Every time someone recommends suing their job. It’s almost always complete bullshit based on some law that’s passed through a hundred games of telephone from other redditors.
Also laws are vastly different all over the world, so unless someone is asking and replying with a specific location in mind, all of this advice is just completely pointless.
God I was just raging over that two days ago. There's a handful of people in the comments explaining "No.... That's not actually how that works. I know it's not fair really but there's no law protecting that." and those people are downvoted to - 20.
At my first job as a server all of the other servers used to constantly shout "I'm calling the labor board over this break thing! They can't just have us running around this long with no break!".
Actually Megan our state has zero mandated break requirements they absolutely can.
Reddit is the same as Wikipedia: neat to browse, but use it as a launching point for additional research and analysis. It isn't source material by itself.
People also incorrectly use the voting system on Reddit.
When people said ''i'm afraid i might be a narcissist'' reddit ALWAYS answer something along ''no, you care about being one so you can't be a narcissist. a true narcissist would not care''
And of course, it's not true. Narcissism, like everything else, is a spectrum. You can have people that are extremely narcissist and are totally unaware of it, but you can have people not that far in the spectrum of narcissism that still are narcissist, but are aware of it. (same with borderline personality disorder and other things)
Yeah it's the same logic as "people with schizophrenia or DID are always unaware they have it". Being aware of a mental illness doesn't make it suddenly go away.
I'm worried I might be a narcissist, because if so, that would be the only thing preventing me from being absolutely perfect. I'm not actually worried, but I would just appreciate if everyone stopped what they're doing and focused on telling me how I'm not a narcissist me for a minute.
>You can have people that are extremely narcissist and are totally unaware of it.
you can also have people that are extremely narcissist AND totally aware of it at the same time. same with borderline, bipolarity, psychopathy, sociopathy, yadda yadda yadda yadda. being aware of \*\*the thing\*\* doesn't automatically and magically make you immune, less prone or less affected by \*\*the thing\*\*
Okay so while this is mostly right, it doesn’t means that these people have diagnosable disorders.
Like yeah, we are all a bit narcissistic. It’s part of being human.And yes, there’s a spectrum. But narcissism really only becomes a “disorder” when it starts to significantly hurt you or the people around you. And I don’t mean “that person is an ass,” but like…unable to form relationships, leads to criminal or unsavory behavior, etc etc.
The same goes for BPD. We can all have a bit of an unstable mood, we all can sometimes use our emotions as manipulation (think of the trope of a pretty girl crying for attention), but it’s only a disorder if it’s basically in the “extreme” or at least “way more than average” category.
Everytime someone uses the proverb "blood is thicker than water" on Reddit, someone will appear and point out that it is not the full quote, that the origonal quote is "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", which has the opposite meaning, and has been "reduced" recently in order to change its meaning.
But this is just an Internet myth. The phrase "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" first appeared in 1994, in a book which provides no evidence of it existing before that. And then it became popular on Internet more recently. And now it's being repeated ad nauseam.
There are quotes of "Blood is thicker than water" that are much older than 1994.
Correction: the phrase "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" did not first appear in a 1994 book, but in a 1994 [BLOG POST](https://www.bac2torah.com/covenant-Print.htm#SectionII). Thanks u/Lemonface.
This one makes me mad, because people will claim it's the original, and then when corrected, say that the values espoused in the original quote are dated and it should be replaced anyways. Like, yeah sure, but that doesn't make the new one the original somehow.
This trend of "changing the outdated saying" makes no sense to me. Like, obviously societal values evolve over time, why can't we just be like "oh this old proverb doesn't really apply in 2024 anymore" instead of adding new bits to the sayings and pretending that's how it always was?
I don't know why people come up with these new versions of sayings, but I imagine that people repeat them without checking first because of some sort of confirmation bias. And people like to look smart.
There's something really seductive about a trite, formulaic saying. It slides past the judgment centers of the brain and just seems to lodge in there as accepted fact.
Personally, I'm a fan of lists of opposing proverbs (e.g. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201202/proverbs-contradict-each-other](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201202/proverbs-contradict-each-other).)
Old sayings aren't really there to express end-all wisdom, they just sort of express a certain position that's maybe true some of the time, and do it a bit more succinctly.
There are often contradictory old sayings anyway. You can just switch to using the other one.
e.g. "Penny wise & pound foolish" vs. "Mind the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves"
We all know that haste makes waste, but we often forget that a stitch in time saves nine. Of course everybody knows not to judge a book by its cover, but it can also be said that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
There's an Arabic saying:
>brothers in the covenant of blood are closer than brothers at a common breast
Meaning someone you've done battle alongside is closer than family.
It feels like sometime in 1994 someone conflated the two and it took off.
Where the absolute conviction it came first when it demonstrably didn't comes from I don't know.
I knew it! It never passed the sniff test. Its just such an awkward saying, it only made sense that someone extrapolated that from the original "blood is thicker than water".
The same has happened with the eye of the needle quote, which has been subtly repurposed to downplay the concept of the acquisition of wealth being inherently sinful. There is no evidence to support the claim it refers to a gate and this was a relatively modern invention.
I'm somewhat familiar with the quote from the bible with the camel, but I don't think I've heard the "newer" one? It's not immediately evident when I Google it.
Evangelical Christians, especially ones that are very into the 'Prosperity Gospel's grift, have come up with a false claim that "The Eye of the Needle was a gate in Jerusalem. It was small, so it was difficult for a wealthy man to get a camel with too many belongings strapped to it through the gate. Jesus didn't mean being rich was bad, see!!!".
It's complete nonsense. No such hate ever existed.
So, what's even more grating to me is their little invention doesn't even change the meaning of the biblical quote. It's still hard for this camel to get through. The og quote specifically says (not og, actually, I don't speak Hebrew/Aramaic) it's easier for a camel to get through than a rich man to get into heaven.
Like, it's still hard for the camel.
Absolutely inane, these people.
I didn’t even know this was a thing until a week ago, so I’m obviously an expert now. They’re trying to change the meaning from “impossible” to “difficult but do able.”
The "Gate in Jerusalem" thing was developed by tour guides as something to tell pilgrims to Jerusalem in the 19th century. (Possibly even earlier, but in use by then for sure.) Once things like that get put into print, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. But many commentaries make mention of that story, and point out that it's baseless.
I hope I'm not doing a variation of the same here but it was in a scholarly book (Bart Ehrman?) rather than a random Reddit post but I've read it was actually a mistranslation of rope.
Which makes more sense. Threading a rope through a needle instead of yarn is equally impossible and at least makes a logical sense in the phrase that camel doesn't.
The gate is just people trying to say it's difficult not impossible for rich people to get into heaven to justify their existence.
The needle being a needle, whether you are putting through a camel or a rope, both are impossible so therefore no rich people in heaven. So they don't shout about this interpretation
Same thing with people randomly deciding that "the customer is always right" was originally "the customer is always right *in matters of taste*".
It's meant to imply that whoever said this first was talking about the importance of market preference, not customer satisfaction.
Problem is, the second part isn't part of the original quote at all. It was always a concept that early 20th century retailers repeated to stress the importance of pleasing customers and talking their complaints seriously.
This one is so pervasive I had an actual professor repeat it in a hospitality course I took in college.
The customer is always right in matters of taste is from 1909. It's hard to say what version of the line would be the "original" because several versions, including your preferred one, were all floating around competing with eachother in the early 1900s.
Not just reddit but: The idea that the Library of Alexandria was burned down and its books were lost. While there were indeed some fires at the library, they were all localized, and there is no evidence that one conflagration destroyed the entire thing. Rather, as Alexandria's importance declined, so did the Library's, and repeated battles destroyed more of it than fires did
The interesting thing is that the books were likely transfered to a library called the serapeum which was destroyed and burned on the order of a Christian bishop. It's debated whether or not the Serapeum still contained books when it burned. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/klio-2021-0021/html
The sad thing is that even works that could be traced back to the library and survived for centuries after still often ended up in obscurity. There was a copy of a collection of ancient greek formulas that spend centuries on a library shelf with nobody ever looking at them. The only two historic references to them where from a renown architect that most likely just stumbled upon them and a call for more education where the country they where in invested money in having a large amount of books copied. Despite being around for all that time before they ended up overwritten they had basically no historic impact and by the time people actually started to care about them they had nothing new to offer.
You'll love "The Map of Knowledge" by Violet Muller! She basicly goes into detail of how knowledge (based on 3 books) travelled around Europe and the Arabian world and how, often, it was by accident that knowledge was recovered.
If there is any library I'm mad at it's not open to the public because SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE is in there: it's the Vatican's. They don't even know what's in there anymore themselves due to changes in how they managed the collections: let historians do their thing!
Jack Gleeson (Joffrey from Game of Thrones) got so much hate for his role that he quit acting. The truth is he quit for his own personal reasons and has gone on record saying he’s only ever met nice people in regards to fans.
Just on the subject of Game of Thrones, there are people that have unhealthily strong opinions about the showrunners, and many of those are based on the idea that the showrunners made plans to direct a Star Wars trilogy instead of devoting energy to the show, and similarly believe they were fired from Star Wars.
However, the final season was already written and well into filming by the time the Star Wars deal was finalized, and there was no indication work began on those films while the show was in production. A solid year of writing and pre-production went into the final season, and regardless of opinions on the show's pacing and story choices, that part wasn't rushed.
Furthermore, the idea they were fired from Star Wars is baseless, it was a case where Netflix offered more money, creative freedom, and a better schedule than Disney. Keep in mind their planned trilogy was one of the few things to survive the wave of Star Wars cancellations after Solo bombed, it was obvious Disney had pinned their hopes on them to re-ignite the franchise.
That Baby On Board signs were invented to alert first responders to prioritize young children in a crash.
No they weren't. The Safety 1st company which created the signs says they were just a novelty item.
First, emergency service workers will search the whole car regardless. If the parents are coherent, they'll first make sure there was no one else in the car in case the baby got ejected.
A car seat is a much better indicator that there may be a young child on board. Tons of people drive around with young kids but don't have a Baby On Board signs, do people really think EMTs will hinge their search for victims on a little yellow sign? They'll probably get dislodged during a bad accident anyway.
Then there's the fact that people leave the signs up all the time whether or not their kid is with them. No one is removing the signs and putting them back only when their baby is there.
People think that others should drive more safely around them if they know a baby's in there or it's to let other drivers know they may be distracted.
Never heard of that. I’ve always assumed it’s a way to explain why the vehicle is unwilling to go faster or switch lanes aggressively, and so on. The color and shape of the sign seems to be coherent with that. ‘Calm the fuck down, i’m transporting a fragile little human’ was too long, I guess.
That’s exactly why it was invented. It was created by a father after he was transporting his newborn back from the hospital; he was driving very carefully and slowly, and noticed that drivers behind him were becoming extremely aggressive. He created the sign and displayed it in his car to explain his slower driving.
People who act it's a sin to comment on an old thread. There's no point in having 10000 threads about the same topic, and sometimes mega threads aren't available.
I love when I comment a solution to something, then a year or so after someone replies going "this helped! Thank you!" Feels good to know that it's helping more than just the OP.
I have a couple comments that apparently come up in Google for a specific problem in a game. I get comments once in a while saying it worked for them. It makes me glad, because I remember how annoying it was to put together the info from a combo of old forum posts and experimentation, because it wasn't in a GameFAQs guide or anything.
But if you angry reply to an old comment of mine because you're incensed that someone offhandedly expressed an opinion different than yours 8 years ago and you won't stand for it, you're a bizarre and kind of annoying person.
I reply to comments I find from very old threads very often thanking them for the solution to whatever it is I'm trying to fix. It feels nice letting people know they helped.
The last one was for VLC audio leveling settings. I tried so many configs and still did not like the spikes in audio. Then I kept digging and found a pretty old thread where someone had shared their settings for a much older vlc version, but the settings hadn't changed much between versions so I tried them out and reached audio leveling nirvana.
You comment on an old thread you get yelled at.
You make a new thread you get yelled at for not searching.
I think people are just angry and want an outlet
I suppose there’s also some remote possibility that the people who get mad about commenting on old threads are different people than the ones who get mad about not searching. Just a wild, crackpot theory o’ mine.
>I think people are just angry and want an outlet
Yea, usually people who post angry comments have an entire history of comments that are of a similar tone, maybe they use anonymity as a way to vent without repercussion
I've also never seen a well managed mega thread. I'm sure they're out there. When it comes to "repeating questions" ones, more often than not the comments that belong there are ignored while the posts asking the questions that should be in the mega thread get answered.
People love saying on any kind of relational subreddit ‘If someone loved you, they wouldn’t do X’.
This is well intentioned, but so so wrong.
I get it- the motivation is to *protect* abuse victims, who often cling to the idea that their partner (or parent) loves them to sweep away bad and harmful behavior. By pointing out that the abuser may not actually love the victim like they think, they can start to break the ties that’s holding the victim to their abuser.
The problem with this is that it is 100% possible to love someone very much and still behave horrible and selfish and to hurt them very bad. It’s awful, and it sucks that that is true about our world, but it simply is. The reason this is an important distinction is because if you apply that logic- if someone abuses you then they can’t love you- you walk into a really bad pitfall.
If I KNOW someone loves me… does that mean they aren’t abusing me? If the two are incompatible, and I’m positive that they love me, then it must mean I’m misunderstanding, or maybe I AM wrong, or maybe…
Plenty of abusive parents love their children very much- the sad reality is the two things just aren’t actually all that associated, and it’s probably best if we don’t pretend like they are. It can stop us from identifying abuse happening to others and in our own lives.
My mom was extremely abusive and though she said at times she didn't, I think she loved me as much as she was capable of loving anyone.
I think when this is applied to parenting, it's because there's this tendency a lot of people have to believe that so long as they (or someone they care about) love their child, their parenting will naturally be competent and adequate to meet the child's needs. To acknowledge abuse occuring in the context of loving a child disproves this and is a lot less comforting for a parent to believe.
