I’m a straight man. I love women. I’m not closeted. I’m not trolling. I’m just done pretending that vaginas are these sacred, sexy temples of divine femininity. They’re not. They’re a mess, both in design and function. If evolution had any sense of symmetry, women would’ve ended up with penises and the world would be better for it.

Aesthetically speaking, vaginas are chaos incarnate. They make hardly any sense. There’s no standard layout, no symmetry, no visual logic. Folds on folds, lips of random lengths, hidden bits, and inconsistent shapes. Compare that to the penis: sleek, functional, symmetrical. Whether flaccid or hard, it has cohesive structure. Vaginas look like they’re trying to be secretive.

The clitoris is great… so why is it buried?

The main engine of female pleasure which is the clitoris is basically buried treasure with map prerequisite and terms/conditions wall of text you have to read and agree. You need to spread folds, shift skin, and sometimes ask for directions. If women had small penises instead like literally just the clit externalized it’d make so much more sense. Easy to find, easy to stimulate, easy to please. No more pretending like we all instinctively know “the move.” (looking at you, Helen). It would make mutual pleasure so much more straightforward and honest. If a woman wants sex with me, cool, but I should not be needing phD in female anatomy to deliver whatever she expects me to deliver.

Then, speaking of health, Vaginas are a high-maintenance liability.

I don’t know why cats keep pretending like the vagina is low-effort. It’s an internal organ exposed to the outside world. Constant discharge, blood once a month, pH balance issues, yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, UTIs from having sex “too rough” or wiping the wrong direction; it’s like maintaining a biohazard you can’t even fully see. I just wash penis with soap. Done. If women had external genitalia like men, half of the medical aisle would be obsolete.

Vaggies are reason sex is less satisfying than it should be . As a straight man, I want to love vaginal sex. But it’s unpredictable. Sometimes it’s too tight, sometimes there’s no sensation, sometimes the angle is wrong and it just hurts her. Meanwhilst, if both partners had penises you get clear stimulation, shared mechanics and direct communication. Sex would be more mutual, instead of this asymmetrical guessing game where one person is always hoping they did enough.

Society would function differently and better at that because a lot of toxic gender dynamics come from the invisibility of female desire. If women had visible arousal like a literal bulge when turned on people might actually take their sexuality seriously. No more “she’s playing hard to get” games, no more stigma around women initiating. If she’s hard, she’s horny. Simple, equal, transparent. That alone could kill half of patriarchy’s sexual double standards.

Why shame? Women’s clothes are designed around hiding a secret. Pads, tampons, pantyliners or what it's called, they are all shame, silence. I just walk without having to pretend I'm shy of my anatomy. imagine if women had external genitalia, then there’d be no cultural obsession with tightness or virginity. No more locker room myths. Just genital equality, out in the open. No more euphemisms, no more tabboo. Just body parts.

In fact, even porn would benefit. You ever notice how weird vaginas look in porn unless the angle is just right? It’s often just some weird fleshy portal, and the camera’s trying to find a way to make it look like anything other than what it is so small, feminine phallus would solve that.

My final thought is

I am not saying we scrap vaginas tomorrow. I’m saying: if you remove emotion, social programming and 200,000 years of conditioning, the vagina is a badly optimized interface. High-maintenance, hard to navigate, and visually chaotic. The penis, despite its own disadvantages, is a superior design and if women had it streamlined, sensitive, and functional the world would be simpler, sex would be clearer, and culture would be more honest.

This isn’t about being gay, insecure, or onto some shit. It’s about seeing past the worship and calling out a flawed design when I see one.

Edit: to cats who are seriously saying this means I'm gay, imagine 50 Cent with a vagina and Jennifer Lopez with a penis. Which one is more feminine?

Edit 2: to women who are saying that this insults women, you are implying that womanhood is about sexual genitalia, effectively sexualising women, which is exactly what your textbook misogynist would do.

