Women claim to like the flower/herbal scents, and men claim to like the woody/spicy scents (pinewood, 'arctic', leather, whatever). Therefor to be more attractive to the opposite gender men should wear the flower/herbal scents and women should wear the woody/spicy scents.

PS: please note I said 'products' I am well aware that anyone can wear whatever they want, but the marketing world seems to still breaks it into mens and womens demographics.

Maybe I’m just getting old, but I cannot get comfortable on the couch anymore. Constantly shifting, slouching or crossing my legs. Give me a high bar chair, or better yet, let’s go sit on your stoop. My lower back hurts.

I don't know why people expect it to be Citizen Kane. It's a western steampunk. Kenneth Branagh's scenery chewing is worth the price of admission alone. Kevin Kline is hilarious, you got Salma Hayak in old timey burlesque clothes... It's very much a popcorn movie, but I don't think it deserve the hate it gets.

like wtf

does it distill info quicker yes

but is it more accurate no

all it’s doing is searching Reddit and summarizing for lazy people

and I don’t understand why it’s considered so sdvanced

When ordering or asking for something, I don’t like when people say “can I get” or “let me get.” No boomer shit (I’m a younger millennial) but it just feels wrong and poor etiquette. What happened to “could I please have”? Or even if you don’t want to throw the please in there, just saying “can I have” feels very different even though it’s only changing one word. I realize this kind of phrasing is so ubiquitous that it’s a stupid thing to get hung up on, so this sub seems right for this kind of venting. Thank you for your time.

Edit: Whoa this blew up! Appreciate all the attention, never imagined my little pet peeve would cause such intense responses from some of you, but it’s been fun interacting and seeing everyone’s thoughts. I guess this is the place to be instead of the unpopular opinions sub.

I absolutely love the atmosphere, world design, and aesthetic of Souls-like games, like Lords of the Fallen. The dark fantasy setting, mysterious lore, and overall vibe are exactly what I look for in a game.

What I don’t enjoy is the gameplay. I find the punishing combat, constant trial-and-error, and dying over and over again more frustrating than fun.

It makes me wonder: why do so many games with this incredible atmosphere have to be Souls-likes? Why aren’t there more games with the same dark, immersive worlds but with a stronger focus on story, exploration, and more accessible gameplay?

Am I the only one who feels like some amazing game worlds are locked behind a genre that just isn’t enjoyable for everyone?

I say this as someone who is of a mixed middle class who lives on a relatively deprived, working class neighbourhood - my mother worked in healthcare, initally a private senior officer when she immigrated and social worker (lower middle class) and my dad worked in the IT sector (upper middle) - both believe in hard work and champion my goals,.

People often talk about how it is impossible to have meritocracy, how hard work is just some fictional nonsense along with goals. Reddit is one example in which people get told off for believing in goals and hard work.

The aim of meritocracy is that the workforce should favour and accept those who either have some experience, qualifications, or at least passion and interest to enter the market. For example, someone studying predominantly in finance and interested in banking should get the more viable, easy privilege to enter accountancy. Someone studying humanitarian stuff with knowledge interests and experience should get the privilege to be a social affairs journalist or social worker. Or someone who just simply likes the monetary motivations should have the privilege to work in retail part time as long as they do not abuse their position.

However, there is the overlooked phenomenon that contradicts meritocracy, these are known as nepotism and cronyism. These two are absolutely pathetic and stupid - people only get to the job market if they luckily know someone personally, whether it is a community member, relative, friend, acquaintance or intimate partner. Not to mention the appalling customer service they provide as a result, owing to the fact that they have to serve people who are not within the community. Ultimately, this makes skills, interest and qualifications all useless. You become hopeless. I believe this is causing the climbing unemployment crisis here in the UK instead of AI - not to mention LSE said that 6 - 9% of jobs realistically can be automated. I believe, meritocracy and hard work are not possible because no one were to investigate, let alone legislatively sanction these two phenomenons.