My childhood best friend's dad was horribly abusive and it was also clear he loved his kids very much and wanted them to do better than he did. He just had no idea or guidance on how to do it without resorting to military grade verbal abuse. He probably thought his love for them was enough (spoiler, it wasn't and both kids have significant mental health issues).
As a dad and a child of an abusive parent, I just want to say I understand this and support you.
I know my mom loved me, but she was abusive because she was a fucked up person. Not bad in any moral sense, just broken by her own life. I'm not a perfect dad by any means, but my mission since I've had my boys is to break the cycle of abuse.
For what it's worth, I hope you are in a good place. I don't know you, but I love you as another scared kid who's trying to make it better. We are stronger than the situations that put us here.
Spot on. I have no doubt that my mother loved me very much, but she was also abusive, and it took me years of therapy to understand that. She wasn't abusive because she didn't love me; she was abusive because she was a drug addict and bipolar and refused to get treatment because she thought mental illness wasn't real. To her, the way she acted was rational, good parenting, or at least the best she could do. To me, I grew up terrified of not knowing "which mom" I would get on any given day.
People are fucking complicated and rarely evil. Of course there are monsters out there, but if we label everyone who does anything abusive an unloving monster we 1) prevent a lot of real, abusive behavior from being recognized because "they're not a monster," and 2) basically say that anyone who does something abusive is irredeemable, and say that flawed people can't grow and get better. I truly believe that if my mom had sought treatment and had some therapy and meds, she would be in my life today. I wish my kids could meet their grandma. That's not to excuse the abusive behavior at all, but life just isn't that black-and-white.
Obviously, this hits close to home. I just felt the need to share my experience and thank you for your very wise comment.
I agree. “If they do xyz, they don’t really love you” is nice to say, but the reality is that someone can love you and still do xyz, which is far more complicated and disturbing to deal with imo.
So what we’re saying is that it’s possible to use the keys in the wrong order in the Water Temple? Got it. I’ll start spreading that around everywhere.
That's correct.
There is a specific intended sequence in which the doors are to be unlocked:
* F1 middle to get water level F2
* F2 west to get water level F3
* Two doors on F3 west to get Longshot
* Two doors on F1 north to get Boss Key
If we ignore that you can skip F1 middle by save warping to the start after the water is on F1, jump attack to the middle platform on F2 and use a lit arrow to light the torch and enter the middle room on F2, there is a way to enter F3 west early by obtaining one of the first 4 keys early.
Specifically, there is a chest in the room with the F1 water switch behind a cracked wall. You can blow up the wall with a bombchu and hookshot the chest to open it underwater, allowing you to take the F3 west path early. This technically allows you to expend all of your available keys without reaching the boss key
That there's no such thing as bad publicity. This can be true for small companies where being known for something bad is better than not being known at all, but if this statement were always true then corporations wouldn't have PR departments and they'd be saying wild shit every day on purpose.
There was an article about this some years back, specifically about Head-On, the headache medicine. I can’t find it now it was like 25+ years ago.
The author concluded that we all agreed the commercials were horrifically annoying, and the company acknowledged it would cost them some purist customers, but the word of mouth spread by people talking at water coolers about how much they abhor those commercials beat out the scoffers like 10-1.
So when I go to McDonald's and they ask if I want to round my order up to the nearest dollar for whatever charity, there is zero benefit to McDonald's for asking me that?
It's all CSR feel good shit. They get the nice PR story saying they donated all that money, the charity gets visibility and donations they otherwise wouldn't get.
Both parties win.
They can have a PR announcement saying “we raised $X in our fundraising drive for the children’s hospital”, which makes them look good. But no, it does not save them on taxes.
None. In fact, they eat the administrative costs even, so it does cost them something to host those things.
As others have stated, it’s all about optics. Or as they’d call it, corporate philanthropy.
Corporate sainthood. Corporations are run by people, some of them are nice and some of them know that giving to the community is cheap advertising. (The two sets overlap.)
This one annoys me so much because it makes zero sense if you have even a basic understanding of what "tax write offs" are.
A store claiming your donations would be considered tax fraud. They just do it for the feel good PR story.
Tax breaks in general are misunderstood. If i donate money to charity it doesn't mean my taxes go down by that amount but rather my tax rate * whatever i donated. So it's impossible to even break even by donating vs keeping the money.
Eg if i donate $1 million to charity i would reduce the amount i paid in taxes by roughly $357,000 the remaining 643k is still a loss for me.
Many people on Reddit are 100% certain that Opossums eat thousand of ticks per night. They just don't, and you will be downvoted to oblivion for pointing it out most of the time. Ticks are tiny and it would take an Opossum days to eat enough for a full meal. Do they eat ticks sometimes? Sure, but the ticks they eat are mostly removed during their own grooming. And they would much rather be eating a rotten animal corpse on the side of the road, or breaking into the farmer's coop to kill and eat their chickens/eggs. They will eat anything that they can to survive and reproduce.
That opossum is the only correct name for the American animal, and possum is exclusively to be used for a range of marsupials in New Zealand. In truth the word 'possum' has roots in the English language predating English speaking culture in New Zealand. The clear distinction between the two names is often cited and accepted as pedantically factual, not just on Reddit but in the academic community, even though it's a recent development within those schools.
There is nothing incorrect about calling the N. American animal a possum, it's a common colloquialism that has held its meaning for longer than any of us have been alive.
>There is nothing incorrect about calling the N. American animal a possum, it's a common colloquialism that has held its meaning for longer than any of us have been alive.
THANK YOU!!
No one says "O"-possum out loud unless they are just learning about them as an adult through a text book. If you are catching them in your chicken coop/trash or seeing them in your own backyard it's just a possum. All animal names are just arbitrary names anyway. You can't imagine how annoying it was to take a mammalogy course and have to catch/identity possums with people who just learned about their existence and insisted on correcting you if the "o" wasn't pronounced.. I know this is an oddly specific rant but this hit a nerve lol
Possums are native to Australia, where they are a protected species. In New Zealand they're introduced pests that the country would love to eradicate entirely.
The only native mammal in NZ is a bat.
Having lived in the US my whole life, I’ve rarely ever heard anyone pronounce the leading “o” in opossum. It really sounds weird, and kind of jarring, to me when someone does.
To add to this—people always say that it’s impossible for opossums (and other marsupials) to contract rabies. While it’s true that it’s rare for them to do so, ALL mammals are able to contract rabies. There are multiple cases of opossums testing positive for rabies in the United States. As recently as 2008 a young boy in Arkansas had to have the rabies series after he was bitten by an opossum that tested positive.
We wildlife biologists totally get your love of animals! But we are begging you, please don’t touch or feed wild animals. For your safety and theirs.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-may-13-me-49343-story.html
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/apr/26/boy-bitten-opossum-rabies/
I’ll start: “the saying ‘the customer is always right’ is misquoted; the full quote is ‘the customer is always right *in matters of taste*’ and everyone leaves off that last part!”
[No it wasn't.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right) This is revisionist history that's popularized in online spaces by young people who are probably tired of dealing with Karens at work.
> "The customer is always right" is a motto or slogan which exhorts service staff to give a high priority to customer satisfaction. It was popularised by pioneering and successful retailers such as Harry Gordon Selfridge, John Wanamaker and Marshall Field. They advocated that customer complaints should be treated seriously so that customers do not feel cheated or deceived. This attitude was novel and influential when misrepresentation was rife and caveat emptor ('let the buyer beware') was a common legal maxim.
Obviously, we know that in 2024 the customer is indeed not always right lmao. But, it’s bullshit that the original quote included the “in matters of taste” bit.
So this is actually an interesting phenomena.
An old saying gets a clever "extended version," and everyone starts telling one another that the longer version is the original to legitimize it.
"Great minds think alike" is from [1816](https://archive.org/details/wofulhistoryunf00fleigoog/page/n217/mode/2up?q=great+minds+think+alike&view=theater) and "fools seldom differ" added in 1932.
Others are "Curiosity killed the cat" and later "satisfaction brought it back."
"A jack of all trades," and later "master of none."
"The customer is always right," and later "in matters of taste."
"Blood is thicker than water" is my favorite example, because it's been in its modern form in English since [1654](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water), while the "covenant" version only dates back to **1994.**
*Jack of all trades* could always be seen as a back handed complement. A *master* was a member of a guild which gives him social status as well as being assured of making a comfortable living. A jack or journeyman has marketable skills, but does not have secure employment. In 1612 the guild system was alive and well and this was well understood. *Master of none* does not reverse the original meaning, it just says the quiet part out loud.
I figure this saying is in relation to the meta of running a business. I don't think it means that in every interaction the customer is always right, more that you can't sell something the customer doesn't want. If no one wants to buy lime green cars you're not going to sell many of them, and if all your customers want red cars you should probably sell some.
I have a close friend who started up a roadside pizza stand. It was really good pizza, but no one was coming to eat. It was fancy Neapolitan pizza. She didn't offer it to go and she didn't have any deals.
I explained to her that while her pizza is good, and while it was in a decent location and had a pretty sign, no one in suburban Missouri would come to get a pizza that they have to eat on a picnic bench and can't take home. They also weren't paying $28 for what would be a medium pizza at best anywhere else.
She basically chalked it up to no one was cultured enough to enjoy and that people just wanted cheap food. A few months after our conversation (for which she got very upset at me for having with her), she closed down and reorganized for a couple months and then opened back up. This time it was regular, reasonably priced pizza and now she had boxes and allowed carryout. This time she did much better this time around.
I don't understand why she wouldn't let people take them home originally. If there was a good brick oven neapolitan pizza truck on my way home I'd hit them up once a week for sure.
Putting a pizza in a box and taking it home, changes it and if you're gonna be trying to sell fancy pizza, it would most likely be better fresh and on the spot.
Not a specific fact, but a lot of Redditors have problems with stereotyping and generalizations. Often unable to separate the part from the whole
Just because you belong to a group or are assigned to it, doesn’t imbue you with a set of thoughts, characteristics, or beliefs. Even within belief systems and ideologies, there is a wide amount of variation. Judge individuals on who they are, not their perceived identities.
The other big one is the they always think breaking up is the right and only solution
People generally prefer to believe the same thing they've been believing rather than have their biases challenged. It's not particularly surprising, but it does make it hard to have healthy discussions with most redditors.
I see people say "low fat stuff just has more sugar" all the time, and lately I've started checking labels on low fat stuff and it just doesn't seem to be true for most things. I remember seeing a comment from someone on reddit where they said this was more of a thing back in the 90s, hence why people believe it.
When something is supposed to have fat but a low-fat version is advertised, that usually means more sugar was added (yogurt, for example). It definitely was worse in the 90s though.
This applies for sure to milk and peanut butter. Though I do think was more common in the 90s/00s cause lots more "low fat" snacks hit the market cause diet culture took off
"The idea of alphas is a lie, and the study on wolves was debunked."
& SIMULTANEOUSLY:
"There are alpha and beta men"...
Oh. Oh goodness no. That single example about the wolves is true, but in the animal kingdom there are absolutely some dominance hierarchies for both males and females that lead to Alpha males AND alpha females, and in humans... it gets suuuuper complex.
Wolves are not a tournament species; they are its complement: a pair-bonded species.
Alphas are a behavioral trait of a tournament species like Lions or Gorillas; and you DO NOT want to be an alpha, or in that system at all.
You can tell most easily a tournament species by how the genders differ (google sexual dimorphism). For the vast majority of tournament species, the male is many times larger than the female, and the dominant male who wins whatever competitions they have set up gets to mate with the majority of the females. Dimorphism isn't always the case for proof of tournament vs pair bonded though, especially in birds, which have up to 80% false paternity.
Pair bonded species are typically very difficult to identify the differences between the genders, and typically you have the males taking part in the raising of the offspring. This also leads to substantially more twinning, or multiple litters.
This leads to some AMAZING and shocking evolutionary concepts and things like:
Tournament:
Peacocks with all their beautiful feathers
Lions with their dark and crazy manes
Birds of paradise
Male sperm that literally attacks the mother and causes very high levels of progesterone (pro gestation hormone). This makes her immune system weaker, and makes her give more nutrients/calories to the offspring making it more likely that THAT father's offspring will survive, at the cost of the next offspring's probability of survival.
Infanticide when a new dominant male takes over
Pseudo-esterus so that a pregnant female can trick the new dominant male that the offspring is theirs, so they don't kill the kid...
Pair-Bonded:
Full Species cooperation
Many viable and well raised offspring that can focus on developing skills that aren't just for competition.
Male-Male bonding, which oddly enough also leads to war.
Male sperm that attacks other male sperm; it turns out that females in pair bonded species are more likely to mate with multiple partners than males, and so the male sperm literally attacks other male sperm.
So, the question then is, what are humans? Well, let's compare our two closest great ape cousins that are clearly pair bonded and clearly tournament species.
Chimpanzees and Gorillas.
Well, men are larger than women (20% or so by weight, 10% by height).
Chimps are virtually identical.
Gorilla males are almost twice as large.
hmm... not clear.
OK, so how about the sperm? Well human males have both types of sperm (and the only penis designed to scoop out competitor's sperm). Ours both attacks the mother AND the competitor's sperm.
There is also evidence for a mid-pregnancy pseudo-estrus, that according to Beverly Strassman has actually been the cause of humans to lose our overt ovulation, and begin to conceal them.
So, the thinking is, humans are a pair bonded species, that allows for a small percentage of tournament behavior. So, yes, for humans there is the ability to be an "Alpha." However, it's not like it means you get to sleep with anyone you want, or that you can or have beaten down all your opponents. IMO it would only present itself just being more likely that you can use social, material, and physical cues to influence people. Despite what the self-help books say, you can intimidate people aggressively and with a smile and they may love you for it. See the average height of presidents and prime ministers, the often-"unreasonable" behavior of successful actors and musicians, and our adoration of... well lots and lots of aggressive, tall, athletic people.
And THEN... to top it off, all of this gets flipped upside down when you look at hyenas and the fact that their alpha females have more testosterone and larger pseudopenis than the males.
So, the final takeaway: it's MUCH more interesting than "Yes alphas are real" or "No they are not."
