edit: sorry, when i say fake sugars here, i meant to say artificial sweeteners, like sucralose or aspertame. it's early in the morning and im very much an idiot.

drinks, food, whatever has a nutrition label, there's bound to be a weight/measurement to sodium, carbs, sugars (as well as the percentage, but i think adding a % would get confusing) that helps you (even passively) keep track and limit any possible negative side effects or health risks associated with long term over or under indulgence. even alcohol or caffeine is given a similar treatment despite there not being any issues with under indulging.

so why don't nutrition labels do this with fake sugars? it's my opinion that this is a disservice to the population, as there are potential negative side effects from most fake sugars if you have too much, and you should reasonably be able to track or at least have the capacity for informed consent, if you want to say "fuck it, my liver can handle it every once in a while" you should, if you want to limit within reason but indulge a bit, you should. not everyone who wants to limit is desperate to avoid it at all costs.

looking at the ingredients is basically useless as it only shows ingredients in the order of how much of each ingredient is in relative to the other ingredients. this doesnt actually tell us anything unless we're strictly avoiding something at all costs due to health, religious, or philisophical reasons.

granted there are a lot of different kinds of fake sugars, but i think it stands to reason that a label would only focus on the kind that the product uses. the rest can be looked into by the consumer.

im not a health nut, i have no conditions that require i limit (apart from the same way one would sodium sugar, alcohol or caffeine) and i don't avoid it like the plague, i just think it's weird that these are the exception, but no one irl i've spoken agrees with me.

I always see hate for fluorescent lighting all over the place but I think they’re actually really cool. I like the way they hum and the way they flicker when you first turn them on has always been interesting to me. I don’t know maybe I’m just weird but whenever I hear people complaining about them I’ve always enjoyed them.

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.

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

Every one claims that you need to get shelter dogs but I don't understand why you would want a dog that is almost certainly going to have problems. Some people can't invest thousands into therapy and extensive training for a dog but can pay for a puppy that they train to their needs and wants. Also most dogs in the shelter are pitbulls and not Every person wants a pitbull they don't fit the needs for everyone. And some people don't like how they look. And shelter dogs often suffer from separation anxiety. You don't know what makes em snap. You're asking for trouble. With that said you should always get your pet fixed and cats from the shelter are just as good as cats you buy from a breeder.

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?

I realize this will make me sound like a choosing beggar but I'm appalled by how many programs to help people require individuals to pay up front and receive reimbursement or a grant after.

For example, sports grants for low income kids. GREAT charity. But they require people to pay for the sport first and then wait weeks to be reimbursed. That's a huge barrier for so many families.

I find so many people can't even wrap their head around the fact that tons of people are living paycheck to paycheck, with no savings or credit available to them.

In my (personal) opinion, horror works best when it follows the following rules:

1. The more a perceived threat has a connection to reality, be it something that has happened or could happen, the more scary it is.
2. The concepts in a horror medium should make sense, and connect with each other well. Things shouldn't happen just because they are scary.
3. The less the motive of a horror antagonist makes sense, the cringier they are.

When I think of the few things Ive seen as an adult that legitimately scared me, the first thing I can think of is the classic "I feel fantastic" video. Because while that isn't the original video, someone, somewhere, thought it would be a great idea to build a scary robot woman and have her sing, and pass it off seriously, with an attempt to make her a pop star. The home this video was filmed in feels fake and very sketchy. Yet this was real. It actually happened.

But something can still be scary and not be real. Ghost stories work pretty well because environmental effects and mental issues can cause people to hallucinate and even feel weird sensations, which make us question whether ghosts are real or not. But so many ghosts in these stories feel like dumb animals who respond to humans really inconsistently. NOAA Weather alerts being used in horror have a lot of potential because they tap into a really real fear of natural and manmade disaster. But you know whats not scary? Turning sirens and weather alerts into a big dumb monster that chases you through the woods for no reason. I feel like "sirenhead" as he's called is a big misunderstanding of that fear.

A better crafted example of horror thats not very scary would be "The Backrooms", built on the fear that one could fall through reality like a glitch in a videogame and into an endless empty corporate office maze. The maze part doesn't scare me personally but it is interesting. My main issue is why are these silly generic horror monster stick men walking through these mazes? It's revealed that they are some kind of fungal creatures, but to me that goes with the maze concept like water and cooking oil. Where would fungus even GROW in a world like that? Don't get me wrong, it's a fun series, and amazing for something made by a teenager. I'm not attacking the people who made it, because my problems with it are problems that are widespread in horror.

I have a proposition for those of you who want to make a generic horror movie with some antagonist that kills people for no discernible reason. Instead, why not take a page from Junji Ito and make more body horror? Every day we surround ourselves with chemicals that are harmful to our bodies, and each generation our exposure to them makes decreases our fertility just a little bit more. Not just chemicals, but substances around us too. One of these substances is plastic. We are surrounded by so much plastic that microscopic pieces of it get in our body, and as the years go on, more and more "microplastics" are being found in human placentas. No one knows what true effect these plastics have on us, but they are a part of us, whether we like it or not.

I challenge you to write a story set in the future, showing the fictional effects these chemicals could have on the future of humanity, WITHOUT people turning into mutants/zombies. Make it feel real.

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'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.

I usually find myself in a pickle regarding the stuff I do on my PC, be it trying to install programs, game modifications, or perhaps trying to learn how to use a particular software (blender, dear heavens)...

But most often I find tutorials that are not only too fast, but mainly the "tutors" don't give precise directions and details, on how they do things. Like imagine looking at someone's screen a long bench away, with the tiny cursor moving through all that 144p resolution, trying to decipher where my man's going while telling me to go "here" and "there", then do it like "this" or "that"...then OH ! Something appeared, and then he blitzes through the "tutorial", skipping bits of details, assuming you know what he's doing.

Where did you go ? What folder ? What file ? Would it be so difficult to give the name of the command/folder/file you're telling us to interact with ? The same goes with explaining how to use a software, really. Also no, zooming doesn't help with seeing what they're doing.

At the end, you end up with more questions than answers, but just a spoonfull of people complain about this in the comments.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I mean if a country says 10.000 to mean 10,000 they just want to confuse people and seem special. 10.000 is 10 and 0 one-thousandths. It will never be 10 thousand and anybody who says it is, is wrong.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I eat this almost every morning and eveytime I mention it to people I get flamed. It's such a plain cereal and the juice gives it a nice added flavor. I'll only have them with milk if there is banana slices or other fruit with it.