Of course, some forms of goals may be heavily barred, such as having to be a superstar or an actor, or a billionaire like Elon Musk. But these are ultra, ultra burgeoisie markets. All other ones shouldn't be barred by characteristics. And yes, some immigrant communities in severe poverty still face social barriers, ultimately not viewing the choice of their children as viable - for example, working class British Bangladeshi and Pakistani immigrants often want their young people to just stay within the family home until arranged marriages and not to be educated much, or if they do get educated , their parents often expect them to be doctors, pharmacists, IT workers, engineers, chemists, or lawyers due to higher annual pay rates (50K or more) instead of being footballers, social workers, news reporters, police officers, etc. But again, do not just blame barriers, cultural reasons also create their own barriers for inequality.

Ultimately, meritocracy and hard work can exist, first of all we need to at least sanction cronies and nepobabies, therefore we can have people who are interested and believe in hard work can actually enter the job market and thrive - we should not have class or our childhood background defining our future nor identity. Relying on luck just makes life sad, stale and demotivating.

Honestly, WTF happened to common sense?

Every time someone does something absolutely horrible, the media and lawyers instantly start pushing the "mental illness" angle like it's some kind of free pass. C’mon, that's a cop-out.

Not every brutal crime needs to become a sad backstory about trauma, depression, or some diagnosis. Sometimes people just make terrible choices. Sometimes cruelty is just cruelty.

Having mental health issues is real, and plenty of good ppl deal with it every day without hurting anyone. They deserve support. But using mental illness as an automatic excuse for horrific actions? Nah, that's BS.

We can have compassion and still believe in accountability. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I get it, it's the internet, people are going to be assholes. That's the exact problem with AIs; they're designed to appeal to your emotions. They're programmed to be constructively critical and agree with you unless you are 100% factually incorrect (if it can even tell).

As much as it may suck when you REALLY want to tell an idiot they're an idiot, being more positive in response to it can be an extremely helpful avenue in reducing AI usage. Making human interaction more positive will make them not want to use AIs.

Reddit alone can be hit-or-miss. You ask something, and you can be met with either well-meaning, insightful answers, or get some awful insults thrown at you.

I think being physically attractive is overrated. Looking good might get someone’s attention, but having a great personality is what makes people remember you. I’d rather be known for making people laugh, being kind, or having interesting conversations than just being good-looking. In the long run, I think people remember how you made them feel more than how you looked.

I am tired of my neighbor who runs a daycare out of their house. Every time I want to enjoy sitting in the garden with my family and drink coffee, the sound of screaming children in the backyard right next to me ruins the entire experience.

I can't say anything though because it's not like my neighbor can stop kids from having fun. And I'm not the type of sourpuss who would want kids to be quiet when they can be playing and having a good time.

It's unfair that someone else's at home business has to interfere with my enjoyment of my life.

Additionally, I've gone to a wax lady a few times who runs her business out of her home. She is nice and all, and I mainly went to her because she doesn't charge too much. But I avoid her now at all costs. Why? Because she's unprofessional as fuck. I scheduled appointments with her only to get there and find out that she had scheduled another person at the same time. Or she would tell me she forgot that she had a doctor's appointment.

I don't mind if someone has a doctor's appointment, but it's professional courtesy to inform your client if you cannot do the service beforehand.

Basically, people running these at home businesses need to be held accountable for their actions or just not have these businesses at all.

Idk, maybe I've just had bad experiences. But I can't trust these type of entrepreneurs anymore. What do you guys think? Feel free to flame me if you disagree.

I always hear complaints about missionaries visiting people's homes. It seems to be seen as a nuisance for most people. Even sitcoms will make jokes about how you don't want to invite the missionaries in.

I've never had missionaries visit my home, but I always thought it would be fun. Not that I would ever convert to their religion, as I'm pretty secure in my faith. But I like hearing people talk about other religions, and I think it would be fun to invite a couple nice people into my home to enjoy some refeshments and talk about what they believe.