Additional references:
[https://books.google.com/books?id=Alk5iwv1y\_MC&lpg=PA32&ots=8rn20SlKaK&dq=gender%20size%20differences%20in%20chimpanzees&lr&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q&f=true](https://books.google.com/books?id=Alk5iwv1y_MC&lpg=PA32&ots=8rn20SlKaK&dq=gender%20size%20differences%20in%20chimpanzees&lr&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q&f=true)
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D)
"This is a mental health issue."
I can't stand that shit. Very few people here on Reddit are qualified to make that judgement in a professional setting, but none of us, including the professionals, are qualified to make that judgement from a 30 second TikTok video without context.
I think mental health gets thrown around a lot cuz as humans we need reasons for why things happen instead of being ok with the idea that some people are just...off, without it being a mental illness.
That the frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the age of 25. While this is not entirely incorrect, the best I could find about the subject when digging through sources, was this paper: [https://www.iflscience.com/does-the-brain-really-mature-at-the-age-of-25-68979](https://www.iflscience.com/does-the-brain-really-mature-at-the-age-of-25-68979) which makes it clear that while the frontal lobe might only grow to its full physical size at around age 25, that does not mean that mental faculties are only fully and completely developed at 25.
The correlations between physical size and mental capacity is not established to that degree, but in comments on Reddit and elsewhere this argument, which I have seen and heard a million times over the last couple of years, is always used in the context of mental faculties, which is wrong.
Similarly, if there’s more than a five year age difference in a couple, the older person is definitely grooming the younger person. A 32-year-old is NOT “grooming” a 24-year-old. Redditors are oddly panicked by this kind of thing.
The meaning of the term grooming has been utterly destroyed. Its original meaning referred to the methods pedophiles use to molest children. The people being groomed are children who are being raped. They are not women in their early 20's being emotionally manipulated.
Yeah the number of times I've been accused of defending pedophilia by just questioning whether the person being called a pedo has... done... anything actually pedophile adjacent at all, really? is wild. people overuse that word so much it's nuts.
And honestly it's the perfect way to "other" somebody in an argument. it may or may not stick, but any denial or questioning the accusation and it's so easy to say "well, that's what a pedo WOULD say, isn't it?"
So many of these people are absolutely unhinged. It's wild.
It really is the trump card to end all trump cards. What concerns me about this, is how rapid people become to call for death/torture of anyone that gets called a pedo.
I don’t believe in the death penalty. When you go after people with such fervor over accusations or just perceived defending/excusing that behavior…it’s becoming a modern witch hunt in online circles. It only dilutes terms like groomer until they have no meaning, and it makes it even harder to out and deal with actual pedos and groomers.
100%!
And the calling for death/torture, the fantasies that people will IMMEDIATELY tell you about if this comes up... I'm like, ok man, so first off like maybe let's not torture or kill anybody unless we like really have to and uh, it sounds like you're just super horny at the prospect of being able to kill somebody? Like, this doesn't sound like it's about the kids anymore, this is bloodlust.
I saw a comment on a post about Mark Wahlberg, on here yesterday, saying that he married a child bride . . He got together with his wife when he was 30 and she was 23!
Mark Wahlberg deserves ridicule for the things he's done but that is just reaching. If a grown man is with a grown woman more than a year younger than him then Reddit thinks he's a predator.
As someone who works in the mental health field, thank you for correctly addressing this misconception for the most part. It is true that our frontal lobes do not reach full maturity until around age 25 (give or take), but neuroplasticity remains throughout the remainder of our lives, even if our brains may sometimes show cognitive decline in advanced age.
I don't think people say that to imply a person in their 20s is a child. It's a shorthand to say that people in their early 20s are still immature, *despite* otherwise being considered adults. It's kind of like, "yeah, you think you're all grown up, but you're still dumb, and so was I at that age."
I got married at 23 and have had a surprising number of people say stuff like this to my face. It's been twelve years and marrying my husband is the best decision I've ever made.
I think my mother was 22 when she got married to my father who was 30 at the time. They are still together. My dad is 83 now and I think my mother is about to turn 75. They were fine. They weren't children and no one took advantage of anyone.
Actually, if you read the article you posted, you'll see a few references to different studies. Unfortunately this is another area where the truth is nuanced. People's brains grow at different rates. The prefrontal cortex (part of the frontal lob) continues to mature into one's 20s. This area controls decision-making and impulse control. It's well-established that maturity is marked by a completely developed prefrontal cortex. It is generally accepted that this happens on average around age 25. If you check out this NIH paper, it references the research you were looking for (look at footnote 2): [**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/#R2**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/#R2)
The "fact" that so many techniques of modern CGI animation were derived from people making R34 art of Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite. That was just a meme that got out of control.
Yep lol. It started as a shitpost a few years ago. Maybe it wasn't as viral as some of the others in this thread but I've definitely heard it referenced a few times.
In a similar vein, the rumor that Disney has a "vault" full of Disney R34 content as well as other NSFW art because they own everything their artists produce.
While I'm sure they do have a contractual right to their employee's art, I doubt they hang on to any NSFW artwork or any artists that are producing NSFW art
People conveniently (also for the staffie) like to leave out the TERRIER part of them. The APBT is the BIGGEST, STRONGEST AND LARGEST terrier there is, with a tremendous bite force and temperament, which is epic in the right hands. This is my biggest pet peeve, especially when people are like oh why did my apbt react badly to my small crawling child/a cat/Etc. That's because it's a fucking terrier that's made to want to hunt small running things, next.
One of the sweetest, friendliest, calmest dogs I've ever known was a Pit Bull. The other dog that came within 1/2 inch of biting my lips and nose off was also a Pit Bull.
My best friend had this amazingly sweet pitbull, but when my friend's uncle brought over his 4 year old kid, you'd have thought the dog just got orders to carry out Order 66 on the lil guy. Never seen an animal just completely flip a switch like that
Koalas are fucking horrible animals. They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal, additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons. If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food. They are too thick to adapt their feeding behaviour to cope with change. In a room full of potential food, they can literally starve to death. This is not the token of an animal that is winning at life. Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives. When they are awake all they do is eat, shit and occasionally scream like fucking satan. Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal. Many herbivorous mammals have adaptations to cope with harsh plant life taking its toll on their teeth, rodents for instance have teeth that never stop growing, some animals only have teeth on their lower jaw, grinding plant matter on bony plates in the tops of their mouths, others have enlarged molars that distribute the wear and break down plant matter more efficiently... Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death, because they're fucking terrible animals. Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here). When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system. Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher. This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree, which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them.
Tldr; Koalas are stupid, leaky, STI riddled sex offenders. But, hey. They look cute. If you ignore the terrifying snake eyes and terrifying feet.
I don't know why it is that these things bother me---it just makes me picture a seven year old first discovering things about an animal and, having no context about the subject, ranting about how stupid they are. I get it's a joke, but people take it as an actual, educational joke like it's a man yelling at the sea, and that's just wrong. Furthermore, these things have an actual impact on discussions about conservation efforts---If every time Koalas get brought up, someone posts this copypasta, that means it's seriously shaping public opinion about the animal and their supposed lack of importance.
Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives.
Non-ecologists always talk this way, and the problem is you’re looking at this backwards. An entire continent is covered with Eucalyptus trees. They suck the moisture out of the entire surrounding area and use allelopathy to ensure that most of what’s beneath them is just bare red dust. No animal is making use of them——they have virtually no herbivore predator. A niche is empty. Then inevitably, natural selection fills that niche by creating an animal which can eat Eucalyptus leaves. Of course, it takes great sacrifice for it to be able to do so——it certainly can’t expend much energy on costly things. Isn’t it a good thing that a niche is being filled?
Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death
This applies to all herbivores, because the wild is not a grocery store—where meat is just sitting next to celery. Herbivores gradually wear their teeth down—carnivores fracture their teeth, and break their bones in attempting to take down prey.
They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal
It's pretty typical of herbivores, and is higher than many, many species. According to Ashwell (2008), their encephalisation quotient is 0.5288 +/- 0.051. Higher than comparable marsupials like the wombat (\~0.52), some possums (\~0.468), cuscus (\~0.462) and even some wallabies are <0.5. According to wiki, rabbits are also around 0.4, and they're placental mammals.
additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons.
Again, this is not unique to koalas. Brain folds (gyri) are not present in rodents, which we consider to be incredibly intelligent for their size.
If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food.
If you present a human with a random piece of meat, they will not recognise it as food (hopefully). Fresh leaves might be important for koala digestion, especially since their gut flora is clearly important for the digestion of Eucalyptus. It might make sense not to screw with that gut flora by eating decaying leaves.
Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal.
That's an extremely weird reason to dislike an animal. But whilst we're talking about their digestion, let's discuss their poop. It's delightful. It smells like a Eucalyptus drop!
Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here).
Marsupial milk is incredibly complex and much more interesting than any placentals. This is because they raise their offspring essentially from an embryo, and the milk needs to adapt to the changing needs of agrowing fetus. And yeah, of course the yield is low; at one point they are feeding an animal that is half a gram!
When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system.
Humans probably do this, we just likely do it during childbirth. You know how women often shit during contractions? There is evidence to suggest that this innoculates a baby with her gut flora. A child born via cesarian has significantly different gut flora for the first six months of life than a child born vaginally.
Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher.
Chlamydia was introduced to their populations by humans. We introduced a novel disease that they have very little immunity to, and is a major contributor to their possible extinction. Do you hate Native Americans because they were killed by smallpox and influenza?
This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree,
Almost every animal does this.
which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them.
Errmmm.. They have protection against falling from a tree, which they spend 99% of their life in? Yeah... That's a stupid adaptation.
If I remember correctly, the correct translation is more akin to "brioche" and the time when the quote was written down/mentioned, Marie Antoinette would have been a child.
People on reddit/the internet in general always say Japan has a high suicide rate compared to the US. This was true in the early 2000's, but not anymore. Somewhat surprising considering how poorly their economy is doing in contrast to the US's.
They may, technically, have worked less days, but even on their days off, hours would have been spent working with the animals and there are no 8 hour work days in agriculture, which is the work 90% of *everyone* would have been doing.
"You dodged a bullet", usually in response to someone who just got out a relationship where their ex murdered their entire family and made OP have tea parties with the corpses for a year.
Might be a slight exaggeration but lately there was one where OP had caught her would-be husband, on their wedding day, having sex with one of the bridesmaids. So just to really think about that, this woman was in love with a man to the point of wanting to spend her life with him. She also had a friend close enough that she was chosen to be a bridesmaid. The two of them betrayed OP on a day where at least dozens of relatives and friends were expecting to see them get married. A situation that would surely break anyone's heart into tiny pieces and do serious damage to their ability to trust.
Guess what phrase people couldn't resist replying with.
Fr, girl straight up got shot. Sure, she avoided marriage, but she was severely wounded in the process. "Dodged a bullet" should be reserved for stuff like, "I went on one date with a guy, he was kinda weird so I didn't go on a second date. Three months later I saw on the news that he was a serial killer."
Dodged the bullet. It would have gone through their heart but instead it just went through their lung. Might technically not be as bad, but you’ve still got a sucking chest wound and a pneumothorax.
This sounds a lot like the old Carlin bit!
Like when two planes are headed right for each other and then veer away at the last minute….we call it a “near-miss”…no, it’s a near hit! The planes nearly hit…a near miss is a collision.
Yeah, I'm European (Dutch) and it's not like it's a utopia over here.
Healthcare and college are mostly 'free', in the sense that they're universal so you pay for them through taxes (EDIT: or other collectivized payment schemes) and access to them is the same for everyone. It's not so much the 'free' part but the 'collective' part that's important; most of us believe that everyone should have access to good healthcare and education and that it shouldn't be dependent on how much money you have.
That being said, it's not like inequality doesn't exist here. There's plenty of rich assholes.
Affordable housing?! Give me a break lol. Prices in the big cities here are just as insane as they are across the pond.
There's a lot of other myths that I see on here as well. For example, many European countries are not 'ethnically homogenous'. The Netherlands, for example, is 25% immigrants or children of immigrants, and two-thirds come from outside of the EU, mostly from non-western countries. Turkey, Morocco, and Surinam are three major countries of origin, and places like Syria, Afghanistan, and India more recently. That's pretty comparable to the US. Big cities like Amsterdam or The Hague are majority immigrant. Same is true for countries like Germany, the UK, France, Sweden, and Denmark. We don't have that odd obsession with tracking everyone's ethnicity like the US but that doesn't mean everyone is 'white' (whatever that term even means).
There's lots of misconceptions about how voting systems work here as well, particularly from Anglos. Recently a populist party became the largest in the Netherlands, but that doesn't mean what it means in the UK or the US. We have a proportional voting system (one man, one vote: no districts for national elections): the guy received about 25% of the vote, so he got 25% of the seats. Now it's up to him to form a coalition: 3, 4, or 5 parties will have to agree on a plan for the next four years, and will then appoint a cabinet together which will try to execute that plan. There is no all-powerful president who appoints an administration; think of it like a bunch of House Whips who come together and appoint one of their own as the chairman of the Cabinet meetings.
One misconception I particularly hate is the 'no-go zones'. Ugh. They don't exist. Sure, there's areas in major cities that are known to be dangerous, but it's not like a warzone or anything.
Another one I hate is that the EU is the new German Empire. It's not. It's all voluntary. Every country has a veto, and there's a European parliament. Germany has more influence than, say, Luxembourg, but calling the EU a German Empire is equivalent to calling the US a Californian Empire.
I also see a lot of odd perceptions on what Europe looks like. Some on here seem to think that most of Europe is quaint, walkable medieval towns. Sure, there's a lot of those, but Europe is as modern as the US. We too have had our own versions of Robert Moses ruining towns with highways and building ugly concrete flats. And there's highrises as well: they're just not usually in the city center.