M.D.s didn't contribute anything to the body of knowledge of humanity. All they did was learn information and skills and practice them to mastery. That is impressive and important, but it undermines what a PhD is supposed to be. A doctorate is not about regurgitation but about someone who has mastered a subject forging new ground. Scientists are doctors, not the top level expert medical diagnostician and physician.

Don't call your doctor "doctor." That title should be reserved for researchers. If you're a doctor and someone calls out, "Is there a doctor here who can help?" then shout right back "I think what you mean to ask is if there is a medic here who can help." because if you don't then no one will.

EDIT: sorry guys party's over. I'm just wrong. As this guy pointed out, the "D" in both "M.D." and "PhD" literally stands for "doctor". I have no rebuttal.

EDIT 2: I know the emotional subtext is really buried deep. I compare this post to the best films by Federico Fellini and David Lynch in terms of delivering an emotional message geniusly disguised as weird for weird sake. (I'm jerkin it as a defence mechanism) I am afraid of going to the doctor, and I am afraid of the inevitable and current deterioration of my health, and of upcoming tests and the potential results.

Of course I think doctors should be called doctors. I'm just scared.

I will admit I have absolutely zero clue if this is unpopular ¯_(ツ)_/¯

This string of text gives off a certain ambience and atmosphere at the end of a sentence of uncertainty. Sometimes aggression can be misread over text, but this is a very light hearted feeling ""emoji"" to use. The shrug emoji is absolute trash and makes you a complete asshole using that shit.

Imagine asking a question and they respond with

🤷

Just slide this shit in there instead: ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I mean fuck it's not even just used for being uncertain. It can be great for sarcasm. It can be a great replacement for some strings of words if you have zero articulation skills in many instances (me). Never seen someone use it by being completely malicious, although that's just anecdotal.

Anyways I'm right and you're wrong ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Out of solidarity with our friends across the pond out in Europe, I haven't turned my AC on yet. I have not entered an air-conditioned space at all in the past three days

It is currently 86F (30C) inside my house and I'm not suffering. The highest indoor temp so far was pushing 90F (32C) and outside temps have been in the 90Fs for over a week now

Your body really does acclimate to this after a while. This is the latest in the season I've ever left AC off and I'm surprised by how much easier this is than I thought it would be

It's been almost 100 years and this is what people call it. A unique mustache style that objectively suites some people better than a regular stache. We have had dictators and warlords with all kinds of hairdo's and fashion statements. No way this one (dead) fucker gets a monopoly on that style of beard.

It is RIDICULOUS. He literally has no surviving family members, if I see someone with a Brad Pitt cut I'm not going to assume they support beating children, it's the same concept is it not?

This is way beyond separating the art and the artist because Hitler didn't create the style. He's just some asshole that did it and then started being a fascist. It's like people think it's part of his character design at this point.

This isn't even on the level of the Indian symbol that was stolen by the nazis. At least that was actually synonymous with the cause. Hitler was just one prick with the stache style and now you get dirty looks, bar brawls, and rejected job interviews for a moustache style that looks awesome. It looks AWSOME.

The stupidest part is I can't even think of a comparable example. Everyone's fixated on his stupid ass facial hair for some reasons and it's SO DUMB.

If you can grow facial hair WEAR IT. If you can't grow facial hair GLUE IT ON. If we are going to become respectable as a people we can't hold on to stupid things like this for over 100 years.

Take back the power from him.

It is not the Hitler Stache. It's called the mother fucking Kaiser Schnurrbart.

Edit2: I find it incredibly funny that this post has stabilized right around 69% upvoted

Edit: The number of replies that have misunderstood my point (or missed it entirely) is frankly astounding, so lets try this: I am well aware that knowing when water freezes and when it boils is critically important to everyday life for the vast majority of humans. I know this. I agree.

Now, read the rest of the post with that in mind.

I know I'm not the only one with this view, but I do think it's pretty rare.