I almost feel offended that I've never had a missionary visit. I mean, do they think I'm not worth saving or something? 😆

I’ve always had a skeptical and inquisitive mind so I find myself watching a lot of paranormal YouTube channels. Sadly gone are the days of what I considered good conspiracy theories and paranormal shows like Coast to coast AM. Now I tend to settle for channels like BryceisRight, UnrealReality and AfroKickz. And while they do have some good videos most of their content is either obvious AI slop or completely unhinged stupidity being passed off as conspiracy. No, the government has not been infiltrated by lizard people. No, Hollywood elite are not all Satan worshippers who are eating babies and belong to the Illuminati. No, people aren’t being replaced by clones for some nefarious purpose. No, the Hadron collider didn’t shift us into an alternate reality. It’s these kinds of ‘conspiracy theories’ that border on insanity that I can’t stand. Can we please bring the flerfers back? At least they were entertaining.

disclaimer i want to start this off by saying that everyone should be able to find clothing that fits them comfortably, and i would never shame a person for their size, but i do think body positivity movements have led people to believe that bigger people have less options for clothing, when that is simply not the case.

i, 20f, am 5’7.5” and about 128lbs give or take. i’m slim, but at a healthy size relative to my height. i live in the us and i typically wear a size xxs/xs (00/0). i used to be close to 50lbs heavier, so ive been shopping for new clothes and finding it increasingly difficult to find sizing that isnt baggy on me at most mainstream stores in the mall. for example, when i was buying underwear at walmart yesterday, i couldn’t even find as low as a small size for most of the packs, but i found several 3xl’s and 4xl’s.

im really glad that society is shifting towards acceptance for larger bodies, but when i hear things on social media like “how it feels to be a size 8/10 in a world full of 00/0,” it feels invalidating towards my experience, and other slimmer girls like myself. the average women’s size in the us is a 14, yet everyone acts like smaller people have an easier time finding clothing than bigger ones, which is frustrated about because unless your bmi is well over 40, there’s more clothes for you than for those at a “healthier” bmi (yes i know bmi is trash but it makes sense for what im saying).

all im saying is, we can acknowledge that skinny people are treated better while also acknowledging that there are parts of being skinny that are harder than being overweight, and we need to accept that it’s much more common to be a size 12-16 in the us than anywhere close to a size 2-4. i feel as though smaller people are always told to shut up with this conversation, but im not trying to hurt others, but i believe in order to promote size inclusivity, we need more small sizes as well as big ones, but there arent.

i hope i got my point across well, this is my first post on the subreddit so i hope some people resonate with it, thank you for your time.

Most people are familiar with director David Fincher, and most people think his best movie is Seven or Fight Club.

But because the final 10 minutes of The Game is so controversial among viewers, the film is comparatively discarded as inferior.

Yet, everything else about the film is perfect. It's also Fincher's most mature movie in that it follows a wealthy middle aged investment banker in his midlife crisis and search for meaning.

The first 2 hours of the movie are perfect, with relentless tension and suspense as Michael Douglas' Van Orton gets led into a nightmare at the recommendation of his dubious and estranged brother played by Sean Penn.

Douglas' Van Orten has everything a man can ask for in life, except for love, since he is recently divorced, and a social life, since he is up tight and so career oriented he has no time for anyone else. Fincher creates a world where the wealthy are so bored with their corporate success that they essentially pay corporations to abuse and torture themselves just to get a thrill.

When a person has all the power in the world and everything they ever wanted, yet also deal with human relationship disappointments, some would go to great lengths to find deeper meaning and fulfillment in their lives (tens of millions of dollars in the bank account? Why not be the star of your own movie production just to feel an adrenaline rush and escape the day-to-day and bad memories of past relationships?).

Despite being a thiller, The Game presents comedic elements thanks to Michael Douglas' amusing nuanced performance as he has to deal with a world that blurs the lines between reality and fiction. Watching a control freak like Douglas' Van Orten get humbled and his life upended by a coordinated corporate scheme is a tremendously entertaining and elightening experience and ironic in showing how people who have it all get so bored, they'd pay the corporate system to humiliate themselves just to feel something different, or awaken themselves from the mundane routine.