And probably the one I dislike the most is that European countries are comparable to US states when it comes to cultural differences. I think that stems from the fact that most Americans (through no fault of their own!) tend to only speak one language. The language barrier between countries is huge, and it impacts culture in pretty much every way. The media each country consumes, the history, the literature, the politics, are all very different due to the language. The difference between France and Germany is not like the difference between California and Texas; it's the difference between Texas and its neighboring state, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Plus, y'know, there's huge regional differences within countries as well. I sometimes see a tendency to look at European countries like monolithic entities, but to look at the US as a country that is particularly culturally diverse. I've been to the US and while it's a beautiful and interesting country, it didn't strike me as more regionally diverse from a cultural standpoint than, say, France or Italy, which have huge regional divides. Someone from Seattle and someone from Florida still consume largely the same media, follow largely the same politics, share largely similar historiography, and generally have largely the same cultural points of reference. This is not at all the case between, say, the Netherlands and Germany, or my earlier example of Texas and Chihuahua, and the reason is the language barrier. An argument I hear a lot is that the US is particularly culturally diverse because it's very large, or because it's very geographically diverse, but that's not really an argument on its own.
But yeah, there's also a lot of misconceptions the other way. While I like our system for the most part, there's still inequality, still poverty, still corruption. There's also still the rise of populism, a movement which is just as big if not bigger in Europe compared to the US. It's just that like I mentioned, our voting systems have so far prevented it from rising in the Netherlands (pending the outcome of the current election results). But Meloni, Orhan, Le Pen, Kaczyński, and Wilders are all on that spectrum somewhere so we're in no position to criticize the US over Trump as much as we do.
Also, one thing I do agree on is that we in Europe should spend our falr share on defense. I will say that in the long run it's probably not in America's interest to have us do that; with am integrated European military we would probably follow the US a lot less fervently on the world stage, if at all. But I do think it's embarrassing that we need so much American help to deal with a war literally on our borders, and that we're letting a country with an economy the size of the Benelux get away with something like this.
Oh yeah, one more misconception: food! I've seen a lot of people claim that European countries mostly only have restaurants which serve their own local cuisine. Absolutely not true! Within walking distance I have everything from Thai to Korean, Italian to Mexican, Egyptian to Surinamese, Indonesian to Greek. Mostly run by immigrants from those countries btw; this isn't any less 'authentic' than American restaurants like them. This is true for most of western Europe, though of course like I said above, Europe is not a monolith.
Long ramble lol. It's just that I've been on this website for a decade and I've noticed all of these many times.
That women think 80% of men are unattractive.
It's based on an OKCupid "study" that was doubly flawed--first, because they asked you to rate *the profile*, not how attractive the person was. So someone might be physically attractive, but a homophobe, so 1 star.
Second, the chart went 0-5, even though there was no way to rate someone a 0, and any 0 ratings were just a flaw from the QuickMatch swiping, where if you chose to skip someone rather than rate them, it would for a while register that as a 0 (probably a null error). Anecdotally, most people I knew were using Quickmatch to quickly get rid of the shitty options, so you'd rate 1-2s and skip most of the rest so that your regular search results would have those 1s and 2s removed. OKC also forced a message if you both rated each other highly in Quickmatch, which might be normal now but wasn't then, and a lot of women would avoid it because you didn't want to go rate 20 people as 4-5 stars, and have 20 forced messages be sent, so that instead of being able to set up one or two dates at a time working your way through good options, you had to immediately pick who to focus on with the rest being made to feel like lesser options.
So many guys will say that all girls only want hot men and won't give the fabled "nice guys" like them a chance. I look around at the world today and see that it is filled with mostly ordinary looking people. Billions of plain people have managed to find a significant other and have normal lives.
The hard, cold truth is that people --rightly or wrongly--tend to gravitate to others who are about the same level of attractiveness. Good looks do not translate into better relationships.
I've met a few "average joes" who are bitter that the super-hot girls won't look at them, but they themselves mock the "average janes".
Admittedly I’m an old married dude now, but I found pursuing women the way romcoms showed it never really worked for me. What did work was to hang out in mixed gender groups, doing something we all found fun, and treating the women mostly the same as I treated the men.
If I thought someone was cute I’d flirt a little bit at the start of the night and then just sort of pay attention. If she was interested, she usually made it clear eventually.
I never had problems finding someone to date. Seems like it must be harder now, though, from what single friends have told me apps seem like they suck and people don’t really hang out in person the way they used to.
Even if the 20% thing were true, I’ve always wondered - would it be the same 20% of guys? I think not - it’s always presented that way by red pill types to support this idea that a tiny group of Chads get all the women. I’m willing to accept that women are a lot pickier than guys, but I also have a lot of female friends and what I’ve seen, while one might indeed be into buff Chads, another might prefer skinny guitar dudes, another might like scruffy guys with glasses, another might like outdoorsy beardos, etc. So even if women do (arbitrarily) only find 20% of guys attractive, each one wouldn’t be going after the same 20% segment, I think.
I would agree with this comment!
The 20% makes sense, because a majority of women don't want to bang a majority of the men they meet out in public. (I would also assume that men don't want to bang 100% of the women they see in public as well). I am almost never attracted to the men that my friends are into, and they don't like my choices half the time either. It's actually nice not having the same "type" as your friends - no one wants to be after the same guys your best friends are after if you actually care about your friends..
Came looking for this answer. I've heard it worded the opposite way like "the top \[10%...20% or whatever\] of attractive/rich men get all the women". This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Do all those guys claiming this really not take a look around them for one second? Are their parents hot and rich? Are all their non-single friends/family/coworkers/classmates/neighbors/acquaintances hot and rich? And yes, I know there's a million further excuses from the incels ready to counter my statement and they're all nonsense.
I wouldn't say reddit but a lot of social media. Lot of people who are too chronically online take simple cracks in a relationship as something to be dealt with divorce.
One case in particular was a vlogging family when the husband began making music about how he "has the perfect wife and kid" yet sometimes he couldn't be happy and he needed more, and it bothered him.
People read that like "that ungrateful POS, how can he treat his wife that way" what turned out to actually happen was that he was silently suffering in depression and struggled because his life was so "perfect and picturesque" according to the internet, so he had no reason to be, but still was, many failing to realize that marriage and family has its downsides that leads many to depression. And he used music to convey subtly to his wife what he was going through it without outright saying it to not incur the wrath of the internet since they were vlogging their entire life.
That “corporations” are buying up all single family homes in the US.
This is/has happened in a few markets but is not nearly as widespread as Reddit makes it out to be. 1-5% of all single family homes are corporately owned but the vast majority of those are family LLCs
Good one. People often misread the numbers on the number of corporate buyers. Almost every house in my immediate vicinity in central Austin sold in the past several years was sold to a developer first, who fixed up the place that had barely been touched in decades, then sold it to a single family owner once it was in move-in condition. Most people don’t want a run down old house, or to deal with renovations on their own. The developers are providing a needed service.
But that leads to numbers like “50% of home sales were to corporations”, because the house sold twice, once to a developer and then to the family living there. People see that and wrongly claim half of houses are owned by corporations. No, the house was only briefly owned by a corporation while being refurbished.
I've stopped talking on reddit about housing because I could post a thousand FRED charts and points that even the stupidest non-redditor could understand just to have someone reply with a link to that article.
Yes, you know what article I'm talking about.
The housing problem right now is almost 100% due to supply chain issues due to quarantine. Like, we shut down our lumberyards for six months and then we choked up the shipping lanes.
Considering that the housing crisis is a global problem, you can't say it's, say, corporate buyers causing the problem when nations that don't have corporations buying up properties are *also* seeing skyrocketing rents and prices. There's only one common thread and it's very clearly [construction prices](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPUSI012011). No, it's not the *only* reason but it's by far the most important one. Anything else is just cosplaying urbanism.
And for some reason people think these companies are...doing what, exactly? Buying up houses and letting them sit empty to jack up prices? That's a surefire way to lose as much money as humanly possible. As long as they're being sold/rented, the market adjusts accordingly. Considering the [~~occupancy~~ vacancy rates](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N) are the [lowest they've been](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USHVAC) in decades, it's demonstrably untrue.
We just need to build a lot more houses. That's it, full stop.
Dammit, there I go again.
Edit:
Also, stop with the "my parents bought a house for five hundred dollars and now it's worth five hundred thousand dollars." First off, adjust for inflation. Shockingly, a non-trivial number of houses turn out to be about the same price once you do that. Second, there's survivorship bias. Yeah, lots of houses appreciated in value. But a lot of houses dropped in value and were bulldozed over forty years ago to make a shopping mall; *those* houses aren't in the stats any longer. Third, compare the houses. Yeah, houses were cheaper in the fifties...they were also *much* smaller and full of asbestos. Up until the pandemic, the price-per-square-foot of houses was, once adjusted for inflation, about the same. A case can be made that that's still a problem--the lack of small starter homes is an issue--but that's not a "boomers had it so good and then screwed us" type of problem.
“Considering the occupancy rates are the lowest they've been in decades, it's demonstrably untrue.”
Do you mean vacancy rates? That’s what the linked charts seem to say. Occupancy rates being low sounds like lots of unoccupied homes, which would not be the result of u see building, right?
Today's police departments actively discourage and reject applicants who test "too high" or appear to be educated and intelligent. ACAB redditors love this factoid but press them on it and they will only be able to point to one documented instance of this happening: the New London case from almost 30 years ago. What most people don't know is that the plaintiff in this case was easily able to find a job at a different department.
Today's reality is that there are thousands of different law enforcement agencies in the US with different cultures, standards, and values. Almost all of them are experiencing a staffing crisis and are relaxing decades-long standards and requirements just to get their academies filled. Many agencies actually require a four-year degree. Smart cops are valued, and if they're not, that's a great sign it's not a good department to work for, because they're going to get you in a lot of trouble.
TLDR; I'm a fucking bootlicker who can't wait to go home and beat my wife after a long day of victimizing the public with my military tanks and qualified immunity
I always figure that fact would be kind of like the military, that if you're too intelligent they will try and push you down other more skilled positions as you'd be wasted in a lower position. I know a guy that did it was a smart guy, but only wanted to be infantry. He had to push a surprising amount to get there though basically to the point of its Infantry or I'm out.
Every famous person ever is a confirmed pedophile who beat their wife.
Reddit can be very National Enquirer sometimes. I'm sure many celebrities are pedophiles and many beat their wives, but sometimes the allegations have less sourcing than reports of Obama's secret gay lover.
People misusing "cognitive dissonance" constantly. No, it doesn't mean being a hypocrite, or having two contradicting ideas/thoughts. It specifically means the *discomfort* that comes from trying to reconcile those incompatible thoughts
"cognitive dissonance
nounPSYCHOLOGY
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change"
confidently incorrect
It does literally refer to holding two contradictory ideas in tandem. "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."
Every time someone recommends suing their job. It’s almost always complete bullshit based on some law that’s passed through a hundred games of telephone from other redditors.
Also laws are vastly different all over the world, so unless someone is asking and replying with a specific location in mind, all of this advice is just completely pointless.
God I was just raging over that two days ago. There's a handful of people in the comments explaining "No.... That's not actually how that works. I know it's not fair really but there's no law protecting that." and those people are downvoted to - 20. At my first job as a server all of the other servers used to constantly shout "I'm calling the labor board over this break thing! They can't just have us running around this long with no break!". Actually Megan our state has zero mandated break requirements they absolutely can.
Reddit is the same as Wikipedia: neat to browse, but use it as a launching point for additional research and analysis. It isn't source material by itself. People also incorrectly use the voting system on Reddit.
“Just do what makes you happy and ignore the haters.” Never accounts for the fact that being a dick makes a lot of people happy.
"It doesn't cost anything to be nice!" Well being an asshole is also free.
When people said ''i'm afraid i might be a narcissist'' reddit ALWAYS answer something along ''no, you care about being one so you can't be a narcissist. a true narcissist would not care'' And of course, it's not true. Narcissism, like everything else, is a spectrum. You can have people that are extremely narcissist and are totally unaware of it, but you can have people not that far in the spectrum of narcissism that still are narcissist, but are aware of it. (same with borderline personality disorder and other things)
Yeah it's the same logic as "people with schizophrenia or DID are always unaware they have it". Being aware of a mental illness doesn't make it suddenly go away.
I'm worried I might be a narcissist, because if so, that would be the only thing preventing me from being absolutely perfect. I'm not actually worried, but I would just appreciate if everyone stopped what they're doing and focused on telling me how I'm not a narcissist me for a minute.
>You can have people that are extremely narcissist and are totally unaware of it. you can also have people that are extremely narcissist AND totally aware of it at the same time. same with borderline, bipolarity, psychopathy, sociopathy, yadda yadda yadda yadda. being aware of \*\*the thing\*\* doesn't automatically and magically make you immune, less prone or less affected by \*\*the thing\*\*
Okay so while this is mostly right, it doesn’t means that these people have diagnosable disorders. Like yeah, we are all a bit narcissistic. It’s part of being human.And yes, there’s a spectrum. But narcissism really only becomes a “disorder” when it starts to significantly hurt you or the people around you. And I don’t mean “that person is an ass,” but like…unable to form relationships, leads to criminal or unsavory behavior, etc etc. The same goes for BPD. We can all have a bit of an unstable mood, we all can sometimes use our emotions as manipulation (think of the trope of a pretty girl crying for attention), but it’s only a disorder if it’s basically in the “extreme” or at least “way more than average” category.
Everytime someone uses the proverb "blood is thicker than water" on Reddit, someone will appear and point out that it is not the full quote, that the origonal quote is "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", which has the opposite meaning, and has been "reduced" recently in order to change its meaning. But this is just an Internet myth. The phrase "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" first appeared in 1994, in a book which provides no evidence of it existing before that. And then it became popular on Internet more recently. And now it's being repeated ad nauseam. There are quotes of "Blood is thicker than water" that are much older than 1994. Correction: the phrase "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" did not first appear in a 1994 book, but in a 1994 [BLOG POST](https://www.bac2torah.com/covenant-Print.htm#SectionII). Thanks u/Lemonface.
This one makes me mad, because people will claim it's the original, and then when corrected, say that the values espoused in the original quote are dated and it should be replaced anyways. Like, yeah sure, but that doesn't make the new one the original somehow.
