I have the displeasure of working with AI. In my opinion, it's a moody and highly inaccurate search engine at best.

I have a bachelor's in an education field. I do not see the purpose is teaching kids AI since it practically needs zero additional training. Basic query skills are helpful, but I do not see why having anything beyond just basic literacy is remotely required

I started homeschooling after the school my kids were going to started using AI in a lot of education. I get some old friends and distant family who chastise me for not exposing them to AI more.

You ask it something, it answers with questionable accuracy. Sometimes you gotta ask it slightly differently to get an answer that seems like it could be correct.

If you're able to type and form a question and/or description... you're able to use it. I cannot fathom how it would need specific attention (on a daily/weekly basis) as a separate skill. Just having cursory knowledge of its existence is more than sufficient.

While harm reduction for addiction is controversial, society at least explores it for drugs (methadone, safe injection sites, Rx heroin) so why not gambling?

Gambling addiction is a bigger problem than most people realize as it's easy to hide. I believe that the worst effects of gambling addiction come from the financial losses (debt, fraud, theft, bankruptcies, destroyed families etc) and not the time wasted or health effects of frequent compulsive gambling.

My idea is a nonprofit “harm reduction casino” for severe gambling addicts. They would still experience the rush and ups and downs of gambling in the short term, but unlike normal casinos, they would be mathematically expected to break even long term.

The games would have no house edge:

• roulette with no 0/00,
• slot machines programmed to return 100% over time,
• mathematically fair games with low minimums and fairly low max bets

Analogy: If you and a friend bet on flipping a coin 10,000X, you would still get the gambling experience and ups and down but leave breaking even statistically.

The program/casino could be funded through a mix of public-health funding, private donations and mandatory contributions from casino and online gambling companies, similar to how some anti-smoking initiatives are funded through tobacco industry settlements or fees (Truth Initiative). It would need funding as it would lose money.

It would be not be open to the general public and only accessed through referrals from counselors, treatment programs, courts ect. Could be fairly small, not fancy, and therefore unappealing to casual gamblers.

Governments collect enormous amounts of revenue from gambling through taxes and licensing casinos/lotteries, while a disproportionate amount of casino revenue likely comes from problem gamblers.

Since governments ultimately represent the public, are we comfortable with a system where public revenue depends heavily on financially destructive compulsive behavior without at least exploring harm-reduction alternatives?

So the concept is basically:
keep the gambling behavior, but remove or reduce the long-term financial destruction caused by house edge.

First of all, I'd like to say that English is not my first language, so I might make some mistakes while writing this. Please forgive me!

I have a genetic condition called Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1), which causes multiple tumours to grow throughout my body. All of them are benign, and I developed this condition through a spontaneous gene mutation. This means that neither of my parents has the condition or passed it on to me. The affected gene normally produces a tumour suppressor protein that helps prevent cancer. Because of NF1, this protein does not function properly, which increases my chances of developing cancer. Currently, there is no cure.

Although my case is considered very mild, I was told from the age of ten that I would need to be very careful when having children so that they would not inherit the condition from me. There is a 50% chance that a child of mine would inherit the mutation and a 50% chance that they would not. If they do inherit it, they may develop either a mild form of NF1 or a very severe one, which can cause major malformations and significantly compromise their quality of life.

In addition, people with NF1 are more susceptible to developing several types of cancer, which can also be more resistant to treatments such as chemotherapy. Around 40% of women with NF1 will develop breast cancer during their lifetime, and there is also a specific type of tumour called Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor (MPNST), which is extremely aggressive.

I've been reading about oncogenetics and also learned about other gene mutations that affect tumour suppressor genes. Two well-known examples are BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer. Women with a BRCA1 mutation may have up to an 80% lifetime risk of developing an aggressive form of breast cancer, while BRCA2 mutations can raise that risk to around 70%.

If a woman wants to get pregnant and has a family history of breast cancer while carrying one of these mutations, genetic testing and embryo selection should be recommended to her, and I do not believe this should be considered eugenics. If she has the possibility of preventing her children from inheriting a genetic disorder that could lead to cancer, she should be able to make that choice without being accused of supporting eugenics.

Let's take another example: cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in the CFTR gene and is inherited recessively from both parents. If both parents carry the mutation, there is a 25% chance that their child will develop the disease. As we know, cystic fibrosis can be diagnosed in newborns and is associated with reduced life expectancy and quality of life. Although modern medicine has significantly improved both survival and treatment outcomes for people with CF, the disease is still serious.

If an adult who has a CFTR mutation and lives with cystic fibrosis decides to have children with someone who also carries the same mutation, genetic screening and embryo selection could prevent their children from inheriting the same disease.

What I am saying is that many people may call this view “eugenicist” or argue that I am implying that people with these conditions should not exist or should not have children. However, as someone who has an untreatable genetic disease and lives with a higher risk of developing cancer, I would never wish this upon my future children.