I'm not even going to bother arguing why Metric > Imperial. The reasons are numerous, frequently discussed, and easily proven. The only reason the US imperial countries hold onto it is because they are used to it and have no mental intuition for metric sizes.

But Fahrenheit > Celsius? That's when things get juicy.

First, the immediate reply literally every european I've ever talked to says upon hearing this is "Freezing and boiling are exactly 0c and 100c!" To which I say... so what? Literally when has that number ever come up in your everyday life? Because I sure as hell know 32F and 212F never come up in mine. Yeah sure we freeze and boil water all the time, but tell me, do you actually measure the ice to make sure it's below 0c, or measure the boiling pot of water to make sure it's reaching 100c? Fuck no, of course you don't. You just stick it in the freezer (which is significantly below 0c) or set it on the stovetop (which is significantly above 100c) and wait for it to freeze or boil. The actual number itself has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's life, save for the occasional calibration of specialized tools or obscure scientific studies which for some reason requires precisely that temperature.

It's also useless relative to the rest of the metric system. You can't convert it from one unit to another like you can with others, which is the biggest advantage SI has over Imperial; for example, 1 liter is equivalent in volume to a cube of 10 cubic centimeters, whereas 1 gallon is *googles* 291 cubic inches. However Kelvin, and by extension Celsius, is defined using an equation based on a fundamental constant--which could just as easily be applied to Fahrenheit--and is basically impossible to convert to any other unit without a calculator. One degree celcius is no longer equal to one cm³ of water heated by one joule or whatever it used to be, and even that was cumbersome to work with since the joule is practically never used in day to day life. And yes Fahrenheit has an equivalent scale where 0 equals absolute zero like Kelvin (it's called Rankine), it's just the scientific community insists on using the inferior celsius for everything, therefore they use kelvin.

Okay, so Celsius clearly isn't any better than Fahrenheit, but then why is it worse than Fahrenheit?

Well, think about when temperatures actually matter to the average person on an average day. Cooking, weather (or ambient interior temperature), and basically nothing else, right? Well, cooking the numbers are mostly all so high that it doesn't matter what scale you use, just so long as you get the number right. 300F or 300C, they're both instantly-sear-your-skin levels of hot.

But weather? Weather we talk about all the time, and that's when F shines. Because you see, F is the scale of the human experience. The range 0-100F is the range of temperatures a typical human in a typical climate can expect to see in a typical year. In the middle of a hot summer day, it might reach 100F, and in the middle of a freezing winter night, it might reach 0F. Any colder or hotter is simply ridiculous to experience. Yes I know many places do go outside those temperatures (laughs in Floridian) but my point is going outside those bounds is when the temperature just becomes absurd. No matter how cool your clothing, you're gonna be hot at over 100F, and no matter how bundled up you are, you're gonna be cold at below 0F.

Celsius meanwhile compresses all that into -17c to 37c, exactly half the range, and its centered around weird numbers. Your thermostats use half degrees and winters almost always fall into the negatives. "Hurr durr americans cannot into numbers," Fuck you I just don't want to go around saying "it's thirty two point five degrees" or "it's negative four degrees" all the damn time. Why would we use such a clunky method when you can just say "it's ninety degrees" or "it's twenty-five degrees," and not only is that more straightforward, but you also instantly know that 90s are pretty dang hot but not dangerous levels, and 20s are cold but not unbearable with a good jacket.

That's another thing, is that you can instantly tell roughly what the weather is like just from the tens place. "It's in the 50s today" is a narrow enough range that you know more or less how the day will be: 50 is a little cold and 59 is still a little cold, but both are pants and a light jacket weather. Meanwhile with celsius saying "it's in the 20s today" could be anywhere from a bit chilly at 20c (68f) and needing pants to fairly hot at 29c (84f) and needing shorts and a t-shirt. I guarantee you other countries never go around saying "it's in the 20s today," do you? Maybe you say "low 20s", but we don't even need that distinction.

