Star Trek. I’m a casual Trekkie, but I don’t recall much detail about the Federation’s or Earth’s government structure. Do people still vote? Is it a benevolent military dictatorship? Who knows? And who cares? It’s not really relevant to the themes of the shows.
Star Trek is founded on liberal ideas popular in the mid-20th century that humanity could achieve unity and peace if it just cast aside superficial differences like race and gender, allowing us to focus on exploring the universe once we’d gotten over fighting each other. That’s the very core of the entire franchise and I’m fine leaving it that way, unscrutinized, since it clearly doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s like how the force is best left a mystical property of the universe in Star Wars, rather than science-ized with medichlorians.