bear141

They make it hard to find what you want on purpose in hopes you will be distracted and buy other crap along the way. I think it must work on most consumers.

I have the same reaction to it as you.

I see where you are coming from and I think this is an interesting observation. Especially when talking about companies and people moving apartments every year.

I grew up in a house full of the clutter that you describe as comforting, but for me it felt smothering. I recently inherited the house I grew up in and now have it set up much less cluttered. I don’t plan to live anywhere else anytime soon, but for me the lack of clutter and clear spaces are much more comforting.

I am definitely not a fan of crazy colors or patterns or bad lighting either though.

Definitely. Stooges were more proto-punk but their influence on metal and everything else is undeniable. Like the others, Iggy is a god as well.

Punk is for politics and Metal is for Partying.

If there’s no bug infested dreadlocks then it ain’t sludge!

Except Dixie Dave. Eyes crossed from Jim beam and cough syrup works too.

Doom, stoner doom, stoner sludge.

Bands like Sleep, OM, Electric Wizard, Weedeater, Dopesmoker, Satans Satyrs, Uncle Acid and the Deadbeats, Salems Pot, Acid Witch… there’s so so many.

Also heavier bands that are more stoner/psych than metal like All Them Witches, Mars Red Sky, Dead Meadow, Aunt Cynthia’s Cabin, all rip too.

That’s interesting. Somehow my brain never really put that together. He was obviously ripping heavy blues and innovated more than anyone before and arguably since. Thanks for adding him into my mental Metal flow chart.

For me I would always say that somewhere between 68-71 metal was being cooked up by Black Sabbath in Birmingham, Motörhead in London, Pentagram in Virginia, and Blue Cheer in San Francisco. Obviously Hendrix’s influence would be most obvious with the latter.

I am completely against the outrage and drama cycle of all media. But as a matter of fact, this is clearly what drives views in today’s world so it’s nice when someone consistently getting millions of views at least chooses to support something good once in a while.

I much prefer channels that don’t use this way of gaining views, but they, because of that, don’t gain nearly as many views.

I have no skin in this game, but it’s pretty clear what the majority of viewers want.

I don’t think I’ve read a Reddit thread in the last few years that didn’t devolve into politics on the highest upvoted comments fairly quickly.

The “system” is comprised of normal people. These normal people are vastly more concerned about furthering their own career,ie “Winning”. No one should trust this system to ever find any real justice. It is a joke.

Reading this makes me think of the effect of doing something you do all the time, and are pretty great at, but when someone is watching you, you inevitably make a stupid mistake.

It also makes me think of certain people that attain the level of fame where everything they do is praised, whether it is objectively good or not.

The defeatist attitude in the reply’s to this comment are unreal. Try hard or don’t. It’s up to you. At least with the one way you might have a chance.

What is the other way of going about things? Assuming you will fail and never trying?

You can choose to think that op meant only the most insanely rich billionaires. I thought they meant their actual experiences with peers. Cut out the outliers and be realistic and I think it’s easier to understand the point without the extremism. The range of what people consider success is quite large.

Do they actually pay less in taxes because of this? I’m not arguing. That is great and I would appreciate if you could provide a source for me to read.

Do you mean therapy is designed to teach outcasts how to fit better into the machine? I would agree with that, and while I hate that it is partly true and reject anything like this for myself in general, individual happiness sometimes correlates with greasing your wheels to be a better subject.

Oh I was oversimplifying for sure and like most things in life it is very dependent on who you are and what type of therapist you have(lcsw,psychiatrist,psychologist,practicing RN, etc), also just the views and opinions of the people involved will vary greatly on the outcome.

I’ve had plenty of bad experiences which exacerbated my hopelessness but overall I feel I’ve found help when I most needed it.

I think the introductory things in almost any form of therapy will help people, after that it gets much more complicated and it’s up to the individual to find something that fits or decide it’s not for them.

You are definitely right about the financial barriers. I’ve struggled to find one every time I have switched or lost a certain insurance coverage too so there is a shortage even if you can afford them.

I’m inclined to think chatGPT would probably be good enough for therapy basics and could help people that have never encountered them, but would probably become much worse after needing any specialized help. Online platforms like BetterHelp are complete trash and just make the therapist and the person feel hopeless.

I used to think that therapists were ridiculous. But after having one for six or seven years now, I realize that it’s literally just someone you pay to help you be the happiest and best version of yourself. Maybe everyone doesn’t need that, but I don’t think anyone is inherently always the best version of themselves. What’s the point of not trying to be a little better?

How exactly do you think these insane people are able to spend that much time and also have enough of an audience to sway anything?

I thought this would be inherent just on their training? There are many multitudes more Reddit posts than scientific papers or encyclopedia type sources. Although I suppose the latter have their own biases as well.

I find this interesting. I've always described things from the users point of view. Like the left side of a car, regardless of who is looking at it from what direction, is the driver side. To me, this would include a body.

When I was in Amsterdam I was with a group of acquaintances of a friend who lived there. One of them offered me an extra piece of pizza they had when I showed up. When the bill came, they asked me for the exact percentage of the bill that that piece of pizza cost. First time experiencing something like that.

I also offered to buy several people a drink while I was there. This was received every time with suspicion and I was treated as if I was trying to gain something transactional besides a simple friendship in the moment. It was an interesting part of that society to experience.

Wine tasting is fun.

I am hearing people with this standpoint more often while discussing privacy. Especially in people that work in marketing. They think they are helping the world discover novel products that they would otherwise miss out on. So, they also appreciate the invasive, no privacy practices of ad companies in their lives.

I would love it if schools would focus on actually preparing our kids for the real world rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.

With this specific example, if McGillis had spent as much time and money and effort on appearing young and attractive as Tom Cruise has, maybe she would have been back in her role as well.

Which was a great pitch because it’s what people want. It just has to be based in reality.

In my mind it’s more like they give you what they want you to accept in these results and the AI summaries. It really seems like the days where any of these giant corps gave you what you actually wanted are long past.

This is a great point. If a small percentage of the population is openly and aggressively negative towards another part of the population, it makes sense that they would both artificially appear as if they are a larger part of the population, to each other. I think it goes both ways.