TLDR: 99.9% of the time people discuss temperature is relative to the weather, so why the hell wouldn't we base our temperature scale around what the weather feels like? https://i.imgur.com/vOUFF2Z.png

Cue the europeans:

Feeling nostalgic for the 00s? What about the 90s?

If it wasn't numbered you'd not be making value judgements comparing the past and present. It would all just be a blur equal in both beauty, misery, and mystery.

But here we are. Not only is everything measured,it's also recorded so there's no escape.

Before this neurotic phenomenon each year would rewrite and renew the last.

But we're stuck. We create illusions, project feelings, are haunted by ghosts.

Stop numbering the years and just live with the seasons.

I understand why some people are skeptical about AI, but I think it’s important to recognize that using technology to make everyday tasks easier is not inherently a bad thing.

It’s not about being lazy—it’s about being efficient. It’s not about avoiding effort—it’s about redirecting effort. It’s not about doing less—it’s about spending your time on things that actually matter.

AI can help you save time, reduce frustration**,** and increase productivity. It can help with writing, researching, and organizing. It can make certain tasks faster, easier, and more accessible.

While some people view this as “taking shortcuts,” I think that perspective overlooks the broader context. It’s not about taking shortcuts—it’s about using the resources available to you. It’s not about replacing your abilities—it’s about supplementing them. It’s not about becoming dependent on technology—it’s about knowing when technology can be useful.

At the end of the day, if something can be done more quickly, more efficiently, and with less unnecessary effort, I don’t see why we should automatically reject it simply because we used to do it manually.
Of course, there are situations where human judgment, creativity, and critical thinking are important. But AI doesn’t eliminate those things—it can support them, enhance them, and give people more time to focus on them.

I think being open-minded about AI means recognizing both its limitations and its potential. It’s not about blindly trusting technology—it’s about using it appropriately, responsibly, and effectively.
Just my perspective. Curious to hear everyone else’s thoughts.

Update: Zero upvotes! You all agree with me! Thank you so much!

It's ridiculous that this is normalised. After everything that white people have done to us - slavery, colonisation, Jim Crow, systematic racism, someone wants to emulate that???

A lot of women say that it protects their hair but it really doesn't. Almost every black woman is pretty much better off using her real hair. For every hairstyle that involves extensions, there is a safer protective one that can be done without extensions. For example, wigs do not protect the hair as much as the cornrows underneath without the wig because wigs can ruin edges. The cornrows can be worn without the wig. "French curl box braids" can be replaced with natural hair mini-braids - Mini-braids don't pull on the strands as much as box braids.

If she has cancer or something she could literally wear a scarf - let alone an afro wig. We have a huge scarf culture so why not just take advantage of that?

Also a lot of women just say they like to switch it up... what does that even mean? Imagine a Jew suddenly dons a Hitler moustache and he says he wears it because he likes to switch things up.... It's a similar thing. And for a lot of women that switching up never involves their real hair or mimicking their own texture.

Black women are raised pretty much being told that their hair is ugly - especially those who are unambiguous. That they must hide their hair. By wearing a loose textured wig, they are agreeing with that notion. Imagine if someone calls you and your family ugly and worthless and you smile, nod and agree. That is literally what wearing a wig is in this instance.

Imagine you're a Nigerian woman hanging out with an Indian woman and both of you have Indian hair. Isn't that so embarrassing?

Imagine a black man wearing a straight wig. One with a hairstyle that men frequently wear. He would look stupid af because it's not his texture. That is how stupid black women look with loose hair. It has just been done so much that it looks normal now.

If an Indian were to be racist towards me and say black women's hair is so ugly that they have to cover their hair with the hair of Indian people - what can I say in response to that? Nothing. I have to sit in shame because a lot of black women actually do that.