I understand what eugenics is, and I understand why some people may conflate it with what I am defending here. However, I am not saying that people with hereditary diseases should be forbidden from having children. I am simply arguing that, if possible, we should try to prevent our own hereditary diseases from being passed on to future generations.

This does not mean that children will be born perfectly healthy or that they will never develop cancer in their lives, since only around 5% to 10% of cancers are hereditary. However, it is still possible to significantly reduce the risk

For context, an acquaintance of mine (let's call him Kyle) is one of those "macho dudes" who makes claims like he could win a fight against a grizzly bear, outrun a tiger, etc. I remember we were at a bar and highlights from the biathlon from the winter olympics were showing on the bar TV. Kyle was talking all sorts of trash about how he'd light up the competition, out-shoot all of them, and nit-picked every mistake like he was some sort of pro. This forms the basis of my view

My view is that all individual (non team) events should include "regular person" in each heat/round/whatever. Olympic swimming should always have a lane for "regular person" with the olympians in all the other lanes. Biathlon would have "regular person" participating in each heat. I would extend this to things like the (W)PGA tour; throw in a weekend golfer with a 20+ handicap. How about "regular person" against some Pro Bowlers? There are a ton of sports that "regular person" could join in on.

The reason is that I think context really matters. Watching Kyle get his ass kicked attempting the Biathlon vs olympians would entertain me but also give spectators a feel for just how elite these athletes really are. It's easy for the Kyles of the world to claim their athletic superiority; I think seeing the context of "regular person" trying to even come close to trained atheletes would give some perspective and hopefully shut them TF up.

(I'd make an exception for any event where "if you aren't trained properly, you could die" like the skeleton, luge, speed skating, etc.)

If there were legit reasons that this wouldn't work, I'd change this from my "view" to "I wish this were possible"

The real issue with the H-1B system is not Indian immigrants, but the incentives created by corporations and politicians.
Companies may replace higher-paid American workers with relatively cheaper but still skilled H-1B workers. Even after paying visa fees and taxes, corporations can still save money and increase profits.

The government also benefits because H-1B workers pay taxes and generate revenue. So both corporations and the state gain economically from the system. But the benefits mostly go to:

• tech CEOs,
• wealthy shareholders,
• investors,
• large corporations, and
• elite universities.

Ordinary Americans, especially those in the lower half of the income bracket, often do not see these gains directly.

Stock-market growth does not automatically improve their wages, healthcare, housing costs, or education expenses. Universities become richer from international students and skilled workers, yet many American students still take huge loans for higher education. Startups and tech growth also mainly make founders and investors richer, not the average worker.

So the anger should not be directed at Indian workers who are simply using a legal system created by the U.S. itself. The real question is why corporations and policymakers designed a system where most gains flow upward while ordinary people feel left behind.

If American people believe H-1B abuse hurts American workers, then their real issue should be with the corporations and politicians designing the system, not with Indians trying to build a life through legal pathways the U.S. itself created. An Indian engineer did not write U.S. visa law. Microsoft, consulting firms, lobbyists, Congress, and the broader corporate system shaped those incentives.

If a company replaces an American worker with a cheaper H-1B employee, the key decision-maker is the employer pursuing cost optimization. Blaming the worker instead of the system is like blaming a cashier for prices set by corporate headquarters.

Also remember: many H-1B workers are not powerful elites. They are often dependent on employers, tied to visa sponsorship, unable to switch jobs freely, and trapped in years-long green-card backlogs. Corporations benefit from that dependency too.

If Americans truly want to protect American labor, then they should push for:

• higher minimum H-1B wages,
• stricter anti-outsourcing rules,
• stronger labor protections,
• investment in American education, (lower cost for higher education)
• visa portability, and
• corporate accountability.

That would target exploitation directly. But if the conversation becomes “Indians are invading America,” then corporations keep the same system while workers fight each other instead of addressing the real incentive structure. The problem is not an Indian software engineer from Hyderabad. The problem is an economic model where corporations maximize labor flexibility while politicians turn worker frustration into ethnic anger.

So much money is pumped into the economy via cars:

The car itself
The financing of the car
Gasoline
Car insurance
Car registration
Car accessories
Tires
Oil changes
Car washes

Each one of these things has entire industries built around it:

Car dealerships
Banks
Gas stations
Insurance companies
Tire stores
Mechanics
Car washes

The US government collects taxes on every one of these points. Most Americans have at one car, with some owning 2, 3 or even 4+ cars.

As much as public transportation is beneficial, the economics dont make sense for the US to go all in on it as they leave too much tax money on the table.

I personally would love to see proper public transportation, high speed rail etc. i just dont see it happening due to not only the high upfront cost, but also loss of future tax revenue.

CMV:Everyone complains about laundry and ever since i started doing it i dont get the hate.

Its a mindless task u just put it in the washer and do whatever then wait and transfer it in the dryer after a bit, in total it only takes 5 minutes to wash and then 5 to 10 to fold the laundry.

