Background: my girlfriend and I just moved to a new area and she got a job as a waitress at a beer garden. I asked her how she likes it and she explained to me that every time a customer orders a drink, she had to pay the bartender 10% of the cost of the drink prior to delivering the drink to the customer. So if the beer cost $8, she owes the bartender 80 cents and then 30% of whatever tip she receives.

Is this standard? Because that doesn’t sound right to me at all. How or why would a server be expected to pay for a percentage of a drink? It doesn’t make sense to me.

This is in Maryland if that matters

One person (E) is on a platform waiting on a train by the station. One person (P) is in a train that is traveling at speed by the station. 

Now imagine that there were two lightning strikes. 

E on the platform forms the impression that the lightning strikes are simoultaneous. P in the train thinks that one of them happened before the other, and P was traveling towards the location of one and away from the location of the other. 

This suggests that simultaneity is relative, and thus time is relative. It is not so that it's objective and not dependent on any perspective.

Possibly it implies that the past, present, and future exist, and it's not so that only the present exist. Alternatively, there is no objective fact about what is in the present and what is not. 

That something is both existing and not existing simultaneously is not logically possible.  

The most common belief seems to be that time is objective. (Whether something is in the past, present, or future is objective, independent of, or regardless of any perspective.) Also, only the events and objects in the present exist. 

Is it so that time is relative, and that there are no objective facts about what's in the future, past or present?

Maybe only the objects and events in the present exist, indespite of it all?

There are physical theories that explain physical processes. Then there are psychophysical laws* that explain how such physical processes can arrise experiences, or qualia. 

There is a difference between describing the physical process, the neurological process, the needed biochemical components, and the molecules in place, that for example arrises the sensation of pain, from the experience of pain itself. 

It is a strange idea, that it is a way it feels, to be a type of carbonatom, in a type of relation with other atoms in a type of process. 

Will those psychophysical laws show that consciousness is of another character, something other than physical matter? 

Or will they show that everything that is, can be reduced, or fully explained by physical materia? 

Are there any psychophysical laws in the first place? 

Physicalism has the idea that there is nothing more than physical materia. If it exists, then it's physical. 

Dualism has the idea that there are other "entities" than what will be accepted by a physicalist. Some sort of non-physical "materia."

The fact that physicality causes phenomenal properties is just a brute fact. But they think it is a non-necessity. Physicality is not absolutely needed for having internal experiences, or consciousness. The mental is not physical of nature. 

What are the reasons to prefer one view over the other? 

As of now, such psychophysical laws are undiscovered.* 

As Chalmers wrote 1996 "Once we accept that materialism is false, it becomes clear that we have to look for a "Y-factor", something additional to the physical facts that will help explain consciousness." Chalmers was a dualist.

But the dualist owes us an explaination. If things are not merely physical, what is the connection between the physical an the non-physical? How and why does it work so that mental experiences are caused or connected to the qualities in the physical world?

This includes social media culture/influencers. Example: Taylor Swift is the biggest star in 2024 and she's extremely wholesome. 25 years ago, America's top rock star was Marilyn Manson who is controversial to say the least and has an image that many find loathsome. Is it because the 1990s were all about extremes? With bands like Cannibal Corpse and the Geto Boys among others. And NIN "closer" song and music video which many found highly offensive.

I finally gave the guy who was trying to pursue me throughout college a chance in September. I knew it was his last year and that once he moved I wouldn’t be willing to do long distance. Thought I’d get through it without getting too attached if I knew there was a definite end point.

This was fully a slow burn situationship and when I told him about my feelings last week he said that he felt it too. He said he had been thinking about it, but didn’t think long distance was feasible and didn’t want us to end on a bitter note. We both agreed we went into this knowing it would end when he left, but I still feel heartbroken. He gave me the option of continuing as friends or continuing as it is until he left if I felt that it would hurt me. He was super patient and gave me time to think and talk to my friends to decide.

He said that when he moved he could see us being friends for a long time but I find it hard to believe that this will actually happen. I just feel like if he loses interest in me sexually/because he can’t see me, I’ll lose him forever.

He’s going to be moving back home and looking for jobs. I have years worth of college left before I get a job but I’m hoping to start applying asap so I can be employed out of college.

There’s a tiny chance we end up in jobs in the same area and I suppose I’m holding out hope — perhaps foolishly — that we will meet again and see this through.