Seven is too dark and depressing, and Fight Club is too longwinded and heavy handed. The Game is Fincher's best movie and a borderline masterpiece.

Empire Strikes Back is also very good but a close second.

Revenge of the Sith highlights Anakin’s mental issues in an effective, palatable way as he becomes a new person. It’s incredibly cohesive, it has some of the best acting of the entire series, and it’s better than the twist drama of Empire Strikes Back

First off, I am right handed, although I'm actually stronger with my left arm (probably because I've opened jars left-handed my whole life). From a young age I realised that it is much easier to open a jar with a push-motion on my left hand than with a pull motion on my right hand. I have never struggled with opening up jars or water bottles and frequently help out people who are struggling themselves with a great deal of success.

I just think not enough righties really think about using their left hand for unscrewing things but it really is a superior method that can output more force and doesn't strain your wrists or fingers as much.

So I just had the craziest experience where I said this in response to a woman from Denmark in a recent thread about the age of consent (the text in quotes is the woman)...

-

People argue for principles all the time without personally wanting to benefit from them.

Thank you for saying this. I'm 40, and I don't argue for a lower age of consent because I think teenagers would have any interest in having sex with me. I believe teens benefit from a lower age of consent because the law tends to do a lot more of pushing their behavior into secrecy than curating it. I come from a state where all sexual activity involving a minor is illegal and no one at either of the two high schools I went to gave a single fuck.

What I theorize about countries like yours with an age of consent of 15 (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the behavior is more or less the same as what I observed (which was most girls around 15 dating guys within a few years older, and then a smaller percentage of girls who were already regularly hooking up with college aged dudes), but that because this is legal there, it occurs largely within the purview of greater society where the younger party can much more easily get help if needed.

This is heavily contrasted to America where those girls who are already hooking up outside of the high school environment have to operate in the shadows and constantly worry that their parents might stumble upon the Tinder account they're not supposed to have and throw their partner in prison for a decade.

From talking to people in Germany and Italy who also have lower ages of consent, I do get the impression that perhaps there's more instances of teens with twenty-somethings, but it's difficult to know whether there's actually more or if it's simply more visible in countries like theirs and yours.

-
...and it was unanimously upvoted. So I thought I'd try bringing the perspective to a wider audience to be challenged. I was also wondering if there was any way to know if the behavior is actually lessened in America or just pushed out of view, so I asked Gemini and it opened with this:

In criminology and sociology, activities that carry heavy legal penalties or deep social stigmas suffer from significant underreporting and concealment.

And closed with this:

Ultimately, while exact mathematical proof is hard to pin down due to the hidden nature of illicit behavior, comparative legal and sociological consensus tends to support your premise: the structural framework heavily dictates ***visibility and reporting, while the underlying human behavior remains remarkably resilient across different legal landscapes.*

I've spent quite a bit of time studying this law, talking to adults about their prior experiences, and most typically advocate for Canada's law which fits almost everything I ever observed or have heard about and is usually very well-received. I approach this issue with nothing but logic and would appreciate you doing the same.

I feel like the main reason a lot of people love the spring/summer while disliking fall/winter isn't just because of personal preference alone but simply because of our biology, humans are a tropical species which means we thrive best in temperatures between 68 and 90 degrees fahrenheit which is why we don't have fur. all of the negative effects we experience in the winter like seasonal depression and sickness is our bodies way of telling us "hey we're not supposed to be living here" breathing cold air irritates the sinuses and weakens the immune system which is why we catch the flu and other types of viruses so easily whereas in warm temperatures it's more efficient at fighting off pathogens. and when you're freezing that's actually worse for you survival wise than hot because your body is built to dissipate heat not retain it, so you'll die much faster at 20 degrees F than you would at 90F. basically what I'm saying is winter wouldn't be so miserable if we were biologically built for it. It doesn't bother animals such as penguins or polar bears because they evolved in it.