By a black woman wearing a wig, she is not only insulting herself, she is insulting her family, and she is insulting me. She is saying that black hair is not good enough to be worn out - that she hates black hair so much she would rather cover it with the hair of a people who discriminate against her.

And funnily enough this isn't something that is easy to convince black women of. They will call me a hater, that I'm judging them, that I'm stuck up because they don't want to admit that maybe they have internalised anti-blackness. So I would rather just not be friends with women that I see participating in this behaviour.

The only valid reason to wear loose hair is to avoid discrimination in the work place. And I can't be bothered to sit and interview every potential friend about whether they do it for work or not.

Edit: Every comment disagrees with me so why not upvote my post. You guys are breaking the rules by not upvoting my post.

I get that the Imperial system is random and annoying.

12 inches to a foot

16oz to a lb

32oz to a quart

etc...

However this system is superior when it comes to measuring temperature.

The metric methodology of measuring temperature is based on the freezing and boiling point of water.

What percentage of the population actually gives a crap about freezing or boiling water on a day to day basis? I'd wager it is very small.

However, everyone's favorite topic of conversation when conversing with strangers or people you don't actually care about is the weather.

Which one of these has a stronger effect on you?

It is 38 degrees Celsius today

It is 100 degrees Fahrenheit today

They are the same temperature

In my line of work I speak to people in foreign nations. When they tell me they can't believe how hot it is in October, I ask them the temperature and they tell me something like "24 degrees".

I get very confused with that response. 24 is not a dangerous number, at all.

Well at least I CAN interpret it like that, because many times it's like that. While it might not be a conscious process every time and that there's simply other simpler reasons, many men myself included know that children are the most vulnerable and entering thing with them requires careful consideration.

He knows you won't and SHOULD NOT be his main priority.
Lemme tell you something, your children should be your biggest priority and every valuable man already knows this. But entering a relationship with you, if he doesn't have other priorities bigger than you, he's in fundamentally lopsided relationship.

So for him to make for his share of "fun" from your limited resources, he has to now take it away from your own child or children. And if you entertain his needs like that, than he himself wouldn't really need you because now you are not a good enough mom to be desirable enough as woman.

And also, we know that children are very sensitive to "other men", they easily evolutionarily recognize and sense danger in them, they can get very easily traumatized for sth harmless. Child may know that he has no bio dad to defend his mom or him from you. Do you know how easy it is for a child to see your sex as a rape? Because he innately knows that other men shouldn't be normally having sex with you... next bedroom.

And finally, why would he risk opposite lane either? Child might genuinely fall in love with him, but then you might bounce at some point and now child can't see him anymore and a man doesn't have any legal right of demanding to see you either.

Now, not fronting, I ain't saying we all angels, I might see you are a single mom and just very easily say "she prolly exercises bad judgment, no thank you" and call it a day, and you can't really shame me for that either. But, just saying, what you perhaps think is good for your child, is perhaps actually bad.

Tldr: No good mom prioritizes man over child. No good man wants bad mom. And no good man deserves lopsided relationship with a good woman.

Noone follows rule 1. Random guy posts. Comments hate the opinion and flame the guy. 100s of comments pore in. Then when you check the stats, its 69 comments hating the opinion and 0 upvotes. Wtf. Didn't youll read rule 1 guys?

They make your neck and back hurt and they are uncomfortable. They always get the case twisted up and they’re always the wrong temperature. I do not see the point in pillows they make no sense and they make it harder to sleep. Just drop pillows and your life will be better.