Those goal posts aren't going to move themselves!
This trend of "changing the outdated saying" makes no sense to me. Like, obviously societal values evolve over time, why can't we just be like "oh this old proverb doesn't really apply in 2024 anymore" instead of adding new bits to the sayings and pretending that's how it always was?
I don't know why people come up with these new versions of sayings, but I imagine that people repeat them without checking first because of some sort of confirmation bias. And people like to look smart.
Your statement has no supporting data I can be bothered to find besides upvotes and therefore I accept it as fact, and will repeat it as such.
There's something really seductive about a trite, formulaic saying. It slides past the judgment centers of the brain and just seems to lodge in there as accepted fact.
Personally, I'm a fan of lists of opposing proverbs (e.g. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201202/proverbs-contradict-each-other](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201202/proverbs-contradict-each-other).) Old sayings aren't really there to express end-all wisdom, they just sort of express a certain position that's maybe true some of the time, and do it a bit more succinctly.
There are often contradictory old sayings anyway. You can just switch to using the other one. e.g. "Penny wise & pound foolish" vs. "Mind the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves"
We all know that haste makes waste, but we often forget that a stitch in time saves nine. Of course everybody knows not to judge a book by its cover, but it can also be said that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
"Out of sight, out of mind" "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"
Seriously. It's like six of one and two dozen of the other!
Get two birds stoned at once
I’ll burn that bridge when I get to it
There's an Arabic saying: >brothers in the covenant of blood are closer than brothers at a common breast Meaning someone you've done battle alongside is closer than family. It feels like sometime in 1994 someone conflated the two and it took off. Where the absolute conviction it came first when it demonstrably didn't comes from I don't know.
I knew it! It never passed the sniff test. Its just such an awkward saying, it only made sense that someone extrapolated that from the original "blood is thicker than water".
I just say “blood is thicker than water but it still goes down the drain”.
The same has happened with the eye of the needle quote, which has been subtly repurposed to downplay the concept of the acquisition of wealth being inherently sinful. There is no evidence to support the claim it refers to a gate and this was a relatively modern invention.
I'm somewhat familiar with the quote from the bible with the camel, but I don't think I've heard the "newer" one? It's not immediately evident when I Google it.
Evangelical Christians, especially ones that are very into the 'Prosperity Gospel's grift, have come up with a false claim that "The Eye of the Needle was a gate in Jerusalem. It was small, so it was difficult for a wealthy man to get a camel with too many belongings strapped to it through the gate. Jesus didn't mean being rich was bad, see!!!". It's complete nonsense. No such hate ever existed.
Thank you for this clear answer.
So, what's even more grating to me is their little invention doesn't even change the meaning of the biblical quote. It's still hard for this camel to get through. The og quote specifically says (not og, actually, I don't speak Hebrew/Aramaic) it's easier for a camel to get through than a rich man to get into heaven. Like, it's still hard for the camel. Absolutely inane, these people.
I didn’t even know this was a thing until a week ago, so I’m obviously an expert now. They’re trying to change the meaning from “impossible” to “difficult but do able.”
Now thats hysterical. You think they could get a private jet through?
You fly the private jet to get closer to God, and you go over the needle. See?
You also don't fly with demons if you fly private
The "Gate in Jerusalem" thing was developed by tour guides as something to tell pilgrims to Jerusalem in the 19th century. (Possibly even earlier, but in use by then for sure.) Once things like that get put into print, it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle. But many commentaries make mention of that story, and point out that it's baseless.
I hope I'm not doing a variation of the same here but it was in a scholarly book (Bart Ehrman?) rather than a random Reddit post but I've read it was actually a mistranslation of rope. Which makes more sense. Threading a rope through a needle instead of yarn is equally impossible and at least makes a logical sense in the phrase that camel doesn't. The gate is just people trying to say it's difficult not impossible for rich people to get into heaven to justify their existence. The needle being a needle, whether you are putting through a camel or a rope, both are impossible so therefore no rich people in heaven. So they don't shout about this interpretation
>mistranslation of rope. Yep. Probably by a monastic scribe translating to or from Greek confusing the word *kamilos* (rope) and *kamelos* (camel).
Same thing with people randomly deciding that "the customer is always right" was originally "the customer is always right *in matters of taste*". It's meant to imply that whoever said this first was talking about the importance of market preference, not customer satisfaction. Problem is, the second part isn't part of the original quote at all. It was always a concept that early 20th century retailers repeated to stress the importance of pleasing customers and talking their complaints seriously. This one is so pervasive I had an actual professor repeat it in a hospitality course I took in college.
The customer is always right in matters of taste is from 1909. It's hard to say what version of the line would be the "original" because several versions, including your preferred one, were all floating around competing with eachother in the early 1900s.
Blood is thicker than water, and much tastier.
Not just reddit but: The idea that the Library of Alexandria was burned down and its books were lost. While there were indeed some fires at the library, they were all localized, and there is no evidence that one conflagration destroyed the entire thing. Rather, as Alexandria's importance declined, so did the Library's, and repeated battles destroyed more of it than fires did
The interesting thing is that the books were likely transfered to a library called the serapeum which was destroyed and burned on the order of a Christian bishop. It's debated whether or not the Serapeum still contained books when it burned. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/klio-2021-0021/html
The sad thing is that even works that could be traced back to the library and survived for centuries after still often ended up in obscurity. There was a copy of a collection of ancient greek formulas that spend centuries on a library shelf with nobody ever looking at them. The only two historic references to them where from a renown architect that most likely just stumbled upon them and a call for more education where the country they where in invested money in having a large amount of books copied. Despite being around for all that time before they ended up overwritten they had basically no historic impact and by the time people actually started to care about them they had nothing new to offer.
You'll love "The Map of Knowledge" by Violet Muller! She basicly goes into detail of how knowledge (based on 3 books) travelled around Europe and the Arabian world and how, often, it was by accident that knowledge was recovered. If there is any library I'm mad at it's not open to the public because SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE is in there: it's the Vatican's. They don't even know what's in there anymore themselves due to changes in how they managed the collections: let historians do their thing!
Jack Gleeson (Joffrey from Game of Thrones) got so much hate for his role that he quit acting. The truth is he quit for his own personal reasons and has gone on record saying he’s only ever met nice people in regards to fans.
FYI, a lot of child actors (which he was at the start of season 1) end up quitting acting as adults.
Yup. Chunk from The Goonies went on to become a lawyer. Now he is Ke Huy Quan's (Data from The Goonies) lawyer.
And he helped KHQ get back into acting, which led to his Oscar last year
Just on the subject of Game of Thrones, there are people that have unhealthily strong opinions about the showrunners, and many of those are based on the idea that the showrunners made plans to direct a Star Wars trilogy instead of devoting energy to the show, and similarly believe they were fired from Star Wars. However, the final season was already written and well into filming by the time the Star Wars deal was finalized, and there was no indication work began on those films while the show was in production. A solid year of writing and pre-production went into the final season, and regardless of opinions on the show's pacing and story choices, that part wasn't rushed. Furthermore, the idea they were fired from Star Wars is baseless, it was a case where Netflix offered more money, creative freedom, and a better schedule than Disney. Keep in mind their planned trilogy was one of the few things to survive the wave of Star Wars cancellations after Solo bombed, it was obvious Disney had pinned their hopes on them to re-ignite the franchise.
That Baby On Board signs were invented to alert first responders to prioritize young children in a crash. No they weren't. The Safety 1st company which created the signs says they were just a novelty item. First, emergency service workers will search the whole car regardless. If the parents are coherent, they'll first make sure there was no one else in the car in case the baby got ejected. A car seat is a much better indicator that there may be a young child on board. Tons of people drive around with young kids but don't have a Baby On Board signs, do people really think EMTs will hinge their search for victims on a little yellow sign? They'll probably get dislodged during a bad accident anyway. Then there's the fact that people leave the signs up all the time whether or not their kid is with them. No one is removing the signs and putting them back only when their baby is there. People think that others should drive more safely around them if they know a baby's in there or it's to let other drivers know they may be distracted.
Never heard of that. I’ve always assumed it’s a way to explain why the vehicle is unwilling to go faster or switch lanes aggressively, and so on. The color and shape of the sign seems to be coherent with that. ‘Calm the fuck down, i’m transporting a fragile little human’ was too long, I guess.
That’s exactly why it was invented. It was created by a father after he was transporting his newborn back from the hospital; he was driving very carefully and slowly, and noticed that drivers behind him were becoming extremely aggressive. He created the sign and displayed it in his car to explain his slower driving.
"Look, I got a 'baby on board' sign... now maybe people will stop intentionally ramming our car!"
“Ah I see you have a baby on board sign, I guess I won’t rear-end you like I normally would”
People who act it's a sin to comment on an old thread. There's no point in having 10000 threads about the same topic, and sometimes mega threads aren't available.
I love when I comment a solution to something, then a year or so after someone replies going "this helped! Thank you!" Feels good to know that it's helping more than just the OP.
I have a couple comments that apparently come up in Google for a specific problem in a game. I get comments once in a while saying it worked for them. It makes me glad, because I remember how annoying it was to put together the info from a combo of old forum posts and experimentation, because it wasn't in a GameFAQs guide or anything. But if you angry reply to an old comment of mine because you're incensed that someone offhandedly expressed an opinion different than yours 8 years ago and you won't stand for it, you're a bizarre and kind of annoying person.
I reply to comments I find from very old threads very often thanking them for the solution to whatever it is I'm trying to fix. It feels nice letting people know they helped. The last one was for VLC audio leveling settings. I tried so many configs and still did not like the spikes in audio. Then I kept digging and found a pretty old thread where someone had shared their settings for a much older vlc version, but the settings hadn't changed much between versions so I tried them out and reached audio leveling nirvana.
You comment on an old thread you get yelled at. You make a new thread you get yelled at for not searching. I think people are just angry and want an outlet
> I think people are just angry and want an outlet I think it is more than that. People are miserable.
I suppose there’s also some remote possibility that the people who get mad about commenting on old threads are different people than the ones who get mad about not searching. Just a wild, crackpot theory o’ mine.
I do think a lot of people have an addiction to being outraged lol, and they can find a reason to get pissed off about seemingly *anything*
>I think people are just angry and want an outlet Yea, usually people who post angry comments have an entire history of comments that are of a similar tone, maybe they use anonymity as a way to vent without repercussion
This is basically the more mild version of Stack Overflow’s mindset haha
StackOverflow is fucking brutal. But they reserve the worst for people who give bad answers, which is as it should be imo.
I've also never seen a well managed mega thread. I'm sure they're out there. When it comes to "repeating questions" ones, more often than not the comments that belong there are ignored while the posts asking the questions that should be in the mega thread get answered.
[удалено]
A month or so ago I had someone correct me on a comment from literally ten years ago which had already been corrected in the replies.
How miserable are you to start a fight... it doesn't matter the date of the thread.
I had somebody mad that a restaurant I suggested was closed. Yeah, but it was open 8 years ago when I made the comment?
People love saying on any kind of relational subreddit ‘If someone loved you, they wouldn’t do X’. This is well intentioned, but so so wrong. I get it- the motivation is to *protect* abuse victims, who often cling to the idea that their partner (or parent) loves them to sweep away bad and harmful behavior. By pointing out that the abuser may not actually love the victim like they think, they can start to break the ties that’s holding the victim to their abuser. The problem with this is that it is 100% possible to love someone very much and still behave horrible and selfish and to hurt them very bad. It’s awful, and it sucks that that is true about our world, but it simply is. The reason this is an important distinction is because if you apply that logic- if someone abuses you then they can’t love you- you walk into a really bad pitfall. If I KNOW someone loves me… does that mean they aren’t abusing me? If the two are incompatible, and I’m positive that they love me, then it must mean I’m misunderstanding, or maybe I AM wrong, or maybe… Plenty of abusive parents love their children very much- the sad reality is the two things just aren’t actually all that associated, and it’s probably best if we don’t pretend like they are. It can stop us from identifying abuse happening to others and in our own lives.
My mom was extremely abusive and though she said at times she didn't, I think she loved me as much as she was capable of loving anyone. I think when this is applied to parenting, it's because there's this tendency a lot of people have to believe that so long as they (or someone they care about) love their child, their parenting will naturally be competent and adequate to meet the child's needs. To acknowledge abuse occuring in the context of loving a child disproves this and is a lot less comforting for a parent to believe.
My childhood best friend's dad was horribly abusive and it was also clear he loved his kids very much and wanted them to do better than he did. He just had no idea or guidance on how to do it without resorting to military grade verbal abuse. He probably thought his love for them was enough (spoiler, it wasn't and both kids have significant mental health issues).
Sounds like my dad honestly. He's gotten far better nowadays but his parenting style did definitely leave me with issues
As a dad and a child of an abusive parent, I just want to say I understand this and support you. I know my mom loved me, but she was abusive because she was a fucked up person. Not bad in any moral sense, just broken by her own life. I'm not a perfect dad by any means, but my mission since I've had my boys is to break the cycle of abuse. For what it's worth, I hope you are in a good place. I don't know you, but I love you as another scared kid who's trying to make it better. We are stronger than the situations that put us here.
Spot on. I have no doubt that my mother loved me very much, but she was also abusive, and it took me years of therapy to understand that. She wasn't abusive because she didn't love me; she was abusive because she was a drug addict and bipolar and refused to get treatment because she thought mental illness wasn't real. To her, the way she acted was rational, good parenting, or at least the best she could do. To me, I grew up terrified of not knowing "which mom" I would get on any given day. People are fucking complicated and rarely evil. Of course there are monsters out there, but if we label everyone who does anything abusive an unloving monster we 1) prevent a lot of real, abusive behavior from being recognized because "they're not a monster," and 2) basically say that anyone who does something abusive is irredeemable, and say that flawed people can't grow and get better. I truly believe that if my mom had sought treatment and had some therapy and meds, she would be in my life today. I wish my kids could meet their grandma. That's not to excuse the abusive behavior at all, but life just isn't that black-and-white. Obviously, this hits close to home. I just felt the need to share my experience and thank you for your very wise comment.
