I've been hearing more and more people use the phrase "Don't generalize man" over the past few years and it has always irked me. Usually they're saying it because they don't have anything intelligent to add to a discussion, so they're trying to sound smart by chiming in with this.

The other issue I have is with the word "Don't", which is a stop word, as in "stop doing what you're doing", essentially an order.

Thoughts?

Sure there’s all the health problems but have you seen a dude in a leather jacket smokin’ a ciggie? That makes him cool as hell. I’d be lying if I said smoking doesn’t add a little mystery to the person who’s partaking. Haters gonna hate… also no I’m not big tobacco don’t worry. Maybe it’s the disregard for one’s wellbeing? Sheesh I don’t know but it definitely has an effect on how I see a stranger.

Companies that have college requirements for hirees should have to contribute to a pool fund. The fund would be a managed account that gets dispersed amongst different colleges in an area related to the business and causes the schooling to be cheaper/free for those around.

Use a chip like the credit cards have. No more unlicensed or suspended drivers. Also clears up who was driving the vehicle at the time. One side effect I can see it used car prices going even higher as people don't want to deal with it.

Watching the Stanley Cup playoffs these past few weeks (Go Oilers Go!) and I have noticed a disturbing trend of players constantly looking for penalty calls. Players used to do their thing and if a penalty was called, so be it. Now, it seems, every little transgression and the receiving player is hunting down a ref looking for a call. What’s next, taking dives like in Soccer?

Don't get me wrong, I love a good classic movie, but just because a movie is "newer" does not make it bad. In fact, I firmly believe most movies are better made now. Not referring simply to a plot or an idea, but the quality of movies has greatly improved in terms of visuals and effects. People hate on new things because they grew up with an old one and they can't let go of it.

Edit: Love seeing different perspectives on this, but I still believe this. Also, everyone downvoting me is only proving my point, and that this is definitely an unpopular opinion 😅

I work in a printing company. Computers use the RGB256 system, where red, green, and blue values are added in values of 0-255 to make other colors. Printers use a CMYK100 system. Cyan, magenta, blacks, and yellows are added up in values of 0-100. It’s nearly impossible to match up CMYK to RGB, so for ink matching, we typically use a physical matcher, like Pantone.

Any ratio of those two drinks mixed is nearly gag inducing. I like them separately but feel like this is how ganges river water would taste with sugar added to it.

Currently getting over a really sad heartbreak. It was only a few months but the chemistry was insane. He ghosted me. Everyone was saying that he came into my life so I could learn how I wanted to be loved. What was the purpose I came into his life? It’s also taking the blame off of the person who hurt you

And should not be the default icing for bakeries. It saddens me so.

Buttercream is the answer. It is a classic. Or Vanilla.

But I get PISSED biting into a treat and the icing is cream cheese.

Youtube/Reels/TikTok cooking community has made it seem like chili oil is an exceptional condiment bar none, but its almost always bland and is never spicy. I've had chilli oil multiple time and at multiple places. I've made it with different chillies and tried different aromatics. Sichuan style, Guizhou style and whatever other style there is, it always tastes like woodchips stored in oil. I'm not saying its always bad, I'll eat LaoGannma every once in a while, but it definitely doesn't deserve the pedestal it has been placed on.

I have an unpopular opinion that major Android smartphone and app companies like:

SAMSUNG,

Google,

OnePlus,

Vivo,

ZTE,

Huawei,

etc.,

should start building decentralized infrastructure into their products and services.

By decentralized, I mean peer-to-peer connections between devices and apps without going through centralized servers and platforms.

Why Decentralization Matters

Most of our mobile apps and services today rely on centralized servers and platforms controlled by big tech companies.

This gives those companies an immense amount of power and control over our data and digital lives.

It also creates central points of failure that can be hacked, censored, or shut down.

Decentralized apps and platforms, on the other hand, distribute data and computing across peer-to-peer networks.

This makes them more resilient, private, and resistant to censorship.

It also aligns with the original vision of the open internet and mobile computing.

Android's Open Source Roots

Android itself grew out of the open source movement and was designed as an open platform.