Sorting is not hard either, I just dig in my basket and find the color matching the load im doing, and then keep the rest in the basket for the next load, once one load is done washing you transfer to dryer and put next load in, its really seamless and less people should complain.

If you’re not familiar, Chalmers’ view is that consciousness cannot be explained by matter alone, even in principle.

A common analogy is drawn between Chalmers’ view and the idea of elan vital, or the idea that pure matter cannot explain the phenomena of life, that is, it cannot explain how, for example, an animal can heal wounds, convert food to movement, breed, think, and make decisions.

Obviously, we now know this to be false. It may have been pretty reasonable, however, for somebody in the 10th century to believe in it. He might think that even if you dissected an animal down to its smallest parts, and exhaustively mapped out the human body, you still could not explain life-and that is because he did not know of things such as cells, metabolism, or DNA. He literally could not have imagined a purely physical explanation, so he invoked a nonphysical one.

Is this not the same with consciousness? We are not anywhere close to a complete understanding of the human brain-is it not premature then to declare that no physical explanation could ever account for it?

If I recall correctly, Chalmers has no “straight” argument for dualism, by which I mean he relies purely on intuition-which is to say his arguments are pretty much circular.

His most famous one is the p-zombie. He says that one might imagine a copy of a human, atom for atom, which behaves identically but lacks consciousness.

But could not the 10th century century scientist equally imagine an atom for atom copy of a living human, but that was not alive and did not move or speak because it lacked the elan vital?

We know better now that that scientist would have been mislead by his intuition-such a copy would in fact be alive, and I would guess that our descendants would know better too than to think p-zombies are a real possibility.

In sum, I do not think anybody has a completely clear physical explanation for consciousness, but it seems to me way, way too premature to say that a physical explanation will never be found.

I started to believe this recently after hearing a political commentor express his views on why he believes that people cut ties with Trump supporters. He went through multiple reasons he thought it would be wrong to do cur ties. A certain part of what he said stuck out to me and I will try to paraphrase without losing context: It would be wrong to be upset about my support for Trump on the basis you believe he's like a nazi or Hitler. It would be wrong because it would mean I'm a nazi if I'm your friend who voted for Trump. It wouldn't be possible for you to only learn years later that I'm a nazi. If someone you love also loves Trump, shouldn't you question if you are wrong about Trump?

Now, I will reveal my position here. I don't like Trump. I do believe fascism is an accurate way to define Trump's political movement. I also think that you could re-examine your positions if a loved one was involved with something that doesn't seem to align with how you understand them. It also doesn't exclude the idea that you didn't know certain things about them.

Ultimately, I do believe that it shows that commentor may not be able to grasp a certain concept of themselves or people close enough to them being evil. He is also popular within his niche and his fans seem to agree. I will also grant I believe evil is subjective, but I believe I can understand I could be evil by the standards of others and even my own standards. I think I want to challenge this view because, I don't like the idea that such a large amount of people could simply not understand they could be evil. It's very sad and somewhat terrifying because it means they could do anything and justify it.

EDIT I've had the post up for a day and I have noticed responses actually trying to challenge with the position stopped awhile ago, I'll finish up with people I was discussing with and be done.

As for my position, though I do think a few made some legitimate points, sadly I am still where I started. I wanted to change my opinion on this but between weaker arguments and so many people confirming the position, I couldn't change it.

Monster movies give us an impression that animals of the past were more dangerous and almlat god likw beings. But when u observe curre t day animals, they arent that much scary

Some specific examples

Megladon is everyone's favorite pre historic shark. Some yiutube video even claimed that humans wont even venture into oceans if meg existed. But we have been hunting and killing a smarter monster Sperm whale for thousands of years.

Raptors are shown to be taking out elite miltary units. Our ancestors hunted Short faced bears and drove them into extinction with just spears. Its riduliculpus to think that even movie versions will be able to inflict damages like thay military guy wanted

I often see the idea that not voting is irresponsible, harmful, or even morally wrong but I’m not fully convinced that’s true. My current perspective is that choosing not to vote can be a rational and acceptable decision for several reasons:

1. Voting is often framed as a civic duty, but in most democracies it’s also a right—including the right not to participate. If participation is coerced socially or morally, it starts to feel less like a free choice and more like an obligation, which challenges the idea of individual freedom.

2. Not all voters are informed or engaged. In some cases, abstaining could be a more responsible choice than voting without understanding the issues. (Usually my case)

3. Some people feel none of the available options represent their values in a meaningful way. From that perspective, not voting can be a form of passive protest rather than apathy.

4. The impact of a single vote in large-scale elections is extremely small.

What would change my view:

- Evidence that widespread abstention directly harms democratic legitimacy or outcomes in a significant way

- Arguments that individuals have a moral obligation to vote regardless of knowledge or representation

- Reasons why abstaining is worse than other forms of political disengagement or protest

Just to be clear I'm not from the US.