I guess I’m just sad because circumstance seems to have stolen something that felt like it has great potential.

I just want to know if anyone has experienced something similar and how it turned out…

For some background, I stopped a fire tonight. I live in my apartment building, and my neighbor upstairs pounded on my door and asked me to help. I was able to contain it enough with a fire blanket and fire extinguisher I had, so it didn’t burn that much before the fire fighters got there (only the stove top and one of the cabinets were damaged).

The building manager called me a hero, but honestly I didn’t/don’t feel like one because selfishly, I just didn’t want my stuff to burn down. I don’t know, maybe I’m overthinking it, but I still feel bad my reasoning wasn’t better. I’d appreciate your thoughts on it.

Like many teens, I fell in the trap of self improvement which ultimately resulted in feeling miserable every day. Coping was always portrayed as 'bad' and was made fun of. But recently I started coping so much that some would say that I am delusional. Don't get me wrong I still (try to) improve every day. It makes me live easier even when nothing changes. Why is it portrayed as bad then if it is very effective?

Like when you're controlling a character or machine in this video game, the human look-alike thing/victim/character (a combination of pixels on the screen) is trying to get away, you chase that independent character who is programmed to self-preserve, has simulated emotions, simulated pain according to which it reacts, act in interest of saving itself, learns from what it perceives, then you are to torture it for some reason.
What if it looks like some strange metal cabinet with video receiver, audio receiver, structural integrity sensors, able to move, perceive, learn, react, interact?

Why do you think that?

Do you think it's wrong for both? Does not matter for both? Wrong for the human looking character only?

​

Do you notice the similarities between this & the creatures outside of this machine like humans, rats, ...? (in the universe)

I want to do some of those tests where they ask you how you'd respond to certain situations in work like a customer complaining about something or shouting at you or looking for xyz when you don't know where it is. Indeed quizzes don't seem to be a thing anymore, or at least all the last few I was prompted to do told me they didn't exist anymore after clicking on them. I don't care about my result I just want to look through the questions. Anyone know where I can find some?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFire_(weapon)

Imagine this gets mass-produced, and also unfriendly countries (Russia) steal it and mass-produce it. The end of air power as such? Not useful in an anti-tank role, it takes a few seconds to burn through the thin shell of aircraft, it would take forever to burn through frontal tank armor.

Hello from Ukraine.

After two years of war, I feel that my mental health requires a proper filtering of my online environment. I'm unfortunately stuck to using Twitter, because I get the majority of clients from there. I see that a big percentage of other artists I am mutually following are subscribed to people like Trump, Tucker or Musk etc, who are openly or semi-openly playing against my country.

I tried my best for several times to find out the reason for it, giving them the benefit of a doubt. Maybe some people are more into tech than politics, maybe some are trying to hear both sides for a full picture, maybe some follow them ironically. But very often, it doesn't appear to be so.

I don't get proper responses whenever I ask publicly. And there are too many of such mutual followers to ask directly. Whenever I do, the answer is a vague "I just want to know more about the events from other side." But they aren't really subscribed to the opposite side media to make it look true. Before war started, some of such followers appeared like decent online friends, who seemed to care about me. Imagine my confusion when I see the same people following Trump, his son, Tucker, MTG.

So, am I overreacting? Is there a reason that is obscure to me why people might follow openly anti-Ukrainian online personas but still be on my side? Big thanks in advance!

I often wonder if the US would still be much more conservative compared to other wstern counties if the cold war never took place.

Would many americans still mistrust atheists? Would they still have the same negative view of socialism? Would the word "communist" still be used as a scare tactic to the same degree?

What do you think?

Cause when they say that they are jealous to his/her crush, his/her friend will most likely say "and what right do you have to be jealous"

A a preface, I'm fairly well-educated on history, international politics, military doctrine, and other related fields. It is widely accepted among academics, historians, and contemporary politicians that the reason the Cold War remained cold was because nuclear weapons exist (spoiler: they still do), essentially making it impossible for one nuclear armed state to attack another nuclear armed state without both sides being utterly annihilated in the process ([MAD theory] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)).

Some even posit that we have passed the era of large global-scale conflicts due to the fact that nuclear weapons can instantly end any large-scale military formations, and also the entire enemy nation-state too, in a matter of minutes.

Since the start of the 2022 Ukraine-Russia war I've been hearing/seeing remarks from people that suggest they have a gross and profound misunderstanding of... all of this.