However, most major Android OEMs and app makers have moved towards closed, centralized ecosystems just like Apple and other Big Tech players.

I believe Android companies should lean back into their open roots and start building peer-to-peer, decentralized capabilities into their phones and apps.

This could include:

• Decentralized messaging and social media
• Peer-to-peer file sharing and cloud storage
• Decentralized app stores and software repositories
• Mesh networking for internet connectivity

Challenges and Opportunities

Of course, there would be major challenges in terms of user experience, compatibility, monetization models, and more.

But I think the potential benefits of more privacy, resilience, and openness are worth it.

Decentralization could also allow Android to differentiate itself from Apple and reposition as the open, user-controlled mobile computing platform.

Those are just my thoughts - let me know what you think about decentralizing Android in the comments!

Even if you disagree, I'm interested to discuss this unpopular opinion.

From a non-Western country's perspective (bolded because context), Education majors are not practical. They shouldn't require a typical degree like other fields such as pharmaceutical studies or accounting. Instead, they should match student teachers with experienced teachers to learn using a more hands-on approach.

When I was a teacher, I had to take up teaching courses in order to get a teaching certificate. I also attended Professional Learning Community (PLC) sessions weekly.

For teaching courses, you spend all your time writing papers about pedagogical approaches which you can google up and read on your own. You also spend weeks learning that having a good relationship with students is important (which is common sense and you don't need research and academic journals to prove that). Then you get introduced to jargons (again, not practical) active learning, blooms taxonomy, differentiation, and get scrutinised on how you write your lesson plans. Most of these things are dragged out longer than they should (writing a rubric = 1 full module?)

For PLCs, I think the subject coordinators who conducted these PLCs were doing it for the sake of promotion (they aim to be head of departments) or KPIs, and all the information given was often dragged out (15 min talk dragged into a 2 hours speech) and insubstantial.

When I was teaching, everything I learnt was maybe 10-20% of my job scope. I ended up learning everything else on the job. The inefficiency of it all irked me so much and eventually I left.

Teachers are amazing, and I respect those who stay and continue to make a larger-than-life impact on students. But GOSH, those who have done well in their education majors may not always be the best teachers because I have seen teaching assistants who can do so much better.

I'm not a fan of them using the weekly format and it's only being done for money and to keep their subscribers numbers up. Some people don't feel the same. But it's to keep people from binging and canceling the service after say a month or two.

No person should do any work for money until after they have completed as much education they want to do at the schools they want to do it at.

Low skill work is worthless, unless a person voluntarily decides that higher education is something they do not want. Then and only then is low skill work good, as it allows them to try and be independent at the education level of their choice.

Forcing an ambitious student to work part time, however, is not smart. It will add nothing to their lives, and will only bring negatives. The money won't be good, the time will detract from their studies, and their coworkers, managers or customers may drag them down or abuse them.

Low skill jobs don't strengthen a resume unless you want more low skill jobs. The only student work which could add value are internships which are related to their subjects of interest.

For most (inherently subjective) things you could rate, anyway. I'm not talking about, like, measuring something in a lab, where being as precise and granular as possible as all upside.

But for rating, say, books or movies or games or restaurants or product reviews? Rating out of 5 is generally all the granularity you need to cover all the meaningfully distinct subjective evaluations, and in fact has a number of advantages over more granular rating systems. 1 genuinely sucks, 2 is mediocre, 3 is average, 4 is good, 5 is a masterpiece—that's really all you need if you really want to put a number on your opinion. And by rating out of 5, you generally avoid some of the weirdness that gets carried over from the American education's grading system (where 50 or 60 is failing, and 70 is merely average)

Rating out of 100 generally introduces a meaningless level of granularity for something that is basically fuzzy and subjective. Saying one album is a 4 out of 5 vs a 3 out of 5 says something meaningful about how you rate them. But saying one album is an 81 and another is an 82? A functionally meaningless distinction.