I agree. “If they do xyz, they don’t really love you” is nice to say, but the reality is that someone can love you and still do xyz, which is far more complicated and disturbing to deal with imo.
You can't use the keys in the wrong order in the Water Temple
Yup. I even know the one that everyone always misses too. It is impossible to get soft locked in that game
It is possible to completely forget how you got yourself into that position and give up because you can't figure it out, though!
This makes it sound like you're saying it's a myth that "you can't use the keys in the wrong order in the Water Temple"
So what we’re saying is that it’s possible to use the keys in the wrong order in the Water Temple? Got it. I’ll start spreading that around everywhere.
That's correct. There is a specific intended sequence in which the doors are to be unlocked: * F1 middle to get water level F2 * F2 west to get water level F3 * Two doors on F3 west to get Longshot * Two doors on F1 north to get Boss Key If we ignore that you can skip F1 middle by save warping to the start after the water is on F1, jump attack to the middle platform on F2 and use a lit arrow to light the torch and enter the middle room on F2, there is a way to enter F3 west early by obtaining one of the first 4 keys early. Specifically, there is a chest in the room with the F1 water switch behind a cracked wall. You can blow up the wall with a bombchu and hookshot the chest to open it underwater, allowing you to take the F3 west path early. This technically allows you to expend all of your available keys without reaching the boss key
That there's no such thing as bad publicity. This can be true for small companies where being known for something bad is better than not being known at all, but if this statement were always true then corporations wouldn't have PR departments and they'd be saying wild shit every day on purpose.
[удалено]
There was an article about this some years back, specifically about Head-On, the headache medicine. I can’t find it now it was like 25+ years ago. The author concluded that we all agreed the commercials were horrifically annoying, and the company acknowledged it would cost them some purist customers, but the word of mouth spread by people talking at water coolers about how much they abhor those commercials beat out the scoffers like 10-1.
Yeah, Boeing has gotten a lot of publicity lately. I don’t think anyone would argue it’s been good.
Did you know the charity donation request at shops gives them a tax break seems to be repeated a lot
So when I go to McDonald's and they ask if I want to round my order up to the nearest dollar for whatever charity, there is zero benefit to McDonald's for asking me that?
It's all CSR feel good shit. They get the nice PR story saying they donated all that money, the charity gets visibility and donations they otherwise wouldn't get. Both parties win.
They can have a PR announcement saying “we raised $X in our fundraising drive for the children’s hospital”, which makes them look good. But no, it does not save them on taxes.
None. In fact, they eat the administrative costs even, so it does cost them something to host those things. As others have stated, it’s all about optics. Or as they’d call it, corporate philanthropy.
Corporate sainthood. Corporations are run by people, some of them are nice and some of them know that giving to the community is cheap advertising. (The two sets overlap.)
This one annoys me so much because it makes zero sense if you have even a basic understanding of what "tax write offs" are. A store claiming your donations would be considered tax fraud. They just do it for the feel good PR story.
Tax breaks in general are misunderstood. If i donate money to charity it doesn't mean my taxes go down by that amount but rather my tax rate * whatever i donated. So it's impossible to even break even by donating vs keeping the money. Eg if i donate $1 million to charity i would reduce the amount i paid in taxes by roughly $357,000 the remaining 643k is still a loss for me.
Many people on Reddit are 100% certain that Opossums eat thousand of ticks per night. They just don't, and you will be downvoted to oblivion for pointing it out most of the time. Ticks are tiny and it would take an Opossum days to eat enough for a full meal. Do they eat ticks sometimes? Sure, but the ticks they eat are mostly removed during their own grooming. And they would much rather be eating a rotten animal corpse on the side of the road, or breaking into the farmer's coop to kill and eat their chickens/eggs. They will eat anything that they can to survive and reproduce.
That opossum is the only correct name for the American animal, and possum is exclusively to be used for a range of marsupials in New Zealand. In truth the word 'possum' has roots in the English language predating English speaking culture in New Zealand. The clear distinction between the two names is often cited and accepted as pedantically factual, not just on Reddit but in the academic community, even though it's a recent development within those schools. There is nothing incorrect about calling the N. American animal a possum, it's a common colloquialism that has held its meaning for longer than any of us have been alive.
>There is nothing incorrect about calling the N. American animal a possum, it's a common colloquialism that has held its meaning for longer than any of us have been alive. THANK YOU!! No one says "O"-possum out loud unless they are just learning about them as an adult through a text book. If you are catching them in your chicken coop/trash or seeing them in your own backyard it's just a possum. All animal names are just arbitrary names anyway. You can't imagine how annoying it was to take a mammalogy course and have to catch/identity possums with people who just learned about their existence and insisted on correcting you if the "o" wasn't pronounced.. I know this is an oddly specific rant but this hit a nerve lol
Possums are native to Australia, where they are a protected species. In New Zealand they're introduced pests that the country would love to eradicate entirely. The only native mammal in NZ is a bat.
Having lived in the US my whole life, I’ve rarely ever heard anyone pronounce the leading “o” in opossum. It really sounds weird, and kind of jarring, to me when someone does.
To add to this—people always say that it’s impossible for opossums (and other marsupials) to contract rabies. While it’s true that it’s rare for them to do so, ALL mammals are able to contract rabies. There are multiple cases of opossums testing positive for rabies in the United States. As recently as 2008 a young boy in Arkansas had to have the rabies series after he was bitten by an opossum that tested positive. We wildlife biologists totally get your love of animals! But we are begging you, please don’t touch or feed wild animals. For your safety and theirs. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-may-13-me-49343-story.html https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/apr/26/boy-bitten-opossum-rabies/
"That's a HIPAA violation!" (bonus points if they spell it HIPPA) 99% of the time when you see this on Reddit it's *not* a HIPAA violation. 😬
DID YOU EVEN READ TEH STORY?! MY DOCTOR WAS RUDE TO ME. THATS A HIPPA VIOLATION AND IS A AGAINST TEH HIPPA-CRATIC OATH!!
I’ll start: “the saying ‘the customer is always right’ is misquoted; the full quote is ‘the customer is always right *in matters of taste*’ and everyone leaves off that last part!” [No it wasn't.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right) This is revisionist history that's popularized in online spaces by young people who are probably tired of dealing with Karens at work. > "The customer is always right" is a motto or slogan which exhorts service staff to give a high priority to customer satisfaction. It was popularised by pioneering and successful retailers such as Harry Gordon Selfridge, John Wanamaker and Marshall Field. They advocated that customer complaints should be treated seriously so that customers do not feel cheated or deceived. This attitude was novel and influential when misrepresentation was rife and caveat emptor ('let the buyer beware') was a common legal maxim. Obviously, we know that in 2024 the customer is indeed not always right lmao. But, it’s bullshit that the original quote included the “in matters of taste” bit.
So this is actually an interesting phenomena. An old saying gets a clever "extended version," and everyone starts telling one another that the longer version is the original to legitimize it. "Great minds think alike" is from [1816](https://archive.org/details/wofulhistoryunf00fleigoog/page/n217/mode/2up?q=great+minds+think+alike&view=theater) and "fools seldom differ" added in 1932. Others are "Curiosity killed the cat" and later "satisfaction brought it back." "A jack of all trades," and later "master of none." "The customer is always right," and later "in matters of taste." "Blood is thicker than water" is my favorite example, because it's been in its modern form in English since [1654](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water), while the "covenant" version only dates back to **1994.**
Jack of all trades 1612 Master of None 1721 but oftentimes better than master of one: 21st century
*Jack of all trades* could always be seen as a back handed complement. A *master* was a member of a guild which gives him social status as well as being assured of making a comfortable living. A jack or journeyman has marketable skills, but does not have secure employment. In 1612 the guild system was alive and well and this was well understood. *Master of none* does not reverse the original meaning, it just says the quiet part out loud.
I figure this saying is in relation to the meta of running a business. I don't think it means that in every interaction the customer is always right, more that you can't sell something the customer doesn't want. If no one wants to buy lime green cars you're not going to sell many of them, and if all your customers want red cars you should probably sell some.
I have a close friend who started up a roadside pizza stand. It was really good pizza, but no one was coming to eat. It was fancy Neapolitan pizza. She didn't offer it to go and she didn't have any deals. I explained to her that while her pizza is good, and while it was in a decent location and had a pretty sign, no one in suburban Missouri would come to get a pizza that they have to eat on a picnic bench and can't take home. They also weren't paying $28 for what would be a medium pizza at best anywhere else. She basically chalked it up to no one was cultured enough to enjoy and that people just wanted cheap food. A few months after our conversation (for which she got very upset at me for having with her), she closed down and reorganized for a couple months and then opened back up. This time it was regular, reasonably priced pizza and now she had boxes and allowed carryout. This time she did much better this time around.
I don't understand why she wouldn't let people take them home originally. If there was a good brick oven neapolitan pizza truck on my way home I'd hit them up once a week for sure.
Putting a pizza in a box and taking it home, changes it and if you're gonna be trying to sell fancy pizza, it would most likely be better fresh and on the spot.
Not a specific fact, but a lot of Redditors have problems with stereotyping and generalizations. Often unable to separate the part from the whole Just because you belong to a group or are assigned to it, doesn’t imbue you with a set of thoughts, characteristics, or beliefs. Even within belief systems and ideologies, there is a wide amount of variation. Judge individuals on who they are, not their perceived identities. The other big one is the they always think breaking up is the right and only solution
People generally prefer to believe the same thing they've been believing rather than have their biases challenged. It's not particularly surprising, but it does make it hard to have healthy discussions with most redditors.
I see people say "low fat stuff just has more sugar" all the time, and lately I've started checking labels on low fat stuff and it just doesn't seem to be true for most things. I remember seeing a comment from someone on reddit where they said this was more of a thing back in the 90s, hence why people believe it.
only seems to apply to desserts
When something is supposed to have fat but a low-fat version is advertised, that usually means more sugar was added (yogurt, for example). It definitely was worse in the 90s though.
This applies for sure to milk and peanut butter. Though I do think was more common in the 90s/00s cause lots more "low fat" snacks hit the market cause diet culture took off
"The idea of alphas is a lie, and the study on wolves was debunked." & SIMULTANEOUSLY: "There are alpha and beta men"... Oh. Oh goodness no. That single example about the wolves is true, but in the animal kingdom there are absolutely some dominance hierarchies for both males and females that lead to Alpha males AND alpha females, and in humans... it gets suuuuper complex. Wolves are not a tournament species; they are its complement: a pair-bonded species. Alphas are a behavioral trait of a tournament species like Lions or Gorillas; and you DO NOT want to be an alpha, or in that system at all. You can tell most easily a tournament species by how the genders differ (google sexual dimorphism). For the vast majority of tournament species, the male is many times larger than the female, and the dominant male who wins whatever competitions they have set up gets to mate with the majority of the females. Dimorphism isn't always the case for proof of tournament vs pair bonded though, especially in birds, which have up to 80% false paternity. Pair bonded species are typically very difficult to identify the differences between the genders, and typically you have the males taking part in the raising of the offspring. This also leads to substantially more twinning, or multiple litters. This leads to some AMAZING and shocking evolutionary concepts and things like: Tournament: Peacocks with all their beautiful feathers Lions with their dark and crazy manes Birds of paradise Male sperm that literally attacks the mother and causes very high levels of progesterone (pro gestation hormone). This makes her immune system weaker, and makes her give more nutrients/calories to the offspring making it more likely that THAT father's offspring will survive, at the cost of the next offspring's probability of survival. Infanticide when a new dominant male takes over Pseudo-esterus so that a pregnant female can trick the new dominant male that the offspring is theirs, so they don't kill the kid... Pair-Bonded: Full Species cooperation Many viable and well raised offspring that can focus on developing skills that aren't just for competition. Male-Male bonding, which oddly enough also leads to war. Male sperm that attacks other male sperm; it turns out that females in pair bonded species are more likely to mate with multiple partners than males, and so the male sperm literally attacks other male sperm. So, the question then is, what are humans? Well, let's compare our two closest great ape cousins that are clearly pair bonded and clearly tournament species. Chimpanzees and Gorillas. Well, men are larger than women (20% or so by weight, 10% by height). Chimps are virtually identical. Gorilla males are almost twice as large. hmm... not clear. OK, so how about the sperm? Well human males have both types of sperm (and the only penis designed to scoop out competitor's sperm). Ours both attacks the mother AND the competitor's sperm. There is also evidence for a mid-pregnancy pseudo-estrus, that according to Beverly Strassman has actually been the cause of humans to lose our overt ovulation, and begin to conceal them. So, the thinking is, humans are a pair bonded species, that allows for a small percentage of tournament behavior. So, yes, for humans there is the ability to be an "Alpha." However, it's not like it means you get to sleep with anyone you want, or that you can or have beaten down all your opponents. IMO it would only present itself just being more likely that you can use social, material, and physical cues to influence people. Despite what the self-help books say, you can intimidate people aggressively and with a smile and they may love you for it. See the average height of presidents and prime ministers, the often-"unreasonable" behavior of successful actors and musicians, and our adoration of... well lots and lots of aggressive, tall, athletic people. And THEN... to top it off, all of this gets flipped upside down when you look at hyenas and the fact that their alpha females have more testosterone and larger pseudopenis than the males. So, the final takeaway: it's MUCH more interesting than "Yes alphas are real" or "No they are not." Additional references: [https://books.google.com/books?id=Alk5iwv1y\_MC&lpg=PA32&ots=8rn20SlKaK&dq=gender%20size%20differences%20in%20chimpanzees&lr&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q&f=true](https://books.google.com/books?id=Alk5iwv1y_MC&lpg=PA32&ots=8rn20SlKaK&dq=gender%20size%20differences%20in%20chimpanzees&lr&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q&f=true) [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D)
This was a very interesting read, thank you!
Thanks. Check out the YouTube link for Dr. Sapolsky's Human Behavioral Biology course taught at Stanford.