Admittedly, I barely give an eye-roll when I hear an average citizen legitimately worry about a war between the US & Russia, for example, and the possibility of Russian troops occupying US soil. Or a more cavalier yet ignorant commoner suggesting a ground invasion of Russia. A bit more informed person would point out the discrepancy in conventional military power between the US & Russia and laugh at the idea of Russian troops landing in New York, but then go on to make statements that suggests he legitimately believes a long large-scale conflict would play out similarly to WW2, but the west would ultimately reign victorious.

None of these people realize how enormously inaccurate their conceptualizations of such a war are. This is not simply my judgement either. This was studied in great detail by intelligence organizations throughout the Cold War period and they largely came to the same conclusions. Conventional war is effectively impossible between nuclear armed states.

But the recent remarks from French president Macron stating he supports putting Western troops in Ukraine... is downright disturbing. This is direct straight line path towards a nuclear war. I don't know if he's guilty of sheer ignorance on a criminal scale considering his position as leader of a modern industrialized state, or if this is a only deliberate and calculated public diplomatic maneuver meant to show strength.

How someone can entertain WW2-like theories on direct conflict between two nuclear armed states, only demonstrates to me nothing short of a complete ignorance beneath even an junior academic on these matters. WW3 is not going to happen. There will be a flash, and we'll all disappear instantly.

The US and Russia have a stated 6,000 nuclear weapons each, or 12,000 total. (keep in mind I've left out the nuclear stockpiles of other nations.) Both nations have repeatedly demonstrated a capability to strike any place on Earth in less than 15 minutes with a nuclear warhead. It is generally estimated that the detonation of 'only' 1,000 nukes would effectively end all multicellular life on Earth.

tl;dr The last 3 sentences. All other matters regarding modern war are a moot point.

I've been thinking about cultural and ethnic clustering in diverse societies. It's interesting to observe how individuals from similar ethnic backgrounds often form tight-knit communities, even in the most cosmopolitan settings. I'm curious about what the ingredients are that lead to this type of cultural clustering.

Specifically:

1. How does shared cultural background influence our sense of belonging and comfort within a group? Is it the common values, traditions, or simply the ease of communication that draws us together? What are those values in your opinion?

2. IMO our cultural background can deeply influence what we enjoy discussing and how we express ourselves. How do you think your own ethnic or cultural group's way of communication affect the flow and content of conversations? How do you demonstrate distaste or prefer for specific topics?

Recently, I've been researching what causes the breakdown in social structures. Various books on Calhoun's Mouse Utopia experiments seemed to pique my curiosity the most, and what I've learned is that as environmental stressors decline and things become more prosperous for newer generations of mice, they start to prioritize relationships and breeding a lot less. His team of researchers started to notice increasing trends of female aggression, male emasculation & homosexuality, and less frequency of mice-to-mice social interactions. It seemed as though they had gone through a "spiritual death" after forgetting what it really meant to struggle, rely on each other, and also compete with one another, as well.

In light of this shocking revelation, it really made me think: could an old experiment like this be the diagnosis to all of our 21st social ills? And, is it representative as to what people are going through in developed nations? Are we going through a so-called spiritual death?

Could policy makers use the results of this experiment as good leads as to how to fix declining birth rates, general societal loneliness/isolation & breakdown in community/family?

If any fellow Redditors have any additional insights, you're more than welcome to provide your them.

I recently watched Dopesick and could help draw a parallel between the states most affected by oxy and antiwax states.

2001 has, atleast according to my limited research, seen some of the most amazing franchises start.

The first Harry Potter movie, the first lotr movie, the first Shrek movie, the Ocean's eleven remake, the first legally blonde, the first fast and furious, the first Lara croft movie, the first spy kids movie and the first zoolander movie.

Not only that, but that year also saw so many amazing standalone films. Serendipity, spirited away, not another teen movie, Shaolin soccer, and so many more.

What was so special about that time, that it led to, in my opinion, one of the greatest years in movie history?

You can assume 1 society with other societies present

OR

You can assume the entire world (all humans) as 1 society

Or both independently. Specify the 1 you use.

Consider how the reality itself is, how the universe works. It has to be realistic, practical, in detail.

You can add systems, conceive new ideas, institutions, money, media, customs, schooling, prison, voting, ... organize any way you want.