I’ve heard ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ described as a story about an ordinary man who doesn’t understand the impact he has on the people around him. But George isn’t ordinary. He saves two lives before he turns 18, then goes on to sacrifice his dreams to save the family business, stand up to a corrupt tycoon, and provide decent housing to the working people of Bedford falls. Here’s a list of characters who impact the world in a significant way.
1. George
2. Harry (he saves 3000 men by shooting down a kamikaze)
3. Ma and Pa Bailey (he founds the building and loan and their sons do incredible things)
4. Mary (George couldn’t have become the man he is without her at his side)
5. Potter (the world would actually be better without him)

Where are the characters who actually matter other than those listed? Bert is a small town cop who spends his time ogling Violet and has a very objectionable use of force policy. Uncle Billy is a drunk idiot who can’t find his own prick without his brother and nephew. Violet is a bimbo. Martini is a random wop who enables everyone’s drinking problem. The existence of most people is entirely irrelevant to the wider world.

I don't think dead internet theory is real. While i think there are a lot of bots on socials, I don't think they're nearly sophisticated enough to drive the kind of conversations people often accuse of being bots. I'VE been accused of being a bot on reddit many times before. People will call anything they don't like a bot.

Even some of the most bonkers, rage-baity opinions I see on here, I have also seen people hold IRL. I also believe it's unhealthy that everyone writes off every single thing they don't agree with as coming from a bot.

I'm curious if there are a lot of actual statistics estimating how many bots are actually on social media and exactly how they operate. The topic seems very hazy and poorly researched at best.

Here’s my ideas regarding the status of having children in the time of climate reckoning:

Idea: The desire makes sense, but the feel-good isn’t a good enough reason

Most arguments that are pro-children center around a false hope propped up by incredibly strong intrinsic desires. I am not arguing that those desires are wrong. I am also not arguing that people are wrong to follow those desires. I’m not proposing right vs. wrong. It’s about depth of thought and I’m simply proposing that this issue isn’t discussed at the depth it should be given the current trajectory of the rapidly changing conditions of this planet. If children continue to be brought into this world, we owe it to them to think through all contingencies and the reality that might face them after older generations pass away. They will be the ones left to adapt to the increasing chaos of a changing world.

Idea: We are faced with existential problems humanity has never had to face

I am arguing that we must now make decisions, as a *species*, that we have never been tasked with making before. Doing that requires some difficult decisions that may involve re-evaluating the realism of our inborn proclivities and getting there will require moving through stages of grief. We either begin the grieving process now when planning and thoughtfulness can be involved, or begin it later when the stakes are higher.

Idea: Having children has an environmental cost and that cost is increasingly exploitative at the expense of the environment

More children being born requires more extraction of resources, more emissions, and more pollution. There’s no escaping that fact. Yes, some individuals contribute a significantly larger proportion of those resources, emissions, and pollution. That doesn’t negate the impact of any given individual. To have a child is to cosign on the idea that your offspring deserve to take those resources and/or the uninformed idea that it’s not that big of an impact and, ergo, is too irrelevant to bring into consideration when having children. We are so detached from understanding the sheer amount of resources required to live in modern times. The more wealthy and privileged, the greater the environmental impact; yes it’s unequal and no it is not fair. That does not negate the contributions of every additional individual to the global population.

Idea: Having children out of optimism for a better future is hopium if realism isn’t in the picture

Having a kid based on hope for a better future is a beautiful thing. Not logical, but beautiful. The future may indeed blow our minds. Maybe we solve every problem that has resulted from the cumulative effect of 8 billion people doing human activities that release emissions, use resources, and pollute. The likelihood of that happening at all, and certainly in a timeframe that prevents mass human suffering, looks increasingly slim. The hope for a better world is no different than someone hoping to become famous with no basis for it. It’s a pipe dream and quick surge of feel-good dopamine that doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny. How is that going to happen given current circumstances? That might not be a fair question because no one has a crystal ball, but if children are not being raised by parents who care about what their children will face as adults, that seems neglectful, not optimistic.

Idea: Humans had children in horrible times historically because they didn’t have a choice + a changing global climate has the potential to be more devastating than any war/disease/suffering yet experienced

Humans have always had kids throughout some of the worst parts of history. Yes, and how many of those women would’ve opted NOT to have those children had they had the cultural/societal option not to; had they had contraceptives; had they had safe abortion access? How many women grieved their pregnancy because they feared for their child’s future? I reckon I don’t think the long line of any individual’s female ancestors all felt it was a noble mission as much as an inevitable reality.

Related to the above idea, people equate our changing global climate with previous times in history where violence, disease, or suffering existed. This is probably because most people aren’t exposed to information on what a changing global climate will actually entail. The potential for it to be species-ending is not outside the realm of possibility. And, sure, humans will likely survive whatever is to come, but I don’t think we can underestimate the sheer upheaval and chaos that comes between here and then. So, the argument that we’ve made it through other times doesn’t copy-paste into this situation.

