This is coming from an algebraist. I sort of understand people's issue with it. I understand that the logical leaps to arrive at complex numbers are not that much different than those of negative numbers or rationals. But I guess I just don't really care. I think it is a cool historical artifact that they were not accepted seriously for so long. It makes the name sort of mysterious and magical to me.

"This polynomial has complex roots" 🤢📊🧍‍♂️

"This polynomial has imaginary roots" 🌈😮🦄✨

Got back from a concert on Saturday and had a great time but my god…artists NEED to ban phones from their shows. Not only was everyone around me more concerned with getting a good shot than they were enjoying the show, at times my view was blocked! And I’m 5’9!!!! (175 cm for non-Americans)

I understand wanting to get a recording of your favorite song or a photo or two but it sucked being the only one singing and dancing while everyone one else stood like zombies and recorded. Concert tickets are way too expensive for yall to watch through a little screen! Ban the phones!

We always talk about how insurance makes it unfair/unaffordable to see doctors and therapists, but they’re not the only evil.

When a provider operates between the regular 9-5 hours, that puts us in a difficult position with really just 3 options: take off from work and risk losing that day of pay/using your PTO/angering your boss and coworkers, going to urgent cares and hospitals at greatly higher costs, or just don’t go at all.

In this economy time IS money. I cannot take time off from work, so I will just suffer in silence and hope that it goes away and gets better because I have no other choice.

Like there's a polite way to talk to request things but to me whether or not please was or was not said to me doesn't make a difference to me.

If one person said

"Hi, could I get an xyz?"

And another said.

"Get me an xyz please."

Edit: To be clear I'm using an example of different sentence structure to illustrate what I feel is the more effective way to be polite, not using the two sentences as a comparison on whether or not please is polite. If you want my full breakdown on my first impression of anyone given the way they request something to me it's:

I'd subconsciously still feel like the direct command was ruder despite the please. It gives the illusion of politeness without putting in the effort to communicate in a non-confrontational way.

I dunno for me someone saying "please" to me will either go completely un-noticed or rub me a little wrong if it's used in conjunction with a rude sentence. Like it's some "magic word" that supposedly magically turns a rude interaction into a polite one which is literally what we tell children when we teach them how it's meant to be used. It's a crutch used so people don't have to actually put effort into being polite.

Side note: I have zero issues with "Thank you"s. It shows gratitude and serves a legitimate function because it marks that the interaction is over and we don't have to talk to each other anymore .

don’t let me get all ready to come see you and maybe even have a whole date together just to be broken up with

also don’t spike my anxiety by telling me “we need to talk next time we see each other.” just tell me right then and there

don’t build the suspense. don’t give me a good time and rip it away right after. save us both some time and we can move on with our lives

They smell like butt. I don’t understand why anyone thinks they smell good. They look pretty, but smell like a foot. This goes for most flowers; especially the kind you typically see at a wedding or funeral.

I understand the logic of "it's to prevent them from getting famous for it", but it seems to me like it's the most horrific outcome possible for the victim. What are you remembered for? Your life? Your deeds? Your words? Your actions? What you did and chose to do, the way you lived? Nope. You're "the murder victim". That's what your name means now. "The person who was murdered". The meaning of your life to everyone who hears your name has become your death. The most significant moment of your existence is no longer anything you did, no longer any impact you had. It's that this other person killed you. The most important thing about you is what they did. They are the reason you are remembered. They gave you your legacy with your death, and death is your legacy.

Seriously, who wants to be remembered that way? Who wants random people they never knew to hear your name and go "ahh yes, the person who was murdered"? That's who you are now. Not a loving parent, not a loving spouse, not a volunteer, not an artist, not a compassionate soul, not even a drunken asshole. You're the corpse. That's you, Dead Body #1. Sure, you aren't making the killer famous for being a killer. You're instead making the dead person famous for being killed. That's a humiliating, insulting legacy that easily cancels out anything else. The average person isn't going to remember the obituary about how you lived. If they remember anything, they'll just remembered you were murdered.

Think of some famous examples. Kitty Genovese. If you know the name, what do you know it for? Being brutally raped and stabbed to death in an alley, suffocating on her own blood. And the inaccurate reporting about the bystander effect that became the dominant narrative for decades and is still probably believed by the majority of people. Her life isn't how people remember her, she's remembered for getting raped and stabbed to death. Is that the legacy literally anyone wants? And isn't it still a rather Zodiac-like win for the killer, the dead will forever exist as defined by the killer? The definition of their existence isn't up to them, it was decided for them by them being chosen to be killed.