You can imagine you & a bunch of your friends & strangers, all have to be in the way living through their lives that collectively, they advance the society as a whole.

The objective for the society, is to make it survive & thrive.

Note: For some reason, this subreddit removes a lot of comments later, so feel free to directly or copy & send the response directly to me.

Democracy is, by a majority of contemporary theorists, accepted to be a rule of the people, by the people and for the people. 

Are all these criterias met? 

Most democracies have been representative and indirect. 

We are voting for people who will represent us, or at least is supposed to. The people do not vote or deside directly over what laws should and not be, or directly vote over how tax should be distributed. So the question is whether they, the representatives, rule for the people. If not, then the criteria for democracy has not been met. 

(Here we face a tricky definition of what is sufficient and neccessary for meeting the requirements of it being "for us.")

Now we have looked at if the rule is for the people, let's look at whether the rule is by the people.

A question is whether we can honestly claim that it is the people that rule when choosing the representative people, when it is the case that the representative people decieve the citizens over what they believe should be the case and/or over what they both can and will do. 

How are laws made? How does (or does) the citizens have a say in that process? 

What are your thoughts about this? 

Context: Ashley Madison was a Canadian dating website where married users could have an affair with another married user. Basically Tinder for cheating (wouldn’t know, never used it).

This website was often denounced until a group of hackers (presumably people who caught their spouse on the site) threatened to leak the info of every person who had been in the website.

When the website was not taken down, the hackers went through, and the info on every user was released to the public, provoking a mass divorce and/or heartbreak epidemic.

In all seriousness, there are arguments as top why either side could be wrong.

Why the hackers could be in the wrong

• Leaking personal info (pretty sure that’s a crime)

• Breaching data

• Potentially affecting people who had gone on the site without the intent of cheating

• Ruined several marriages

Of course that last one may not really count. Most of the users were cheating on their partners, which isn’t okay under any circumstances. I denounce cheaters, they’re traitors, plain and simple.

BUUT do they deserve to be doxxed for this?

I feel like I have the full ability to define what I believe is “me” in regards to my values, beliefs, etc., but I seem to have trouble maintaining them due to external pressures (such as from peers or strangers on the internet, for example).

Positive freedom involves coercion or restricting people so that it is not the case that people are free to act without being stopped to do so, but for guiding them to their own good, to what is rational to do.

One may think of restrictions on selling or buying items containing a lot of sugar to prevent diabetes or obesity. Or a coercion to worship or not worship certain gods, possibly as the rulers are absolutely certain that a citizen making the wrong choice causes permanent damage to his immortal soul or as atheists, firmly believe it is wrong to worship a non existant god. 

One can think of concepts like "being a slave to desire" or "being forced to freedom,"  and that it is simply not enough to remove external oppression; there is also internal oppression that is causing an obstacle to being the best version of oneself. People have some desires that are not optimal or rational for them to act upon; they could be formed by irrational fears, obsessions, addictions, or a case of being oblivious or uneducated about the result of their actions. 

Many people would not think twice over preventing their child from doing something that they believe wrong for their child to do.

What is the danger of a system that will implement positive freedom for it's citizens? 

Negative freedom is simply the freedom to act without interference or without being prevented from acting. But a life without restrictions on others has little value. (Some will want to enslave you, or victimize you in some way, often for their own gain.) Mills states that the only justified intrusion into liberty is to prevent the harm of other people. So as long as you do not harm others, you should be free to act according to your own will, whatever it may be.

What's your thoughts about positive or negative freedom practiced by a government as it rules the citizens?  What form would maximize happiness, and why so?

Speaking personally--just your own feelings--What makes you feel that you have "won" a political conversation or argument with a friend or family member?

Speaking for myself, I feel I've won if both of us leave the conversation with a better understanding of the other's beliefs/values. In contrast, a friend says he likes to to 'get in the best zinger,' and feels he has won if he can make the other person shut up.

It got me wondering: What are we after when we start to talk politics or when we engage in political conversation?

You know when people say "I am not a names person, I am a faces person"?
When I hear that, I think: "No, you aren't a faces person, my wife is!"

She didn't even know she's like that... It was me who noticed that and told her it's not normal.

We like to watch movies and binge watch shows together.
One movie, a rather esoteric one, nothing popular, there was a restaurant scene and she said to me: "Funny that an actor from the last movie we saw is an extra in this one - what are the odds?"