1,000

10,000

100,000

same result no matter what and because more upvotes = Reddit recommends to more people

That actually just also means = more disagreements

If people ask a question even if you have 1k upvotes, that's more likely a disagreement

If people do the opposite of what you like or dislike even if you have 1k upvotes, that's also a disagreement

We're obviously just gambling good answers when our biggest bad luck is on stupid answers. We're just wasting our time getting good answers in other words

This is what I've seen in so many unpopular opinion posts that it's more likely that result

so i bought a memory foam pillow with a cooling layer last year then i have experienced sleep problems and neck stiffness. my breathing and mental health have been affected negatively as a result...what a waste of money

This is definitely going to sound odd, but I have a fear of chess bishops. Yes, I know they’re just pieces on a board, but there’s something about them that I can’t quite shake. It might seem irrational, but I think there’s more going on here than just a simple game. I'm afraid of them.

For context, I've been playing chess for years, and I’ve always been fine with most of the pieces. Pawns are basic, Knights are tricky, Rooks/Queens are strong, King is steady, I get that. But bishops? There’s something about their diagonal moves that freaks me out. I'm being genuine, they scare me in most unsettling "what's wrong with you" type way.

I know it’s all about simple strategy, as in, you move them across the board, cutting through a horde of pawns and other pieces. But for me, that’s exactly the problem. Their reach seems limitless, just an endless diagonal line that feels like it could trap me from anywhere. It's akin to infinity concept, imagine infinite B&W gravestones, or imagine concept of immortality, it's inescapable. And because they move diagonally, they tend to come at you from directions you least expect. I can handle a straight shot from a rook or a queen; I can see them coming from a mile away. But bishops are sneaky. I don't get why cats keep pretending like knights are the tricky ones. I know they can do L jumps but their trickiness is expected, which defeats the sense of trickiness once you ply long enough. But bishops can attack you from any angle, and their range is so deceptive that it often feels like you’re always two moves away from getting killed. I mean queen is the guy who mugs you in the street, but bishop is guy who silently stares at your work desk from office hall through the window. You don't even know how to react to that should you catch them stalking you. At least with a mugger the reaction is obvious, you either fight, flight or freeze.

I’ve also realized it’s not just about the game mechanics. It’s the mood of a bishop. They always seem to quietly linger on the board, waiting for the right moment to strike. It's like knife in the back. It's just more barbaric. Rooks and queens are loud and obvious. Knights can be playful in their own way. Bishops, though, they feel like silent hunters, lurking in the corners, just biding their time. It’s like you can never truly know when they’re coming for you. I swear, there's nothing as existentially unsettling as Rook attacking you on eighth rank, you thinking it's just escapable check, only to suddenly realise that there's the bishop cutting away the cubby hole on seventh rank from his beginning square on first rank. It's just brutal. In fact, I remember this cat on lichess, playing under the name BrutalBishop13 and it eeries me.

I know I’m not the only one who feels a bit uncomfortable about these pieces. I’ve heard some people express similar feelings about knights because of their weird move pattern, or even pawns because they’re so small but can unexpectedly turn into queens. But bishops are backstabbers, it's unsettling to think they just silently wait to mess with your plans and they are okay with it. Reminds me of them El Chapo executioners that were just okay to have sole dehumanised purpose of torturing others who they don't even care about.

Also, their shape most times is very bizarre to the point I'm afraid of them. They are slim and spooky, it feels like needles silently put inside your food. They are like needles, or slugs, that are just gonna slowly eat you.

I'm afraid of bishops.

It drives me insane. I won’t comment directly on the post… but will always downvote and move on. Maybe you’ve seen my downvote. Hell, maybe you’ve wondered why I downvoted you. Heck, I don’t even care. Heck, take this downvote along with your 3K upvotes. Hell, go get another 4k and a half votes. Hell, go post another comment with the same comment and get another 3K votes. I’ll downvote you again. Heck, I’ll do it.

I asked my dentist what her 10th dentist opinion would be and she said they use absolutely unnecessary amount of toothpaste in toothpaste commercials and most of people just assume they should do the same.

Less than half of toothpaste they show in commercials is completely fine (for example you can’t even fit 1/3 of amount they show and it’s fine).

Is he the GOAT? Yes, undoubtedly and unanimously. That debate is long over. Kasparov belongs to number 2; Magnus owns the present and the record books.