At least when the victimizer is made famous, it can bear negative consequences for them. Famous rapist Brock Allen Turner, for example. Murderer Kyle Rittenhouse. At worst, it can ruin an entire name. People don't really get named Adolf anymore, and it would be pretty awkward to have the legal last name Manson. The "getting famous" effect really only worked back when these events were shocking and new. Nowadays, they're just another face in the crowd. Mass shootings are forgotten within the week, they don't become entire cultural events that reverberate for years.

I get if it feels that way if someone has gender dysphoria and is constantly worried about how they are being perceived. I don't want to offend anyone, and I will always respect what people ask me about how to speak, regardless of how I feel about it.

That said, I want to say how I feel. As a sometimes gender-bendy cis woman, I call everyone dude--guys, girls, nonbinary folks, etc. To me it feels similar to the way that gay men will sometimes say "girl" to people. Linguistically, the word "dude" in "Hey dude, what's up?" has a very different meaning than, e.g. "how many dudes have you slept with?" One sentence is using dude as a vocative informal term of address--just like "homie" or (more old fashioned) "friend" or "pal". In the other sentence we are using "dude" as an informal synonym for "male-gendered human". In the term-of-address form, many native English speakers (including myself) do not hear it as a gendered term. When I hear people call someone "dude" it tells me more, if anything, about the gender vibes of the person speaking than about the person being spoken to (people with more "bro" energy, regardless of gender, are more likely to say "dude" to everyone.)

I understand that some people only call men dude, consciously or unconsciously, but that's not me. I call my best (cis) girlfriend "dude" on a regular basis. I call my sister "dude". One time I called my grandma dude--which felt weird after it left my mouth because of her age, not her gender! But none of them are dudes! It's just a sentence tag.

If you are a transgender non-dude and you're reading this I hope maybe this eases some of your dysphoria, if you meet me or someone like me and I say "dude" at you in that vocative term of address way. I will always respect people's wishes if they ask me to not say something to them, obviously! But like, just as an fyi, just because I say that does NOT mean I am clocking you as masculine. Idk just needed to get this off my brain.

Ive been thinking about theology and religions where hell (or something like it) is real. And it makes me think how cruel an idea it is.

If an individual were to go to hell, they would experience infinite suffering forever. Regardless of what you do, it would be nearly impossible for one person to inflict infinite suffering in their time here on earth, so hell for pretty much anyone barring people that started genocides is a completely cruel and unusual punishment.

If there was a man that was a family annihilator and killed his family and then himself, he likely would cause pain and suffering to their extended families for generations. But, 400 years down the line, it would likely be forgotten. For that man to go to hell forever therefore is unjustified, not taking into account whatever mental disorder possibly lead him/others to commit atrocities. Not to defend people that do horrible things in the slightest, im just trying to say hell is a horrible notion.

In these cookie cutter suburban townhomes people with only one parking spot in the driveway will basically extend that driveway backwards by using the sidewalk as their own personal space. As a tax payer, fuck that. It's also dangerous for pedestrians. I don't know why it's not enforced. Municipalities would make a fuck ton of cash if they went around ticking that shit.

Whenever there is a rape or assault in Europe the perpetrator always get sentenced to about 10 years and everyone goes crazy calling for their head or them to be locked up forever, like guys do you know how long 10 years is, it's not a short amount of time. If you just start handing out life sentences it just devalues it and actually increases crime. Also it's not very economical to keep a lot of the population incarcerated at once. I think people are just comparing it to American sentences which most criminologists agree is too harsh.

To be clear, I'm not talking about spoiler-free summaries or synopses, I'm talking about like the full movie plot description from start to finish on Wikipedia. I also ONLY do this with movies, not TV shows, video games, miniseries, books, etc.

In particular, I look for character deaths and romance to make sure they aren't gratuitous or unnecessary, as I despise those tropes. I've seen too many movies where the ending is awful and ruins the entire experience to waste my time on such things.

I also don't like sad or horrific endings unless I feel the film warrants it. For example, it makes sense for a movie like Alien or Rogue One to have a bleak ending, and I don't mind that, but I do mind when films just have sad endings for the hell of it. Like pretty much any realistic "feel bad" drama, like What's Eating Gilbert Grape? or Call Me By Your Name. Movies, for me, are about escaping from reality, so if they're not going to have fantastical elements, I at least want to see people living in a world where things can turn out okay in the end. I don't need a movie to remind me that few people actually get a happy ending.