I told her, no way it's the same person, it's statistically improbable. She's just "restaurant patron #14, generic brunette".
My wife insisted it's the same person.
After an hour digging IMDBs for credits to extras - I see the same name between both movies.

OK, cool, so she remembered a face from two movies one after the other - nothing weird.

We watch a few more movies and then "You see this baby [again, some extra]? She has a one-line role in Friends.
Again, statistically improbable that some baby in some non-popular 1980 movie will be also an actor in a show AND we watch both AND she manages to deduct the baby's face ageing.
I check it - she's right...

A few more times like this - I am starting to think she's rigging it up. Using IMDB to find movies with the same actors and then making me watch these movies.

But after watching more movies with her, it happened on movies I chose...

So, I made sure I don't announce the movie I chose until I hit play (so she has no time to prepare)...
Soon enough: "You see this soldier, he was a child in the classroom from that movie".

So far, she hasn't been wrong even once...

I even started testing her: I found movies with same actors... Like, we watched that movie 5 years ago and the actor has aged.
I just tell her: If you see an actor we've seen before, let me know.
- The second she sees him, she hits the nail right on the head...

...

It's not just movies.
We were walking in London and there was a man sitting, pan-handling.
She comes to him "John? Is that you?"
- She was baby-sitting him when he was a BABY, 25 years ago (in Poland)...

...

Last anecdote is that I gave her a free hand when re-decorating the house.
I am artistically-blind so didn't notice.
My mother, when visiting us noticed that there are a few faces on every wall.
We have furniture that has like lots of faces painted on it.
We sculptures of eyes, ears, lips everywhere.
It's actually a little creepy when I noticed it :)

...

OK, so AI and computer vision do this easily nowadays but can you think of some field where her skill can be useful?
Have you ever seen or heard about a person like that?

So, I recently had the unpleasant experience of becoming very self-aware. Frighteningly so.

I walked the dog, my dad was in the hospital for a urinary stone (which we didn't know at the time. We were terrified he would die since he had severe stomach pain.). I stood at a crossing and it felt like everything widened. Like I was fully in my body and I realised — he will die. Mum will die. Probably everyone in your family will die. Oh, and you will die too.

Cue being terrified.

I am eighteen years old. I have not experienced these eighteen years very much. I have a very anxious mind. Ask my parents. I popped out the womb and was anxious. It's my natural state of being. I am (very very likely) trans. I have a very unstable relationship to my body since I haven't made any changes (yet).

Which worsened the anxiety.

I stood there and I realised that this is all there will ever be. This body. These eyes staring out of this body. This mind.

And then it will be gone, along with everything.

When I was 12, I realised this a bit too. But I didn't fully grasp the concept? Or at least I wasn't scared — the thought that I didn't care before I was born was comforting. Maybe because I was depressed as shit and didn't care about life.

But now I am in treatment — I have the possibility of changing my body, I have a girlfriend, I am starting to reconnect with my parents and embrace my passions instead of being mindlessly existent.

And I feel horrible about it! Because it will be gone when I'm gone! I like life! I like existing now! Why must it be ripped away from me?

The universe has no morals, I know that. There is no meaning.

I read Hesse's Siddhartha when I was 12. Myth of Sisyphos when I was 14/15. Much more philosophy during that.

Still, it cripples me. Actively has crippled me the last few days. I have talked to my parents about it — but my dad has always been very nonchalant and has lived a very happy life, so he doesn't care. Just doesn't. And my mum is an ex-Catholic and the thought of nothingness brings her relief instead of the promise of eternal damnation.

I was raised atheist. I am logical, analytical. Probably high IQ or whatever, don't give a shit. I need proof to feel at ease. I need certainty.

But there is no certainty after death, also no certainty to how I will die.

I could try living in the moment but my brain loves to latch onto the unsolvable and catastrophises everything.

I flip flop between the stages of relief that when it's time, I won't be aware and won't be able to overthink — and dread that I will never experience the miracle of life again.

Is it because I am young? Will I be okay? I know I cannot avoid death. I do not want to. In my mind, non-existence is more natural for me since it was there for longer before I was born. But my brain glitches out thinking about it and I want to run.

Has anyone been through the same? I feel too young and alone for this.

Linear time as we know it is 13.7 billion years.

But before that, there's likely been a lot of universes prior to ours and probably outside ours too.

What do you think?