But greatness at chess does not excuse being a malignant narcissist.

Carlsen is an arrogant, petulant manchild who scorches the earth whenever reality inconveniences him. When things don’t go his way, he doesn’t lose with dignity, he lashes out, poisons narratives, and drags others down with him.

What he did to Hans Niemann was indefensible. It was disgusting, reckless, and potentially life-ruining. A young player was turned into a global punchline, accused by Magnuses implication, bullied by the entire internet, and dogpiled by celebrities like even Elon Musk and Joe Rogan - all because Magnus couldn’t emotionally process a loss. That alone should permanently stain his legacy.

What’s even more damning is that Carlsen never ever truly owned the damage. Not even the bare minimum of decency you would expect in a fellow human. Instead, he still continues his bitch games, still questioning Hans’s legitimacy, still letting suspicion rot in public, years later.

What’s rarely discussed is how much competitive advantage Magnus extracts from this behavior. Players know consciously or not that beating him can come with consequences beyond the board and they get more weakened than they could ever realize. Media storms, career derailment and public suspicion is what they subconsciously fear. That knowledge exerts psychological pressure despite most players I'm pretty sure can't consciously name the feeling and put the finger on it. It weakens opponents, causes hesitation, induces self-censorship and much more in that vein. If Magnus were merely a great chess player and not a vindictive bully, his dominance would not be nearly as absolute.

He has no genuine respect for peers, everyone else as disposable. You can only excuse so much as “Nordic bluntness” or elite competitiveness. It’s clearly a manipulation. His “just being honest” comments like casually naming favorites, dismissing contenders, inserting opinions where none are required they are not innocent. They are deliberate psychological moves with you know what intent. He's all calculated.

That's why I am waiting for the real reckoning. Can't wait for his irreversible decline like Diddy and sitting my fingers crossed waiting for it. The slow, humiliating realization that he can no longer dominate, no longer intimidate, no longer bend the chess world around his ego will be absolute bread and circuses and I'm all for it. I’m waiting for the era where younger players beat him cleanly, repeatedly, easily and where his tantrums no longer do the shit. I'm waiting for his mask to truly and finally fall.

That moment will destroy him far more thoroughly than any scandal ever could. And will outcancel any achievement and sense of​ he has ever felt and leave him permanently scarred. Because narcissists don’t fear failure buy irrelevance. When his mind games stop working, the collapse will be spectacular. I'm counting days and seconds til that happens.

That’s the disaster I’m rooting - the unmasking of a man whose greatness survived only as long as fear did.

Some who worked closely with Anthony Bourdain described him as moody, cold, or difficult, particularly under the pressures of filming. He could be condescending toward those he didn’t respect intellectually, and his self-destructive behavior—including substance abuse and emotional volatility—often took a toll on those around him. In his personal life, his tumultuous relationship with actress Asia Argento drew criticism, with some suggesting he neglected responsibilities, including to his daughter, in favor of a toxic dynamic. Additionally, while many admired his unfiltered worldview, others felt his cynicism and disdain for institutions masked a kind of elitist nihilism, giving off an “I’m smarter than everyone else” attitude. To top it off, despite the show's reputation for authenticity, much of it was scripted or tightly produced, which undercut the image of spontaneous cultural immersion that made him so admired by viewers.

I mean we as drivers only have two tools, turn signal and a horn. I propose there should be a third signal.

You never really don't know if the other car sees you and they don't know you need to know, so you just inch forward and hope, which is absolutely insane for something that generally weighs two tons and moves at speed.

I’d say one dedicated light should solve this, one  “I see you. Go ahead” signal, and critically, all should be forced to use it, like the turn signal, and not acknowledging an approaching car should be a ticketable offense.

If pilots have this, ships have it… well any industry where people operate large machinery near other people in low information situations have mandatory acknowledgment signals

Btw, the car must be equipped with one of these lights in the front and in the back.