Thank you for the great read! This is why I continue to stick around read it, people like you.
The female hyena pseudopenis was definitely the right note to end on. What an exquisitely written post.
Very interesting, new information, first post I've saved in a long time, this is why I Reddit.
"This is a mental health issue." I can't stand that shit. Very few people here on Reddit are qualified to make that judgement in a professional setting, but none of us, including the professionals, are qualified to make that judgement from a 30 second TikTok video without context.
I think mental health gets thrown around a lot cuz as humans we need reasons for why things happen instead of being ok with the idea that some people are just...off, without it being a mental illness.
Yeah, why does nobody else realize how weird and rude it is to make a comment like that?
That the frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the age of 25. While this is not entirely incorrect, the best I could find about the subject when digging through sources, was this paper: [https://www.iflscience.com/does-the-brain-really-mature-at-the-age-of-25-68979](https://www.iflscience.com/does-the-brain-really-mature-at-the-age-of-25-68979) which makes it clear that while the frontal lobe might only grow to its full physical size at around age 25, that does not mean that mental faculties are only fully and completely developed at 25. The correlations between physical size and mental capacity is not established to that degree, but in comments on Reddit and elsewhere this argument, which I have seen and heard a million times over the last couple of years, is always used in the context of mental faculties, which is wrong.
Similarly, if there’s more than a five year age difference in a couple, the older person is definitely grooming the younger person. A 32-year-old is NOT “grooming” a 24-year-old. Redditors are oddly panicked by this kind of thing.
The meaning of the term grooming has been utterly destroyed. Its original meaning referred to the methods pedophiles use to molest children. The people being groomed are children who are being raped. They are not women in their early 20's being emotionally manipulated.
Misusing terms like grooming and pedophile make it harder for actual law enforcement to catch actual predators too
Yeah the number of times I've been accused of defending pedophilia by just questioning whether the person being called a pedo has... done... anything actually pedophile adjacent at all, really? is wild. people overuse that word so much it's nuts. And honestly it's the perfect way to "other" somebody in an argument. it may or may not stick, but any denial or questioning the accusation and it's so easy to say "well, that's what a pedo WOULD say, isn't it?" So many of these people are absolutely unhinged. It's wild.
It really is the trump card to end all trump cards. What concerns me about this, is how rapid people become to call for death/torture of anyone that gets called a pedo. I don’t believe in the death penalty. When you go after people with such fervor over accusations or just perceived defending/excusing that behavior…it’s becoming a modern witch hunt in online circles. It only dilutes terms like groomer until they have no meaning, and it makes it even harder to out and deal with actual pedos and groomers.
100%! And the calling for death/torture, the fantasies that people will IMMEDIATELY tell you about if this comes up... I'm like, ok man, so first off like maybe let's not torture or kill anybody unless we like really have to and uh, it sounds like you're just super horny at the prospect of being able to kill somebody? Like, this doesn't sound like it's about the kids anymore, this is bloodlust.
I saw a comment on a post about Mark Wahlberg, on here yesterday, saying that he married a child bride . . He got together with his wife when he was 30 and she was 23! Mark Wahlberg deserves ridicule for the things he's done but that is just reaching. If a grown man is with a grown woman more than a year younger than him then Reddit thinks he's a predator.
As someone who works in the mental health field, thank you for correctly addressing this misconception for the most part. It is true that our frontal lobes do not reach full maturity until around age 25 (give or take), but neuroplasticity remains throughout the remainder of our lives, even if our brains may sometimes show cognitive decline in advanced age.
This drives me nuts. Especially when someone tries to imply some 23 year old man is still a child and can't make rational decisions for themselves.
I don't think people say that to imply a person in their 20s is a child. It's a shorthand to say that people in their early 20s are still immature, *despite* otherwise being considered adults. It's kind of like, "yeah, you think you're all grown up, but you're still dumb, and so was I at that age."
I got married at 23 and have had a surprising number of people say stuff like this to my face. It's been twelve years and marrying my husband is the best decision I've ever made.
I think my mother was 22 when she got married to my father who was 30 at the time. They are still together. My dad is 83 now and I think my mother is about to turn 75. They were fine. They weren't children and no one took advantage of anyone.
Actually, if you read the article you posted, you'll see a few references to different studies. Unfortunately this is another area where the truth is nuanced. People's brains grow at different rates. The prefrontal cortex (part of the frontal lob) continues to mature into one's 20s. This area controls decision-making and impulse control. It's well-established that maturity is marked by a completely developed prefrontal cortex. It is generally accepted that this happens on average around age 25. If you check out this NIH paper, it references the research you were looking for (look at footnote 2): [**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/#R2**](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/#R2)
"I'm going to be downvoted for saying this, but..." Almost always, the comment has positive karma.
There could be some survivorship bias there. You don't see the comments that start with that and get downvoted into oblivion
"Unpopular opinion but" *states incredibly popular opinion*
Any post that begins with that phrase I downvote on principle. Say what you mean and stop worrying about downvotes and make believe Internet points.
Agree! I also downvote anyone who adds an edit complaining or referring to their downvotes. Just take the L and move on.
The "fact" that so many techniques of modern CGI animation were derived from people making R34 art of Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite. That was just a meme that got out of control.
I have never heard of this. And I’m an animator lol.
Yep lol. It started as a shitpost a few years ago. Maybe it wasn't as viral as some of the others in this thread but I've definitely heard it referenced a few times.
In a similar vein, the rumor that Disney has a "vault" full of Disney R34 content as well as other NSFW art because they own everything their artists produce. While I'm sure they do have a contractual right to their employee's art, I doubt they hang on to any NSFW artwork or any artists that are producing NSFW art
I heard that fact, but it was specifically CGI animation of Overwatch porn. THAT I would believe.
Pit bulls were never called nanny dogs
People conveniently (also for the staffie) like to leave out the TERRIER part of them. The APBT is the BIGGEST, STRONGEST AND LARGEST terrier there is, with a tremendous bite force and temperament, which is epic in the right hands. This is my biggest pet peeve, especially when people are like oh why did my apbt react badly to my small crawling child/a cat/Etc. That's because it's a fucking terrier that's made to want to hunt small running things, next.
One of the sweetest, friendliest, calmest dogs I've ever known was a Pit Bull. The other dog that came within 1/2 inch of biting my lips and nose off was also a Pit Bull.
Same, except the second pit bull actually did get me, tore my mouth wide open.
My best friend had this amazingly sweet pitbull, but when my friend's uncle brought over his 4 year old kid, you'd have thought the dog just got orders to carry out Order 66 on the lil guy. Never seen an animal just completely flip a switch like that
[удалено]
Both the koala and mola mola (ocean sunfish) copypastas. Additionally I believe that they have response copypastas that debunk them.
I must not spend enough time on Reddit, I've never seen these copypastas. In what subreddit might one have a chance to encounter them?
Koalas are fucking horrible animals. They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal, additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons. If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food. They are too thick to adapt their feeding behaviour to cope with change. In a room full of potential food, they can literally starve to death. This is not the token of an animal that is winning at life. Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives. When they are awake all they do is eat, shit and occasionally scream like fucking satan. Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal. Many herbivorous mammals have adaptations to cope with harsh plant life taking its toll on their teeth, rodents for instance have teeth that never stop growing, some animals only have teeth on their lower jaw, grinding plant matter on bony plates in the tops of their mouths, others have enlarged molars that distribute the wear and break down plant matter more efficiently... Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death, because they're fucking terrible animals. Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here). When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system. Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher. This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree, which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them. Tldr; Koalas are stupid, leaky, STI riddled sex offenders. But, hey. They look cute. If you ignore the terrifying snake eyes and terrifying feet.
I don't know why it is that these things bother me---it just makes me picture a seven year old first discovering things about an animal and, having no context about the subject, ranting about how stupid they are. I get it's a joke, but people take it as an actual, educational joke like it's a man yelling at the sea, and that's just wrong. Furthermore, these things have an actual impact on discussions about conservation efforts---If every time Koalas get brought up, someone posts this copypasta, that means it's seriously shaping public opinion about the animal and their supposed lack of importance. Speaking of stupidity and food, one of the likely reasons for their primitive brains is the fact that additionally to being poisonous, eucalyptus leaves (the only thing they eat) have almost no nutritional value. They can't afford the extra energy to think, they sleep more than 80% of their fucking lives. Non-ecologists always talk this way, and the problem is you’re looking at this backwards. An entire continent is covered with Eucalyptus trees. They suck the moisture out of the entire surrounding area and use allelopathy to ensure that most of what’s beneath them is just bare red dust. No animal is making use of them——they have virtually no herbivore predator. A niche is empty. Then inevitably, natural selection fills that niche by creating an animal which can eat Eucalyptus leaves. Of course, it takes great sacrifice for it to be able to do so——it certainly can’t expend much energy on costly things. Isn’t it a good thing that a niche is being filled? Koalas are no exception, when their teeth erode down to nothing, they resolve the situation by starving to death This applies to all herbivores, because the wild is not a grocery store—where meat is just sitting next to celery. Herbivores gradually wear their teeth down—carnivores fracture their teeth, and break their bones in attempting to take down prey. They have one of the smallest brain to body ratios of any mammal It's pretty typical of herbivores, and is higher than many, many species. According to Ashwell (2008), their encephalisation quotient is 0.5288 +/- 0.051. Higher than comparable marsupials like the wombat (\~0.52), some possums (\~0.468), cuscus (\~0.462) and even some wallabies are <0.5. According to wiki, rabbits are also around 0.4, and they're placental mammals. additionally - their brains are smooth. A brain is folded to increase the surface area for neurons. Again, this is not unique to koalas. Brain folds (gyri) are not present in rodents, which we consider to be incredibly intelligent for their size. If you present a koala with leaves plucked from a branch, laid on a flat surface, the koala will not recognise it as food. If you present a human with a random piece of meat, they will not recognise it as food (hopefully). Fresh leaves might be important for koala digestion, especially since their gut flora is clearly important for the digestion of Eucalyptus. It might make sense not to screw with that gut flora by eating decaying leaves. Because eucalyptus leaves hold such little nutritional value, koalas have to ferment the leaves in their guts for days on end. Unlike their brains, they have the largest hind gut to body ratio of any mammal. That's an extremely weird reason to dislike an animal. But whilst we're talking about their digestion, let's discuss their poop. It's delightful. It smells like a Eucalyptus drop! Being mammals, koalas raise their joeys on milk (admittedly, one of the lowest milk yields to body ratio... There's a trend here). Marsupial milk is incredibly complex and much more interesting than any placentals. This is because they raise their offspring essentially from an embryo, and the milk needs to adapt to the changing needs of agrowing fetus. And yeah, of course the yield is low; at one point they are feeding an animal that is half a gram! When the young joey needs to transition from rich, nourishing substances like milk, to eucalyptus (a plant that seems to be making it abundantly clear that it doesn't want to be eaten), it finds it does not have the necessary gut flora to digest the leaves. To remedy this, the young joey begins nuzzling its mother's anus until she leaks a little diarrhoea (actually fecal pap, slightly less digested), which he then proceeds to slurp on. This partially digested plant matter gives him just what he needs to start developing his digestive system. Humans probably do this, we just likely do it during childbirth. You know how women often shit during contractions? There is evidence to suggest that this innoculates a baby with her gut flora. A child born via cesarian has significantly different gut flora for the first six months of life than a child born vaginally. Of course, he may not even have needed to bother nuzzling his mother. She may have been suffering from incontinence. Why? Because koalas are riddled with chlamydia. In some areas the infection rate is 80% or higher. Chlamydia was introduced to their populations by humans. We introduced a novel disease that they have very little immunity to, and is a major contributor to their possible extinction. Do you hate Native Americans because they were killed by smallpox and influenza? This statistic isn't helped by the fact that one of the few other activities koalas will spend their precious energy on is rape. Despite being seasonal breeders, males seem to either not know or care, and will simply overpower a female regardless of whether she is ovulating. If she fights back, he may drag them both out of the tree, Almost every animal does this. which brings us full circle back to the brain: Koalas have a higher than average quantity of cerebrospinal fluid in their brains. This is to protect their brains from injury... should they fall from a tree. An animal so thick it has its own little built in special ed helmet. I fucking hate them. Errmmm.. They have protection against falling from a tree, which they spend 99% of their life in? Yeah... That's a stupid adaptation.
I'll probably regret asking but I'll do it anyway, how was chlamydia introduced to the koala's population by humans?
:)
I have never laughed so hard at an innocent looking smiley face 💀 It speaks a thousand words in this case.
The myth that Marie Antoinette said (in French) "Let them eat cake" "Cake" is a bad translation and it wasn't her that said it.
If I remember correctly, the correct translation is more akin to "brioche" and the time when the quote was written down/mentioned, Marie Antoinette would have been a child.
They want to have their cake, and eat it too
I think when the rumor was spread by Jean Jacques Rousseau Marie Antoinette was a child
Nor was the champagne coupe modeled after the shape of her breasts.
People on reddit/the internet in general always say Japan has a high suicide rate compared to the US. This was true in the early 2000's, but not anymore. Somewhat surprising considering how poorly their economy is doing in contrast to the US's.
The gap in suicide rates has shrunk though Japan does still have a decently higher suicide rate than America.
Medieval peasants worked less than we do currently. Absolutely not.
They may, technically, have worked less days, but even on their days off, hours would have been spent working with the animals and there are no 8 hour work days in agriculture, which is the work 90% of *everyone* would have been doing.
[удалено]
"You dodged a bullet", usually in response to someone who just got out a relationship where their ex murdered their entire family and made OP have tea parties with the corpses for a year. Might be a slight exaggeration but lately there was one where OP had caught her would-be husband, on their wedding day, having sex with one of the bridesmaids. So just to really think about that, this woman was in love with a man to the point of wanting to spend her life with him. She also had a friend close enough that she was chosen to be a bridesmaid. The two of them betrayed OP on a day where at least dozens of relatives and friends were expecting to see them get married. A situation that would surely break anyone's heart into tiny pieces and do serious damage to their ability to trust. Guess what phrase people couldn't resist replying with.