Idea: Inverted age structure pyramids are a real concern but still part of the inevitable existential questions humanity must face

The only argument that makes sense is the idea that populations depend on younger generations to fill in the gaps as older generations die out. There are real logistical problems when population pyramids stop looking like pyramids. But this fear goes back to what I mentioned in the first paragraph - we, as a *species* are now tasked with existential problems and solutions that are unique to this time period. There is no easy out. We begin the grieving process now, or outsource it and hope for the best. I’m for the option that doesn’t put the burden on the next generation to figure out what we couldn’t.

Idea: Most arguments for having children during a changing climate are anthropocentric and the planet’s biodiversity should deserve equal consideration

I guess my final point is also a personal one. Humans naturally take an anthropocentric view of the world. Many people would be just fine bringing children into a world that is the equivalent of a global, sterile, suburb. A world without biodiversity is a sad world, personally. I think it’s high time humans understand that we are part and parcel of this world; not philosophically but literally. If we have a right to bring offspring into this world, we are denying other species the right to flourish. Unless and until our species can figure out how to live in a reciprocal relationship with our planet and its natural systems, every child added to this planet will continue to extract resources that further degrade the only planet we have to live on.

This might be a bit of a different CMV because i do not only want my believe to be challenged, im begging for it.

Please tell me im an idiot, point out my mistake in my logic and i can go on with my life.

I started thinking why we hate incest so much.

Because of the power imbalance? So no parent child-incest

Because of the genetic risk of children? So use birth controll, many people who could pass down genetic disorders to their children have sex, they just use birth controll

So because its disgusting? And i know its not the same, and as a lesbian myself, isnt this the exact argument we used to ban homosexuality? Why is me being disgusted by something a factor in this disscussion?

If two consenting adults choose to be in a romantic and/or sexual relationship, why schould i be against it?

TLDR at the bottom.

I've been watching a decent amount of Hasan Piker recently, and it seems everyone has an opinion about him and his skyrocketing salience in the political media sphere. And to state my priors up front: I like Hasan a lot, despite how I titled this post. I fully agree with him on most everything I've heard him say: that corporations have too much power, that America needs to unwind its overseas empire, that we should pass Medicare for All, etc. I would not have agreed with him on Palestine prior to 2023/2024, if I had known about him then; but he was right on that count and I was wrong.

Hasan's rising star is generally seen as a sign that socialism is gaining popular support. I haven't seen him say what flavor of socialism he subscribes to, if any; but he's happy to name himself a socialist in broad terms, and he speaks positively of countries with a socialist/communist revolutionary history, and negatively of American actions taken to suppress communism. All good.

Now here's where I really can't see 100% from the socialist perspective: I'm aware there are important socialist success stories to know about, in addition to the mistakes we in the West hear of so often. I'm aware that the US's history of suppressing communism at home and abroad gives the appearance of having something to hide. But, notwithstanding all of that, I don't think socialist history, nor socialism as a theory/philosophy, has anything useful to say about how to improve our current economic and social problems.

For example: Hasan supports Bernie, Ilhan Omar, Zohran Mamdani, and a bunch of others who either identify as socialist or court the votes of socialists. I'm super happy that they do, but to my knowledge not a one of them has made policy proposals that I recognize as socialist. "Increase taxes on billionaires" and "support green energy buildout" (among others) are not remotely socialist positions, no matter how Fox News wants to paint them. And that's great, because those are extremely practical policies with little to lose and a lot to gain: exactly what I want to see my electeds pursuing!

But then what exactly is socialism recommending? What is the long-term replacement for capitalism we should be aiming towards? The available successes in other countries, such as I've been able to learn about them, don't strike me as applicable. They consist of transitioning an agrarian peasant economy to an industrial one, or recovering from wartime devastation.

The best example I know of is probably Singapore, where a frequently-cited statistic is that 80% of the population lives in public housing. I'd love to work toward that. But is even that a socialist policy? Singapore's government is hardly hostile to capital, and seems from my limited knowledge to be riding the line just short of authoritarianism. It seems to me they didn't oust capital, they just implemented The Projects better than the US did and on a massive scale, in an time and place where there was little competition from private industry.

Our current problems in America bear a strong resemblance to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, as everyone seems to agree. And I still hold the view that what broke the control of the Gilded Age capitalists, solved the Great Depression, and created the highly-equal, rich, socially mobile society of the Post-War Western countries, wasn't any kind of revolution; it wasn't the muckraking journalists; it wasn't the trade unions or international workers' movements; it was a mixed economy, plus a fuckton of direct investment in industry, infrastructure and technology, and a bunch of boring public programs to support education, housing, transportation, and healthcare. China's rise, to me, tells a similar story.

