That makes sense and sounds like how I used to be too, no real TV, just a computer or laptop and I also don’t like how they are made the center of living spaces.

I think it became a social thing for me, watching movies or listening to music with others while we sit around. I also exercise on a bike or something while watching a show if it’s too cold to actually enjoy going on a ride just for leisure. If I’m alone, I don’t end up watching it much, I’d rather read or listen to something while on my computer.

i dont even own a physical TV

Damn, do you not enjoy things like watching a movie in a theater (given all the bullshit was removed besides the movie)?

I wasn’t big on watching movies for a long time, but then upgraded my sound system for music and eventually got a decent TV, if a bit outdated. This made it more enjoyable for me to watch at home what I would have seen in a theater before, but I hate the theater experience, so I found myself watching more movies.

I agree with everything else you said sucks about the experience, I’m just curious because I don’t meet many people who don’t have a TV unless they can’t afford one.

As someone who meets your criteria, why would I ever put an antenna on my shit again when I can just pirate things or block the ads? An added benefit is that companies think both hurt them as if they are people and subverting their BS fills me with joy.

Whether the commenters are talking cable or not, both are arguably garbage alternatives to more contemporary methods of streaming media except in special circumstances due to the abundance of cell tower coverage and bandwidth. I wish I could say that radio was not also lumped in with this, but again, 50% of airtime is ads and I find the radio in my car less useful with each passing year.

You’re allowed to like something and have people younger than you disagree. Fighting and talking down to them isn’t going to change their minds. It’s cool that you still get use out of older technology for free, but not everyone gets the same value from it.

If anything, don’t blame young people for ruining your technology, blame capitalism for enshittifying it.

The cost to be born and continue existing in the US is also quite steep and if you hope to avoid these costs, dying is also quite expensive and in some cases illegal.

I’ve been given some books on writing through the years, but never thought much of them. I didn’t read these full articles, but what I saw looked good: Article 1, Article 2 (mostly contains links to other articles on the topic).

There’s a lot to consume there in terms of writing theory, but one of my favorite exercises is taking a certain writer’s style, identifying some of what is interesting about their style, and applying it to your own writing. The writing needs to be something connected to you and it helps if you can pick a topic that evokes emotion in you, even if it’s otherwise not something you consider to be a notable story. The important part is being able to tap into your own vulnerability because it can help what you put on paper to be genuine. This doesn’t mean everything you ever write needs to be this way, it’s just helpful and a good place to start and learn. It’s the whole idea of “putting your heart and soul or a part of yourself in your writing” but that people sometimes talk about. Once you learn to tap into that and break down the barriers, you can channel yourself into other writing much easier. Writing like you naturally talk can help, but it’s probably bad grammar for writing (except when writing conversations).

Again, it’s not always easy and I have no clue how much harder this is if you live somewhere without native speakers in the language you are writing, but you need others to read your work. That’s what most writing is for!

If you end up doing technical writing for science or similar, my best advice is keep the layman in mind. Most science writing is overly clunky and full of jargon and buzzwords that not only drive off the layman, but drive off scientists not in that particular field. It’s stupid and bad writing all to stroke the ego of the writer to get a false sense that they sound smarter. To many, it just makes the writing hard to consume. Technical writing should go into sufficient technical detail while aiming to be as easy to consume as possible, even if you make assumptions that the audience understands a topic. Here is an example of good technical writing.

The other comment about a rotation would probably work, but if you want to keep it in the bathroom, get a little grow light for the plant.

While everything above and reading in particular is good advice, being a good reader doesn’t make you a good writer.

You must read to learn and then apply those concepts in your own writing. Better yet, have your writing critiqued by a varied audience that includes at least one person with some training in English writing. Universities and libraries often have editors to help with writing or hold writer’s workshops where you can find these people and get help for free.

To get good at writing, you must write consistently with pointed effort at improvement. This doesn’t start at writing many pieces, but at repeatedly revising a single piece. Even the writing of the most experienced author begins to shine only after polishing. The revision steps are some of the best opportunities to learn and to reach out for advice on how to improve a piece of writing.

This was before Newtonian physics were established vs after. Newton observed the universe and therefore altered it in the process.

0.3mm in length, not diameter. Yes, you can see them, but they just look like dead skin/gunk to our eyes.

Image1

Image2

Image3

Gallery with visible accumulation of mites on hairs

How dare they censor a meme taken from a different context that may have required censorship to post? How dare they not swear for my pleasure? This displeases me and I will not stand for it! What *** Fuck is wrong with them?

All neutrality is false.

This is media literacy 101. Once you can get past this, you find that outlets that wear their bias on their sleeves are refreshing over those who feign neutrality. They begin to come.of as aloof and condescending, because that’s exactly what they are. It’s not journalism, it’s theatre. Same thing goes with regurgitating exactly what government spokespersons say: that’s not journalism. Journalism includes investigation and critique. It’s not possible to give an unbiased critique.

Looking at you NYT, you fucking dumpster fire. I only keep you around because a dumpster fire can provide warmth.