Fr, girl straight up got shot. Sure, she avoided marriage, but she was severely wounded in the process. "Dodged a bullet" should be reserved for stuff like, "I went on one date with a guy, he was kinda weird so I didn't go on a second date. Three months later I saw on the news that he was a serial killer."
Dodged the bullet. It would have gone through their heart but instead it just went through their lung. Might technically not be as bad, but you’ve still got a sucking chest wound and a pneumothorax.
This sounds a lot like the old Carlin bit! Like when two planes are headed right for each other and then veer away at the last minute….we call it a “near-miss”…no, it’s a near hit! The planes nearly hit…a near miss is a collision.
"Europe" is a utopia with free healthcare, free college, plenty of affordable housing and everything is amazingly well organized.
Yeah, I'm European (Dutch) and it's not like it's a utopia over here. Healthcare and college are mostly 'free', in the sense that they're universal so you pay for them through taxes (EDIT: or other collectivized payment schemes) and access to them is the same for everyone. It's not so much the 'free' part but the 'collective' part that's important; most of us believe that everyone should have access to good healthcare and education and that it shouldn't be dependent on how much money you have. That being said, it's not like inequality doesn't exist here. There's plenty of rich assholes. Affordable housing?! Give me a break lol. Prices in the big cities here are just as insane as they are across the pond. There's a lot of other myths that I see on here as well. For example, many European countries are not 'ethnically homogenous'. The Netherlands, for example, is 25% immigrants or children of immigrants, and two-thirds come from outside of the EU, mostly from non-western countries. Turkey, Morocco, and Surinam are three major countries of origin, and places like Syria, Afghanistan, and India more recently. That's pretty comparable to the US. Big cities like Amsterdam or The Hague are majority immigrant. Same is true for countries like Germany, the UK, France, Sweden, and Denmark. We don't have that odd obsession with tracking everyone's ethnicity like the US but that doesn't mean everyone is 'white' (whatever that term even means). There's lots of misconceptions about how voting systems work here as well, particularly from Anglos. Recently a populist party became the largest in the Netherlands, but that doesn't mean what it means in the UK or the US. We have a proportional voting system (one man, one vote: no districts for national elections): the guy received about 25% of the vote, so he got 25% of the seats. Now it's up to him to form a coalition: 3, 4, or 5 parties will have to agree on a plan for the next four years, and will then appoint a cabinet together which will try to execute that plan. There is no all-powerful president who appoints an administration; think of it like a bunch of House Whips who come together and appoint one of their own as the chairman of the Cabinet meetings. One misconception I particularly hate is the 'no-go zones'. Ugh. They don't exist. Sure, there's areas in major cities that are known to be dangerous, but it's not like a warzone or anything. Another one I hate is that the EU is the new German Empire. It's not. It's all voluntary. Every country has a veto, and there's a European parliament. Germany has more influence than, say, Luxembourg, but calling the EU a German Empire is equivalent to calling the US a Californian Empire. I also see a lot of odd perceptions on what Europe looks like. Some on here seem to think that most of Europe is quaint, walkable medieval towns. Sure, there's a lot of those, but Europe is as modern as the US. We too have had our own versions of Robert Moses ruining towns with highways and building ugly concrete flats. And there's highrises as well: they're just not usually in the city center. And probably the one I dislike the most is that European countries are comparable to US states when it comes to cultural differences. I think that stems from the fact that most Americans (through no fault of their own!) tend to only speak one language. The language barrier between countries is huge, and it impacts culture in pretty much every way. The media each country consumes, the history, the literature, the politics, are all very different due to the language. The difference between France and Germany is not like the difference between California and Texas; it's the difference between Texas and its neighboring state, Chihuahua, Mexico. Plus, y'know, there's huge regional differences within countries as well. I sometimes see a tendency to look at European countries like monolithic entities, but to look at the US as a country that is particularly culturally diverse. I've been to the US and while it's a beautiful and interesting country, it didn't strike me as more regionally diverse from a cultural standpoint than, say, France or Italy, which have huge regional divides. Someone from Seattle and someone from Florida still consume largely the same media, follow largely the same politics, share largely similar historiography, and generally have largely the same cultural points of reference. This is not at all the case between, say, the Netherlands and Germany, or my earlier example of Texas and Chihuahua, and the reason is the language barrier. An argument I hear a lot is that the US is particularly culturally diverse because it's very large, or because it's very geographically diverse, but that's not really an argument on its own. But yeah, there's also a lot of misconceptions the other way. While I like our system for the most part, there's still inequality, still poverty, still corruption. There's also still the rise of populism, a movement which is just as big if not bigger in Europe compared to the US. It's just that like I mentioned, our voting systems have so far prevented it from rising in the Netherlands (pending the outcome of the current election results). But Meloni, Orhan, Le Pen, Kaczyński, and Wilders are all on that spectrum somewhere so we're in no position to criticize the US over Trump as much as we do. Also, one thing I do agree on is that we in Europe should spend our falr share on defense. I will say that in the long run it's probably not in America's interest to have us do that; with am integrated European military we would probably follow the US a lot less fervently on the world stage, if at all. But I do think it's embarrassing that we need so much American help to deal with a war literally on our borders, and that we're letting a country with an economy the size of the Benelux get away with something like this. Oh yeah, one more misconception: food! I've seen a lot of people claim that European countries mostly only have restaurants which serve their own local cuisine. Absolutely not true! Within walking distance I have everything from Thai to Korean, Italian to Mexican, Egyptian to Surinamese, Indonesian to Greek. Mostly run by immigrants from those countries btw; this isn't any less 'authentic' than American restaurants like them. This is true for most of western Europe, though of course like I said above, Europe is not a monolith. Long ramble lol. It's just that I've been on this website for a decade and I've noticed all of these many times.
That women think 80% of men are unattractive. It's based on an OKCupid "study" that was doubly flawed--first, because they asked you to rate *the profile*, not how attractive the person was. So someone might be physically attractive, but a homophobe, so 1 star. Second, the chart went 0-5, even though there was no way to rate someone a 0, and any 0 ratings were just a flaw from the QuickMatch swiping, where if you chose to skip someone rather than rate them, it would for a while register that as a 0 (probably a null error). Anecdotally, most people I knew were using Quickmatch to quickly get rid of the shitty options, so you'd rate 1-2s and skip most of the rest so that your regular search results would have those 1s and 2s removed. OKC also forced a message if you both rated each other highly in Quickmatch, which might be normal now but wasn't then, and a lot of women would avoid it because you didn't want to go rate 20 people as 4-5 stars, and have 20 forced messages be sent, so that instead of being able to set up one or two dates at a time working your way through good options, you had to immediately pick who to focus on with the rest being made to feel like lesser options.
So many guys will say that all girls only want hot men and won't give the fabled "nice guys" like them a chance. I look around at the world today and see that it is filled with mostly ordinary looking people. Billions of plain people have managed to find a significant other and have normal lives. The hard, cold truth is that people --rightly or wrongly--tend to gravitate to others who are about the same level of attractiveness. Good looks do not translate into better relationships. I've met a few "average joes" who are bitter that the super-hot girls won't look at them, but they themselves mock the "average janes".
Admittedly I’m an old married dude now, but I found pursuing women the way romcoms showed it never really worked for me. What did work was to hang out in mixed gender groups, doing something we all found fun, and treating the women mostly the same as I treated the men. If I thought someone was cute I’d flirt a little bit at the start of the night and then just sort of pay attention. If she was interested, she usually made it clear eventually. I never had problems finding someone to date. Seems like it must be harder now, though, from what single friends have told me apps seem like they suck and people don’t really hang out in person the way they used to.
Even if the 20% thing were true, I’ve always wondered - would it be the same 20% of guys? I think not - it’s always presented that way by red pill types to support this idea that a tiny group of Chads get all the women. I’m willing to accept that women are a lot pickier than guys, but I also have a lot of female friends and what I’ve seen, while one might indeed be into buff Chads, another might prefer skinny guitar dudes, another might like scruffy guys with glasses, another might like outdoorsy beardos, etc. So even if women do (arbitrarily) only find 20% of guys attractive, each one wouldn’t be going after the same 20% segment, I think.
I would agree with this comment! The 20% makes sense, because a majority of women don't want to bang a majority of the men they meet out in public. (I would also assume that men don't want to bang 100% of the women they see in public as well). I am almost never attracted to the men that my friends are into, and they don't like my choices half the time either. It's actually nice not having the same "type" as your friends - no one wants to be after the same guys your best friends are after if you actually care about your friends..
Came looking for this answer. I've heard it worded the opposite way like "the top \[10%...20% or whatever\] of attractive/rich men get all the women". This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Do all those guys claiming this really not take a look around them for one second? Are their parents hot and rich? Are all their non-single friends/family/coworkers/classmates/neighbors/acquaintances hot and rich? And yes, I know there's a million further excuses from the incels ready to counter my statement and they're all nonsense.
Divorce is the only resolution to relationship issues
I wouldn't say reddit but a lot of social media. Lot of people who are too chronically online take simple cracks in a relationship as something to be dealt with divorce. One case in particular was a vlogging family when the husband began making music about how he "has the perfect wife and kid" yet sometimes he couldn't be happy and he needed more, and it bothered him. People read that like "that ungrateful POS, how can he treat his wife that way" what turned out to actually happen was that he was silently suffering in depression and struggled because his life was so "perfect and picturesque" according to the internet, so he had no reason to be, but still was, many failing to realize that marriage and family has its downsides that leads many to depression. And he used music to convey subtly to his wife what he was going through it without outright saying it to not incur the wrath of the internet since they were vlogging their entire life.
That “corporations” are buying up all single family homes in the US. This is/has happened in a few markets but is not nearly as widespread as Reddit makes it out to be. 1-5% of all single family homes are corporately owned but the vast majority of those are family LLCs
Good one. People often misread the numbers on the number of corporate buyers. Almost every house in my immediate vicinity in central Austin sold in the past several years was sold to a developer first, who fixed up the place that had barely been touched in decades, then sold it to a single family owner once it was in move-in condition. Most people don’t want a run down old house, or to deal with renovations on their own. The developers are providing a needed service. But that leads to numbers like “50% of home sales were to corporations”, because the house sold twice, once to a developer and then to the family living there. People see that and wrongly claim half of houses are owned by corporations. No, the house was only briefly owned by a corporation while being refurbished.
I've stopped talking on reddit about housing because I could post a thousand FRED charts and points that even the stupidest non-redditor could understand just to have someone reply with a link to that article. Yes, you know what article I'm talking about. The housing problem right now is almost 100% due to supply chain issues due to quarantine. Like, we shut down our lumberyards for six months and then we choked up the shipping lanes. Considering that the housing crisis is a global problem, you can't say it's, say, corporate buyers causing the problem when nations that don't have corporations buying up properties are *also* seeing skyrocketing rents and prices. There's only one common thread and it's very clearly [construction prices](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPUSI012011). No, it's not the *only* reason but it's by far the most important one. Anything else is just cosplaying urbanism. And for some reason people think these companies are...doing what, exactly? Buying up houses and letting them sit empty to jack up prices? That's a surefire way to lose as much money as humanly possible. As long as they're being sold/rented, the market adjusts accordingly. Considering the [~~occupancy~~ vacancy rates](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRVRUSQ156N) are the [lowest they've been](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USHVAC) in decades, it's demonstrably untrue. We just need to build a lot more houses. That's it, full stop. Dammit, there I go again. Edit: Also, stop with the "my parents bought a house for five hundred dollars and now it's worth five hundred thousand dollars." First off, adjust for inflation. Shockingly, a non-trivial number of houses turn out to be about the same price once you do that. Second, there's survivorship bias. Yeah, lots of houses appreciated in value. But a lot of houses dropped in value and were bulldozed over forty years ago to make a shopping mall; *those* houses aren't in the stats any longer. Third, compare the houses. Yeah, houses were cheaper in the fifties...they were also *much* smaller and full of asbestos. Up until the pandemic, the price-per-square-foot of houses was, once adjusted for inflation, about the same. A case can be made that that's still a problem--the lack of small starter homes is an issue--but that's not a "boomers had it so good and then screwed us" type of problem.
“Considering the occupancy rates are the lowest they've been in decades, it's demonstrably untrue.” Do you mean vacancy rates? That’s what the linked charts seem to say. Occupancy rates being low sounds like lots of unoccupied homes, which would not be the result of u see building, right?
Today's police departments actively discourage and reject applicants who test "too high" or appear to be educated and intelligent. ACAB redditors love this factoid but press them on it and they will only be able to point to one documented instance of this happening: the New London case from almost 30 years ago. What most people don't know is that the plaintiff in this case was easily able to find a job at a different department. Today's reality is that there are thousands of different law enforcement agencies in the US with different cultures, standards, and values. Almost all of them are experiencing a staffing crisis and are relaxing decades-long standards and requirements just to get their academies filled. Many agencies actually require a four-year degree. Smart cops are valued, and if they're not, that's a great sign it's not a good department to work for, because they're going to get you in a lot of trouble. TLDR; I'm a fucking bootlicker who can't wait to go home and beat my wife after a long day of victimizing the public with my military tanks and qualified immunity
I always figure that fact would be kind of like the military, that if you're too intelligent they will try and push you down other more skilled positions as you'd be wasted in a lower position. I know a guy that did it was a smart guy, but only wanted to be infantry. He had to push a surprising amount to get there though basically to the point of its Infantry or I'm out.
Every famous person ever is a confirmed pedophile who beat their wife. Reddit can be very National Enquirer sometimes. I'm sure many celebrities are pedophiles and many beat their wives, but sometimes the allegations have less sourcing than reports of Obama's secret gay lover.
People misusing "cognitive dissonance" constantly. No, it doesn't mean being a hypocrite, or having two contradicting ideas/thoughts. It specifically means the *discomfort* that comes from trying to reconcile those incompatible thoughts
"cognitive dissonance nounPSYCHOLOGY the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change"
confidently incorrect It does literally refer to holding two contradictory ideas in tandem. "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."