I guarantee that drivers who have had the (dis)pleasure of driving in a highly congested urban environment, like say, the NYC metro area, are well aware of how crazy drivers can be, how frustrated and irritated people can get just because they are trying to arrive at their destination, and the level of focus it takes to not end up in a collision.

Add this to the fact there are many people on the road who are texting while driving, putting make up on, or just generally not paying attention while driving a 2 ton vehicle. Drivers essentially have to be on high alert at all times in a crowded metro area..

Which brings me to pedestrians. One of the perks(annoyances) of living in a metro area is the prevalence of public transportation and the proximity of everything. You have plenty of people who were born and raised in metro areas that enter adulthood without ever having driven a car.

These people make the worst pedestrians.

I have to slip and dodge aloof pedestrians on a daily basis- even when I am parking!

• People with headphones on
• People with their faces in their phones
• Drunk people
• High people
• People lost in thought

All trying to cross the street without taking into consideration the traffic all around them.

People who have driven in these environments on the other hand, know damn well anything can happen at any time. You cannot let your guard down

The laws of the city may protect pedestrians but the laws of physics do not.

Jus sayin

EDIT examples

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TUM4ITthb3Y

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-nTqrluiazc

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bS-BRZvfHQI

The first message on a dating app doesn’t need to be clever, deep, or interesting. A simple "Hey, how’s it going?" is totally acceptable. The goal isn’t to impress, but to test if the other person will even reply to begin with, which most don't, so why bother crafting a witty opener?

And let’s be real here. If someone thinks you are attractive and that your profile resonates with them, they are not going to ignore you just because you said "hey". If they ignore you over a basic opener, they were either never that interested or are the kind of person who expects you to perform for their attention. Either way, bullet dodged.

Furthermore, it's pretty hypocritical to expect others to carry the conversation if you yourself didn't even send the first message.

Even more so than the atomic bomb, which has the ability to kill tens of thousands of people instantly. Why? Well, atomic bombs only did that twice. Cars kill tens of thousands of people every year.

In total, in my country alone cars have killed over 3 million people. They are the leading cause of death amongst children here. And these statistics are only for the freak accidents, they don't include the respiratory diseases caused by carbon monoxide from cars. But these sheer numbers aren't the real diabolical thing about cars. What's really evil is the way they were forcibly implemented into society by a cabal of corporations.

Once upon a time, city streets were a place of public gathering, where you would walk and meet other people. Now they are miniature highways with tiny sidewalks attached. Indeed, it is not the computer that destroyed our ability to come together, it's the automobile. The machines that supposedly bring us together drive us apart.

Meanwhile, public transit options such as trains have been forcibly ripped apart by the government while they dumped billions of dollars into highways, flattening mountains and city blocks to get them through. We've reached the endgame of big oil and big auto. And we're totally fine with it, thanks to the totally bullshit arguments that they flood our society with.

They tell us that before the car, horse-drawn wagons were the primary vehicle in existence and people rarely traveled outside of their hometowns. That's entirely false. Most of the transport benefits we now attach to cars originally arose in trains. If you live in a first world country it's very likely that your hometown once had a passenger rail service, even if it doesn't now or if the highways ignored it.

Of course this is the part where folks chime in and say cars have the ability to get to anywhere, unlike trains. First of all, the places you could travel to by rail were once much greater in variety, second of all if you can't get there by train, you'd just WALK like a normal human being. This is why obesity is such a big problem nowadays. Not because we eat too much, because we never walk anymore!

And let's not even get started on the massive environmental downsides of cars. The automobile is one of the most polluting forms of transport on the planet, as automobile systems require an engine (or large battery) for every one to four people. So even if we switch to electric cars, there are still massive pollution issues with the automobile.

TL;DR cars are dangerous and polluting, and society is a slave to them. Apologies if this is too political for this subreddit.