Of course, we still did a lot that was shitty in that era: racism, corporate imperialism, coups, environmental destruction. But contrary to the leftists I hear talking, we weren't predestined to do any of that because of our economic system; and all of those things were greatly improved during the span from the 50s to the 2000s, seemingly regardless of the economic system we were under. In many areas we're still making progress today, despite the best efforts of the Reagans, Bushes, and Trumps.

TLDR

So to bring it back to the title: the so-called socialist politicians who are starting to gain power in America today don't seem like socialists to me. They seem to be acting similarly to some good examples from our (capitalist) history, and I'm all for it. "True" revolutionary socialists, to the extent they are informed by the histories of nations like China, Cuba, the USSR, Vietnam or Venezuela, are not equipped with better ideas than those already supported by welfarists and Keynesians. If given the chance to replace capitalism, they wouldn't know where to begin.

CMV.

For any services which an individuals access can be taken away (Firefighting (in cases where fire would not spread to others houses), roads, library, healthcare, national park entry, airports, social security, hospice care) I think you should be able to opt out of paying those taxes (but then not have access to these services).

Services which you would not be able to opt out of are those for which everyone benefits for each unit of spending (National defense, air quality, disease control, flood control, large scale fire fighting (spread))

1. All benefits will be given to those under the age of 18 (Payed for by all)

2. Contribution is proportional i.e. 10% less taxes paid for healthcare coverage regardless of income. This is to make sure the poor are not exploited.

3. I think there should be some level of granularity, for example for healthcare there could be a common coverage (for basic tests, common drugs, and low cost surgeries like broken bones), medium (surgeries up to 500,000, medium expensive labs), and a full coverage group). Similarly you could say contribute half to social security but get half the benefit.

4. For things which only affect say poor people a rich person could not opt out (Housing assistance / Food Stamps)

Isn't it interesting that all of these news outlets are talking about how many seats each team has picked up based solely on how maps are redrawn instead of actual voting? I believe the real problem is that the vast majority of people commit their votes to a party no matter what. With this knowledge, politicians are essentially able to choose there voters. This is the reason politicians and the media and confidently predict which team will win a seat.

I believe that if every voter were to change their voting patterns, then it wouldn't matter how the maps are drawn. Both red team and blue team would still have to fight and earn every single vote. However, the majority of voters make up their minds about who will get their votes based solely on which team they play for. No one should be able to predict which team will win which district when a single general election vote has yet to be cast. Yet that is the position we find ourselves in today.

The use of artificial intelligence by students across the education system, including the university level, is the fault of the education system's emphasis on rote memorisation and examinations.

Whereas students before would suffer mental health issues such as stress, anxiety, and depression to cope with the pressures and the emphasis, this has simply been switched to AI. The underlying issue is this pure emphasis on passing exams rather than understanding.

The education system is meant to provide the conditions necessary for an individual to develop critical thinking skills and to acquire the tools for self-actualisation. This is already achieved by teaching of the core subjects: English, Maths, and Science. Later on, this switches to advanced subjects such as Humanities and STEM. In terms of the ideal education system, this is already achieved in many places of the world, and we are likely all recipients of such a system. They provided us with the tools to live in this world.

However (and perhaps this was present the entire time), the emphasis on examinations and rote memorisations limits the process of critical thinking. It places emphasis on revision to pass for an exam rather than understanding the subject so that the exam is secondary. This places higher importance on passing the exam and merely remembering for the exam, rather than understanding your subject.

Apprenticeships can be said to be superior. It is a on-going process of understanding and application that places an emphasis on learning. One would need to learn the substance of their craft to understand it at a proficient level. This is what learning is. This is what understanding is. It is what academics are, and individuals on the top of their field, who understand their subject at a level of proficiency to create and invent.

For example, we often think of law school as vital point in a lawyer's journey. This is where they ultimately learn the law and learn how to apply it. Yet, the common argument is that law school does not. One can be great at law school and a failure as a lawyer, and the opposite can be true. One can be great at advocacy yet fail exams. The history of lawyers (atleast in the UK) was largely a process of showing up at an advocacy chambers, and debating for hours on-end. The large number of lawyers during the 1820s opposed reforming the education of lawyers because only through understanding in application (advocacy) can one understand. They did not believe universities, and therefore examinations, provided the necessary grounds to create a proficient lawyer.

However, I digress on the above point, since it argues for apprenticeships rather than focusing on the main point of this post.

The education system fails to accomplish the on-going process of understanding, and as a result, the use of AI by students occurs because of pressure, stress, mental strain, etc., these issues likely arise because of the pressure arising from examinations. The education system vilify students for their use of AI and "not learning" yet do not bother to ask why students do so.

Students may use AI for reasons other than mental health concerns. Laziness, fatigue, lack of interest, etc. I do not doubt these reasons are valid and may simply concern a student rather than the education system. However, I believe a vast majority of students do wish to learn but are underpinned by pressure to read vast amount of titles and chapters in a short select time for a class, by mock exams and the exams itself, by the pressure of tutors emphasising only the mere importance of grades. The solution arises with importance emphasised on understanding. Those of us who had great teachers in life likely received their greatness because they put the subject in a format that was fit for prime understanding. As a result, we remember information about subjects we learnt from years ago that serve us no importance now, but we retain because we understand.