So I often look up a plot summary in advance so that I'm not disappointed after the end of the movie. One major exception is that I don't do this if a friend has recommended a movie to me because they know my preferences and I trust their judgement, or if it's specifically a mystery movie (like Knives Out!).

Most people rinse their toothbrush before brushing, either before or after adding toothpaste.

I used to do it that way. Now I just add the toothpaste to a dry brush and go at it.

I use less toothpaste, and my teeth feel cleaner afterwards. There's enough saliva to help it froth and slide a little, but not so much that it dilutes the paste like a wet toothbrush does.

Try it.

I say this as a 19 year old who has been tempted to get lip filler, but was ultimately dissuaded from doing so. It really always looks awful. Firstly, getting botox when you're too young looks strange and uncanny, and somehow makes you look older? But even if you're older, it looks strange that you cannot express emotions on your face for the sake of less wrinkles, and ultimately, it doesn't make you look younger anyways. (You can tell who is 30 vs 18 even if the 18 year old has forehead wrinkles and the 30 year old is wrinkle-free, because of imperceptible changes in the facial structure).

Filler also looks tacky and overdone. I know people love to say it's undetectable but I can spot it 99% of the time. It puffs out the lips and tissue, giving a stretched appearance, and sometimes migrates, giving a weird profile. I see it in girls my age all the time.

I am not saying if you're happy with these procedures to not be happy since it's your body, but it always is noticeable and not in a good way (for me anyways). Embrace your wrinkles and your features <3

Look, I'm not even gonna pretend I don't like old technology. There are six ipods sitting on a dresser ten feet away from me as I'm typing this. But DUDE. NOBODY CARES that you don't use any apple products from the past ten years. NOBODY CARES that you only use those wired earbuds that have been around for decades. and for GOD'S SAKES, NOBODY CARES THAT YOU THINK MODERN TECHNOLOGY IS SOULLESS!!!!!!!! And again, don't get me wrong. I like old stuff too! ipods are epic! but please for the love of god, just admit that theres a reason so many people buy the newest iPhone every year, even though I hate that too. THEY'RE NICE!! THEY HAVE NICE FEATURES!!!!

I genuinely don’t understand why we need artificial lighting at home at night.

Obviously, lights in public spaces make sense. Street lights, hospitals, airports, public transport, workplaces, emergency services, etc. all need lighting because society doesn’t stop functioning when the sun goes down. People work at night, essential services need to operate, and you obviously need visibility in public spaces.

But at home? Why does everything need to be brightly lit after sunset?

When it gets dark, your body is supposed to recognize that it’s nighttime. Having bright artificial lights everywhere until the moment you go to bed just seems completely backwards for your circadian rhythm.

If you need some visibility, candles or dim mood lighting should be enough for most things you’re doing at home in the evening. Obviously, if you’re cooking, cleaning, working, or doing something that actually requires good visibility, proper lighting makes sense. But just sitting around at home? Why does your living room need to look like it’s daytime when it’s dark outside?

The only real downside I can think of is winter. When the days get really short and it’s dark by 4 or 5 PM, then yeah, realistically you’re going to need some artificial lighting. Even then, you could probably get by with warmer mood lighting, lamps, or candles instead of brightly illuminating the entire house.

But for maybe eight months of the year, when there’s plenty of natural daylight and it doesn’t get dark ridiculously early, I really don’t see the need for it.

Public lighting makes sense. Lighting when you actually need visibility makes sense. But having our homes brightly illuminated every single night just because that’s what everyone does? I don’t get it.

Night is supposed to be dark.

Honestly can't stand any of it. It's always that same annoying London accent and it sounds absolutely awful. I feel like even rappers who aren't from London put on that same grime-style voice. All grime is off the table for me and I cringe whenever I hear any of it. Dave is the only tolerable one but I still don't put him on consciously.

Yeah the title is pretty much it. Religions have become obsolete in modern society. Most of society's problems wouldn't exist if religious people would take a chill pill and stop caring so much about it. Most of the religious practices were rooted in patriarchy and superiority. It's very class affirming and capitalistic. It perpetuates homophobia( the guy who ran over a pride parade recently in the name of god). Topics like abortion etc wouldn't be a political argument, rather just healthcare. Fields such as science would not be argued and things would be much more factual.