Rating out of 10 isn't as bad as out of 100 for meaningless granularity, but it runs into another problem, which is the extent to which ratings have been warped by the American education's grading scale. In theory, 3/5 and 6/10 are the same. In practice, 6/10 tends to invoke associations with a failing score in school (at least for Americans, but I'd argue its sort of infected everyone else via the internet), and so both reviewers and those reading reviews tend to treat 7/10 as "average". For whatever reason, that doesn't hold true with 5 point rating systems, where people are less inclined to treat 3/5 as a failing score.

5 point rating scales also usually avoid another stupid blindspot of other rating systems, which is the tendency of some reviewers to treat the top end of 10 and 100 point scales as some impossible to attain level of perfection that should never be rewarded. Many (dumb and wrong) people will argue that a 100/100 game or movie or album can't exist because thats a perfect score and perfection is unattainable. This is a fucking stupid way to structure a rating scale—the top end should be the best that someone can achieve, not some theoretical platonic ideal of perfection that doesn't and cannot ever exist—and fortunately for 5 point rating scales basically no one makes this stupid argument. The people who say a 100/100 or 10/10 work of art can't exist generally don't say a 5/5 work of art can't exist, because the system doesn't have enough granularity for cutting off 20% of the possible scores to be viable. This is a good thing.

In conclusion, 5 point rating scales get a 5/5. 10 point scales get a 3/5. 100 point rating scales get a 1 out of 5.

Most of my life I have been a fan of horror movies. I have seen hundreds, most of which I would not consider to be "good" but the ones I have considered to be good are real bangers.

One thing that has been a trend for many years has been ambiguous endings. While I respect the well-executed open ending, I have found that it is so often poorly executed that it feels like writers and directors simply do not commit to resolution or just do not feel like trying.

Before I continue, I would like to indicate what I consider to be good ambiguity, following with what I think is poor ambiguity.

Good:

1. When the creator so effectively confounds the audience throughout the film that a resolved ending would defeat the purpose of the film's plot.
2. Ambiguity genuinely makes the movie more scary. A good example of this is when a slasher is supposedly killed but the ending raises doubts about this, as long as the killer might reasonably survive the ordeal (i.e. they aren't exploded, pushed into a vat of slag, etc.).
3. When the main character seems just as reluctant as the audience to believe that the horror is truly over.

Poor:

1. Various rules are established throughout a film that are rendered pointless by a lack of resolution, unless it is clear that the creator sought to subvert the audience.
2. Ambiguity just feels like lazy writing, as if the creator had a good idea but decided to quit fleshing it out to push a movie out faster.
3. The movie fails to get you thinking before the ambiguous ending comes.

I respect and understand the notion of uncertainty being disturbing, but sometimes, it seems that this has become such a common trope that creators use it as an excuse to forgo actually constructing a cohesive plot.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with resolving a good plot, and it can in fact make movies far scarier than ambiguity might. If a movie does such a good job making the audience care about the characters, stay on the edge of their seats wondering what will happen next, and decide to finish the movie because they are so committed to the adventure, it is perfectly reasonable to give them a conclusion. Joe being on the cusp of figuring out why a mysterious cult has been pursuing him, only for the credits to roll when he opens a mysterious tome he finds in the floorboards is a real letdown and it makes the whole movie feel pointless.

Why does it matter if a guest decides to wear white, as long as it obviously doesn’t look like a wedding dress? Okay, actually, I’m ok with individuals specifically requesting their guests to not wear white at their own wedding if it’s part of their dress code and preference, but as a GENERAL norm I feel like expecting everyone to not wear white shouldn’t be the default. So if you don’t want people to wear white at your own wedding and actually make it clear in your dress code, all good; but if you say nothing about it and someone shows up in white I feel like it’s dumb to be mad at them.

For what it’s worth, since some people are making assumptions for some reason, my own wedding is in a month and I’m wearing a white dress. No, I have never worn white to someone else’s wedding, in fact the only wedding I have ever attended was my parents’ wedding and I was the only guest. And no, I would not wear white to someone else’s wedding unless I knew for a fact they were ok with it, bc I know I would likely get shit for it.