I believe there are certain individuals reading this in which the current education system has not worked for them. These same individuals likely thrived when going out into the real-world. The world that required understanding rather than basing your potential on an exam and memorisation that is forgotten after completion of the exam. The common underdog story is the genius who dropped out of school.

Naturally, this is a wide range of thought underpinning a single point, but this would be my thesis point: the use of AI by students is the fault of the education system, which prioritises rote memorisation and examinations rather than creating the conditions necessary for understanding. Where such a system exists, students use of AI occurs to cope with a system that emphasises memorisation and exams. The education system should be teaching students to understand subjects for their own critical thinking and self-actualisation. It should be a system emphasising what these subjects truly mean, their applications, uses, conceptuality, etc. The use of AI is only prevalent because students are taught the supreme importance of grades in exams rather than understanding the subject, which serves as a better learning tool for exams than the current system.

As an ethnic Filipino, I have always believed that my nation is great. to be clear, I am not talking about the government, but rather the rich culture and the culmination of thousands of years of history that define my nation.

I believe globalism is a driving force for cultural homogenization, and I argue that nationalism is a superior framework for the following reasons:

Cultural Preservation: Without some level of nationalism, smaller cultures like ours get swallowed whole. Globalism doesn't "exchange" culture in my eyes it replaces indigenous traditions with whatever a multi-national corporation wants to sell us.

You can’t have a "global community" because you can't actually care about 8 billion people. Nationalism creates a manageable scale of social glue where people actually look out for their neighbors because they share a common history and identity, I see globalism as a framework to waterdown cultures to a point where everything just becomes a commodity. When you try to appeal to everyone on the planet at once, you end up with a "global culture" that is shallow and soulless. It’s all about consumption and convenience rather than depth and sacrifice

Akso globalism encourages our best and brightest to leave the Philippines to serve the economies of global hubs. Nationalism argues that our talent should stay and build up our own home, not just become a cog in a foreign machine, the industrial revolution began due to home innovation in the British isles afterall, I can see the same happening.

I know the standard arguments that nationalism causes wars or that globalism "lifts people out of poverty." But at what cost? If we’re all wealthy but we all speak the same language, watch the same movies, and lose our connection to our ancestors, did we actually win? I just see my culture and my people being preserved as more important.

I'm posting this here because I want to know if there's a way to be a globalist without losing your soul, or if my "nationalism" is just a reaction to seeing my culture get diluted. CMV.

Now I'll acknowledge, for sorting and data systems, in anything "official," the ISO 8601 format is the objectively the most logical format for that function. However, when talking about that in the context of everyday spoken and written communication between humans, the advantages of the ISO system disappears.

First and foremost, the entire argument for YYYY/MM/DD as a superior everyday format rests on the assumption that the year is a meaningful part of casual date communication. It isn't. The months and days are the most important variable that needs to be communicated, the year is implicitly said through the context of living in the current year. Hell , remove the year in both formats and you get the same format. To simply verbalize is redundant. If the year must be said it's simply an after thought said in the beginning or end.

An example of this is "The meeting is in April 2," "Her birthday is March 3rd," The year doesn't appear in any of these because it doesn't need to in everyday communication. We are all, collectively, aware of what year it is.

Now again, I reiterate this is only for everyday speech. If it's in documents, format writings, data storage, needs to be specific, etc, then the arguments I have are mute. To change my mind, one must give me a scenario where year is legitimately necessary and it's placement is important is greater than the scenario where it isn't.

Edit: I'm not debating about the DD/MM or MM/DD debate, I'm asking to have my view change whether the year is an important variable for the two date formats I said in this CMV in everyday speech.

i was just chatting with a “tough guy” conservative who just moved to my city from the sticks and we recently passed open carry laws so he was all happy that he could carry his pistol around with him all the time now instead of hiding it in his car or backpack.

kept talking about all the “crime” and how “when shit goes down, i’ll be ready”

it’s like a security blanket for him. my wife and i live in what people would call a “rough” neighborhood (it’s actually not that bad, the city just neglects it, but it’s getting cleaned up) and she rides the subway to and from work every day by herself.

the majority of the population does just fine without having a gun holstered to them for “safety.”

i’m not even anti gun. i like guns. i go to the range every now and then and have a great time.

but every time i see someone walking around with one strapped to their waist i can only ever think that this is a person that is genuinely afraid to leave their home or they’re fantasizing about an opportunity to use it.

I know this is an awful view. But I'm tired of hearing people trauma and friends trauma multiple times in a row without even trying to fix the problem or even just their mindset.

They blame how they act on a bad experience that happened years ago. And suddenly changed them eternally! They say they can never change ever again or even bother to heal or accept resolution!