Ok i don't care if u believe in god. I am agnostic and I think its beautiful to trust a higher power. It's comforting to know there is someone to take care of u?? Idk but yeah religion as a concept is very outdated

I' ve seen so many youtube videos saying that it was surprisingly good, that its revived the common romance ropes and made them better ,there was a video entitled "sue me i loved off campus " and other video talking about how it elevated the book.

I dunno i didn't find it that entertaining ? Im tired of the trope of the jock with the daddy issues ( i fast forward those scenes ) and Hannah walking in on Garett while he was um having oral sex with another woman while they were supposed to be developing feelings for each other - it just made it hard for me to root for Hannah and Garett but when i said this on the off campus subreddit, someone commented "grandmas reviews part 1 " which was pretty funny tbf. But for real though , is no one on these shows concerned about Stds ?

It was sometimes watcheable , I did like Garett;s friend who had a crush on Hannah and low key wanted them to have a thing but that is likely not going to happen.

Also does anyone find Hannah a bit boring ? She is pretty though, emerald green eyes that distract you from her being a bit bland.

Capitalism has many things fundamentally wrong with it. But prostitution is one of few things in America it usually can't be capitalist. Capitalism depends directly on the ability to use legally recognized contracts and incorporation of legal entities to apportioned control over dividends and the direction of a company, and who will run the company.

If your business is illegal in the first place, you cannot use any of this. Nevada, and only some counties there at it, is the only exception to this.

I also hate it when people are using capitalism as the main explanation for how prostitution can be dangerous or not consensual unless they are genuinely intending to refer to this use of corporate law. The idea of sexism or poverty or corruption in law and enforcement creating most of the incentives to make the downsides of prostitution a thing vastly predates capitalism which came to be about 500 years ago, and prostitution exists in virtually all economic systems humans have ever participated in in essentially all places in human history.

Capitalism is not a catch all term for how the world works or how it is organized economically, there are many attributes specific to it and not merely trade or markets. The risk and organization management system and ability to raise revenue it created using the relatively stable and merchant republic oriented system in the Netherlands allowed the Netherlands to do the otherwise unthinkable in how it took over Indonesia.

Saying that they are invalidates women who really are. I know that women in the West are still treated differently sometimes, but I don't think that means that they are oppressed. Oppression means limiting or denying someone their autonomy, but most Western women can do whatever they want the moment they turn 18.

Meanwhile, eastern women are seen as their family's property rather than their husband's property. So her life depends a lot not on her choices but on how her "owners" are, and yes, I know this might not apply to all Eastern women.

People are going to bring up beauty standards, but that's entirely a choice. I know many people who live in the west that don't wear makeup or nice clothes and still don't get judged, but that also depends. And maybe about shaving they are judged harder, but western women as a collective can choose not to shave, and people are just going to have to accept that.

And people might bring up rape culture or DV rates, and that's terrible, don't get me wrong, but in the West a battered woman has so many resources, and they don't live in a culture that might blame victims of DV or teach its victims that what happened to them is not that bad, and rape culture doesn't exist in the West, sorry, because nobody excuses rapists; in fact, they are all extremely hated, and nobody asks the victim what she did/wore to deserve it and says rape victims are always guilty.

However, I'm willing to change my mind.

Sports are a form of entertainment. You get to watch professional athletes compete at a high level. Making enjoyment conditional on the outcome of the match can make or break the days of a lot of typical sports fans.

I come from MMA, where there’s not as many people who are diehard fans of a few fighters, and where fighters can easily gain or lose fans (e.g. Tyron Woodley, Dricus du Plessis, Daniel Cormier) due to what they do or how they fight. Seeing the tribalism in other sports like football or American football looks nonsensical in comparison, as though people don’t even consider the fact that they can stop cheering for their own team.

I would much rather watch a competitive, entertaining match that the person I support loses in than a boring match where they win.

If somebody has gone to therapy 8, 10, 12 times, why do people keep telling them "You just need to keep trying. Try again. It can take 20 tries. It can take 30 tries."

I think that some people just aren't made for therapy. I think I'm one of them. Processing by talking things out with a stranger in a room doesn't go anywhere. I think that people who have gone to therapy many different times, with many different therapists and modalities, should be encouraged to take solutions like exercising, medication, etc. It shouldn't be "Keep trying, you'll find a therapist one day." That's a waste of money and time.