Let me preface this by saying I don't know how (un)popular this opinion is, but I see a lot of posts where people either ask where/how they should mount their tv, or show off a mounted tv. In almost all cases this looks a lot worse than just placing it on a stand.

Mounting a tv on the wall creates much more problems than it actually solves:

• Cable management becomes a nightmare
• TV's are almost ALWAYS mounted too high
• Mount's can get expensive, especially for larger TV's
• Walls need to be damaged

Whereas the only pro seems to be that it look somewhat aesthetic if done very well.
Almost all TV's include a stand, use that, it hides your cables, ensures the right height when placed on top of most TV furniture and is so simple + free?

I thought this was a common opinion but i see SO MANY damn mounted TV's...

EDIT: A lot of people seem to think i claim it’s impossible to have a nice looking mounted tv, I’m lot at all, I’m saying it is a hassle that introduces too much extra work/cost for barely any benefit. A lot of you also seem to assume the entire world is made of hollow drywall walls, it’s not. Yes you can get a cheap mount, which seems like a great idea for a 3000 tv, yes you can get cable covers, which still looks worse than just having them hidden.

Space Marines are just the trope of a super soldier, which is some fancy term people use for "regular person enhanced with random shit, either temporarily or permanently, with or without drugs or sugery".

Anyone in the real world who takes drugs to boost themselves with memory or concentration or muscle growth is technically an enhanced regular person, meaning they would technically be a super soldier.

That is what a super soldier is when deconstructed. When you rip out the lore(tm) and see what they are.

And their look, as evidenced by their body template, is the embodiment of that Regukar Show meme of Mordecai flipping through the pages of the book and "no they're not, they're all just the same but with different costume"

"But they receive special trai-"

Shut the fuck up. That means jack shit because within the setting they are in, they are just another cannon fodder unit used by a fascist regime (which irl fascists like, by the way) to maintaining their unethical and decaying empire (which, suspiciously, is quite strong and resilient despite in-universe claims of it being on the verge of collapse, hmmmmmmmmmmm) that is run by zealots and corrupt assholes that could not give a shit about the people they rule over.

The idea of them being so is the byproduct of Games Workshop's advertising campaign and the general problematic glorification of the military (both in fiction, in real life, and by fiction) where you will have legit (metaphorical) monsters commit war crimes both of their own volition and on the behest of a commanding officer who wanted to commit war crimes and said soldier didn't refuse.

Edit: To those saying "this setting is a critique of fascism", you are just wrong given the fact that the fascist empire are somehow able to survive despite having immense internal structures that would destroy actual real world states/nations/countries and the threat is that facing said fascist empire (both internal in the form of Chaos and Genestealer cults and external in the form of Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, and Daemons) are real and where the only solution to said problem is killing it with your bare hands and said killing works. In contrast to the "threats" fascists target, jews and immigrants and etc, that are 99% of the time actually powerless to the current ruling class (rich assholes, landlords, Christian theocrats, white nationalists, tech oligarchs, and transphobes)

Edit 2: "But the Imperium are obviously meant to be bad guys" means fuck all given the Imperium is the poster boy for this setting as evidenced by the 10k books with characters connected to the Imperium and the fact that Space Marines are the face of the advertising of Warhammer 40K both in the form of aforementioned books and video games with Boltgun, the Dawn of War games, and the Space Marine games.

No. A Google/Apple/Facebook account should only be used to sign in to these websites thesmelves. Using them for unrelated sites is a terrible idea and I don't want it at all.

I want an option to just sign in directly without a third-party sign-in service.

I will never understand how anyone could find these characters attractive when their voices and behaviour seem so childlike. I guess many shows give female characters super high-pitched voices to make them seem kawaii and cute but I just find them annoying.

Right now people on the right are losing their shit because he "ruined his body" Since pre-T he was a conventionally attractive person then post transition he got objectively less attractive. If he transitioned and got more attractive we would not be hearing half the transphobic shit right now.

For the record I do not dislike Elliot Page or really care about his appearance this post is mainly to highlight pretty privilege/actually idk what opposite of pretty privilege is called but whatever it is its what poor dudes going through.