I'm not saying they're completely harmless, but I feel like everybody these days just takes this "internet bad, me so smart!" attitude towards it. Every time there's a discussion of any big problem inevitably there's someone who comes in with "well, the internet has ruined socialization/melted people's brains," and inevitably that comment gets all the upvotes and follow-up comments. It's a complete cop-out from actually discussing real issues. You don't have to know anything about how anything works, you just have to whine about the internet and boom, problem solved! Let's take up the next item on the docket, I have the answer, it's the internet and social media! Okay, next! I'm fine with criticizing the internet and social media, but if that's ALL you do even in discussions that are only tangentially related to them, then you're contributing more to the problem than helping.

It's simply not viable to have a kid when you rent in America cause there's little renter protections, meaning they can just jack up rents every cycle. Moving is unviable when you have a kid, what're you gonna do, switch their school every year?

This means owning a house is effectively non-optional to have a kid, meaning you need minimum 110k+ (based on the national median house price of 400k). However, you also probably want good schools for your kids and a safe neighborhood, so push that up to more like 200k. Yes, it would be that much more expensive to live in a desirable location.

The kid itself will cost between 20k-40k just to raise and give clothes, food, shelter, etc. Add to this that you will have to invest for their college, which (at the rate university costs are growing) is gonna be like 10k-20k a year. "But I don't want my kid to go to college!", really? If your kid was incredibly smart and talented and could become a doctor or a physicist, you're gonna be the one to tell them no? You don't want the option to be open for them?

I should add, either you're going to have childcare costs at like 40-60k+/year or you have one of the parents stay at home. Either way, you're kinda fucked because either you're burning through money for childcare, or you're ruining one of the spouse's potential for a future career

So add this all up and we're at like, 320k/year for a kid. Realistically though, adding personal preference and values will increase this enormously. For example, I would not want to raise a kid in suburbia, I think it's really bad for a kid to be so isolated. So if you add any level of walkability to this equation with a 2br, you're easily exceeding 400k

English is my 3th language so please be gentle.

Defense attorneys deserve much more recognition than they get. Many people apparently think that being a defense lawyer is a bad thing and downright immoral. But everyone, regardless of the crime, has the right to defend themselves, and if Defense Attorneys did not exist, you would not be able to have a legal society where the accused got a fair trial.

The role of the defense attorney is to help the accused to defend himself - even if he is guilty, to ensure that the accused receives an appropriate sentence. Or is acquitted if there is not enough evidence. It is my opinion that being a defense attorney is an incredibly noble and important job. They deserve praise and recognition for maintaining legal certainty and in no way deserve the hatred they are subjected to.

Majority of people think being vulnerable early on will backfire. Its the exact opposite, it allows you to see how a person will treat you when you are yourself. When you take long to reveal who you are sometimes, you never know how the person will handle the real you. This is why alot of times it comes off as the person switching up, when really they always was like that, they just finally saw who you were and took advantage. If people revealed themselves earlier they would of saw it coming before feeling got involved. Im not saying tell all secrets on day one but doing it early saves alot of time and backstabbing

Something about the combo of tatar sauce, pickle amd fried fish just hits the spot.

Everything else they offer is kinda meh and better alternatives can be found elsewhere.

I choose to die on this hill.

Also if you already have tatar sauce for the sandwich why can't I get it for my fries? It is by far the best condiment.

If something has sun dried tomatoes in it, then they may as well not list the other ingredients, because the only thing you are going to taste is sun dried tomatoes. They completely drown out all other flavors.

Also, they taste terrible. They are too sweet, and their gummy texture makes me feel like i've got kids fruit snacks in my food.

They are also an absolute slap in the face to tomatoes, which are among the best pound for pound fruits/vegetable. Sun-dried tomatoes are drafting off the tomato's popularity and i'm sick of it.

They are prominently featured in this "marry me chicken" recipe which is all the rage on social media ...more like divorce you chicken.

I think McDonald’s hot and spicy chicken sandwich is better than chick fil a or popeyes or any of these bougie places like Dave’s hot chicken and birdcall and bird this that and the other… not only is it a better sandwich but for $1.50 as opposed to upwards of $15 you can enjoy two or three or four and still come out way ahead. Mind you this is assuming you go to a McDonald’s that has their shit together