I read from multiple sources to cross-reference what narratives are being pushed, and I find news outlets who are often labelled “biased” are the ones most likely to just lay everything on the table. They aren’t deliberately trying to direct you into how to think because they assume you agree with them. “This happened and we think it’s bullshit!”

You’re also more likely to hear about stories that are left out or considered unimportant or are intentionally censored by the mainstream outlets. It’s more often the case that they will censor themselves than the government will directly get involved and this is far less from smaller news groups who don’t worry about being labelled as biased.

Only a basic exam, no special screening.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj7918

They don’t mean immune escape. It’s either an unclear joke or pseudoscientific bullshit based on a lack of knowledge around the immune system and diseases.

But the reality I see is that they are very easily manipulated by unregulated media like TikTok and would vote for the same extreme right wing party as old people. Surveys here in Germany are a bit disturbing…

The same argument can be made for people of any age.

Can’t we instead take away voting rights from old people? Also kinda wrong.

The same can also be applied to younger people.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of including them. It’s unjust that we can take advantage of them in so many ways as a teen but they can’t participate in the political system that decides how they can be taken advantage of (work, school, taxes, military, etc.) I know I hated it at that age and as a general rule, I’ve tried not to repeat the same things the adults in my life did that pissed me off when I was a kid. It’s not a perfect approach, but it’s been the correct approach to avoid the problems it caused when I was growing up from being repeated more often than not.

The only way to do right by them is to give them the right. If you are worried about them being manipulated too easily, education is a good fix.

And as a conflicting anecdote, my 16 year old is very interested in politics and very much wants to have a say in their own life, just like I did at that age. Are they the most informed individual? Hell no. Are they more informed than some adults? Hell yes.

Younger people may be susceptible to their lack of experience, but they are also more likely to bring new ideas to the table because they are less invested in the status quo. If they have the capacity to make informed decisions, they should have the right to self determination and participation in our political systems.

What you say about your kid doesn’t sound like an inability to process these concepts, just a lack of interest. Do you talk to your kid about politics and if so, how? I’ve found I’ve made a lot of progress by talking to teens about current events and asking them what they think. They won’t care about every topic, but I guarantee there is something that will peak their interest and typically topics related to adults imposing their beliefs on kids will get teens to talk, even if it’s just related to school. It’s important that you get them talking about their beliefs, not just telling them yours, because they won’t want to talk to you unless they feel like you will treat them as a peer.

You don’t need to agree with their beliefs, just listen and not talk down to them. Ask follow-up questions that can turn into wider conversations. Help try to explain what is going on and the context surrounding it if needed. You can absolutely share your views, but it’s usually best to talk about what’s going on/being discussed, asking their thoughts, and then following with yours. If you talk down to a kid, they will shut down or fight back (and also shut down). They need the same respect adults crave. They’ll also eventually disagree with you just like adults.

It varies by person, but I’ve found kids tend to start getting interested around 13-14 if you take this approach and then will really come into their own in terms of beliefs by 16. Kids have a LOT they are concerned about in the world today even without this. It causes many of them significant anxiety because they feel powerless. If you have success getting them interested, 16 (or after a few years of observing and talking about current events, history, and politics) is a good age to talk about analyzing the events.

If you’re into Marxism, it’s a great time to start teaching and practicing dialectical materialism so they can figure out for themselves why the world is the way it is on their own.

I know there can be differences with ASD, but I have a few cousins who are 15-20 years younger than me with ASD and have found the same applied for them. Details of the conversation, finding something that gets them invested in the topics, and explanations you give them may vary, but the basic approach doesn’t change and this varies by person regardless of any condition.

This is just a random reply, but if it’s something you want to be able to talk to her about, I hope this helps you be able to do that in a way that expands your relationship as they grow older. I know I wish I could have talked to my parents about politics and the world the same way I do with my kids when I was a kid.

And the skewed power dynamic.

I’ll trade you the communal toothbrush for this joke.

my former manager who wanted projects estimated in minutes.

That wasn’t a manager, that was a demon.

Despite calling Bernie out for at least some of his shit, I do think he has generally been one of the better Democrat senators in terms of progressive domestic policies. I wonder now if anyone actually can climb to that political level without being corrupted or rejected and black-listed by the system.

I used to support the Democrats and him in particular. It was demoralizing to see how he supported the DNC after his 2016 and 2020 campaigns, but I think there are lessons we can learn from his career. For me, he represents a good example of how operating in good faith within the existing US political system as a path to major reform is not a viable strategy (Jill Stein as well), but that you need to build organizations outside of this structure to seize political power and force the change that the system resists. Unions and other community organizations. The attempt at a general strike led by the UAW in 2028 for example.

I don’t believe this will fundamentally change any systems within the US, nothing short of revolution would achieve this, but I think it is an opportunity to improve lives. It’s a chance to show people not only that they have power, but how to build the power to fight for themselves.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m tired of putting my faith in these people when, you’re right, it feels like they’ve given up all pretense and dropped the bar on the floor. All they’ve ever done is disappoint me. Working and learning from socialist and labor organizations has given me hope again that there is a path to change.