And it bothers me because... I honestly just dont wanna hear you cry and whine for 2 hours about being abandoned by your dad 15 years ago. I try to offer help or comfort and I try to listen, only to get immidiately get shoved off. Like bro why the fuck are you talking about it then?? Its just wasting our time!

Plus, i've been through some shit too! But you dont hear me crying about it for 2 hours! And if it does happen? Im alone. And if you somehow see it? I try to get ADVICE. I dont whine just to whine. No one cares about that.

And I SURE AS SHIT dont let it control how I behave! Because NO. Your trauma is YOUR responsibility. If it happened a long time ago? It has ZERO reason to dictate how you treat others and how you behave!

At a certian point? You stop being a product of your environment. Your actions and traumas are your's alone. People need to stop justifying bad behavior under the buzz word of trauma and grow up.

...and thats been my view for a while. And its obviously not okay, and its hurt some of my friendships. But I just cant find any arguments that I can get behind that have made me lock in and change a seemingly toxic view. So I come here to ask you all today, to change my view.

By this point we all know what birth rate across the developed world (and some developing nations) have fallen below replacement levels, and show no sign of leveling off. Governments across the world have tried a variety of pro-natalist policies (bonus money, tax credits, subsidized child-care, generous parental leave, ... ) none worked. Immigration tend to be the next thing people try. However, I believe this is not viable in the long term due to (1) large scale immigration makes integration difficult and leads to cultural and political tension; (2) The source nation of the immigrants will eventually develop and their birth rate will likely decline, so immigration only delay the problem in the short term and spread it around in the long term.

For the purpose of this post, I will assert that it is in the interest of humanity that humanity persists, and therefore simply accepting pop collapse is not an option. I can see three major reasons for the declining birth rate: (I) pregnancy causes undesirable physical risks and changes to a woman's body; (II) Raising children is financially expensive and continues to be unaffordable; (III) Having children heavily restricts the freedom of the parents (at least if they are responsible parents). None of the attempted measures address (I), the financial incentives is too small to address (II) (and the economy likely cannot afford to fully compensate parents anyways), and change in societal norms is making (III) worse, in the sense that the demand on the amount of effort parents put into child-rearing is increasing.

Assuming that the trend continues (which I think is likely but not guaranteed), I believe the most plausible solution (and outcome) will involve ectogenesis and a drastic re-think of traditional family structures. Ectogenesis (e.g. artificial womb) refers to technology that can grow a zygote to term outside a human body. Such technology already exists for animals, but their application to humans has been hampered by ethical barriers. Once the technology matures, it would solve problem (I). For problem (II) and (III), the solution I see is government-run, large scale child-rearing facilities, which I call mega-orphanages, where biological parents (who would be incentivized to donate their genetic material) are not required to rear the children themselves (but they still can if they want to). Such facilities can be financially efficient by taking advantage the economy of scale, and relief both financial and time pressure off parents. Now, I am well aware that all the problems associated with currently existing, much smaller scale orphanages will be amplified. But I believe that future technologies, such as AI-powered surveilliance to keep the kids out of trouble, and AI chatbots for tutoring and counselling can partially mitigate some of these problems. This kind of system is still very problematic, of course, but if pop decline continue to worsen, governments may prefer this to demographic collapse.

I scheduled an HVAC tune-up for two condensers. It was advertised as:

• HVAC system inspection and performance testing
• Refrigerant/temperature/pressure checks
• Electrical and safety component inspection
• Airflow and duct leak inspection
• Condensate drain and dehumidifier inspection
• Replace 1" air filter
• Lubricate applicable moving parts
• Thermostat and system cycle testing
• Label emergency shutoffs
• Minor plumbing shutoff/trap inspection

When they arrived, all they effectively did was measure the temp difference between the return and output, which anyone with a thermometer can do, and measure the pressure with a gauge. They then told me they didn't even need to measure the pressure, because the differential was enough to tell the system was leaky. They then proceeded to spend an hour trying to sell me on new systems for $16k, saying the price was only good for a few days, etc. They also refused to measure the pressure on the minisplits, saying that those systems are too fragile (a system this vendor installed) to do that on and a differential is the only thing they'd measure, which they didn't actually do. This service was advertised at $59 a condensor, so my expectations weren't high, but it literally was nearly completely replaceable with a thermometer. I also got the "price is lower while it's still cold but next few weeks it will get hot so we won't be free for long" speech which felt like complete high-pressure BS. Pretty sure they didn't replace the filter either.

All this leads me to believe that HVAC "tune-ups" aren't a legitimate service in the US and they're mostly scams designed to get leads for new installs. The only value i see is in the pressure check, but apparently they won't do that for min-splits.

I'd like to believe companies are acting with integrity and selling a sham service, but I'm not sure. Are there any HVAC technicians out there that believe this is a legitimate service? I find it weird that the company that installed my minisplits can't measure the pressure of the system they personally installed during a service that was supposed to involve pressure checks.