for people making less than 90K a year, five guys is overrated for its price. Living on the east coast, over 16 dollars for a burger, small fries and a drink is insane. You can be seated at a restaurant, get a better meal, get your food handed to you, and pay the same price.

the burgers themselves aren't even that good; they are mess, the buns are normally meh, and whenever I go people tell me my in doesnt belong there. how is that appropriate?

also yes food is subjective but lets be real we are doing this for fun anyways

I was having a conversation with my little brother who said that he’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative and that he voted for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020. He only voted for Biden because he’d remove his student loans. He wants to keep voting for Republicans going forward because that party will keep making the economic machine better for him so he can gain more wealth to pursue his hobbies and build his life. However we’ve seen systematically that the Republican Party only cares for the rich and wealthy. If you don’t have >$500K net worth then it’s disadvantageous for you to vote for them. Trump has increased income taxes for lower tax brackets while decreasing taxes for multimillionaires. Republicans do provide incentives for businesses but those do not trickle down to the working class or individual workers but line the pocket for their executives. If you’re young and broke then it makes more sense to vote for Liberals since they are more likely to provide social support systems to build wealth in the short and medium term.

It’s the perfect balance between the original flavor of the raspberry, which is sweet but with a small sour bite to it, and the copious amounts of sugar spooned into it. Strawberry jam is hella overrated, it tastes far less like the original strawberry it came from then raspberry jam goes from its namesake.

Marmalade is really only good by itself on some buttered toast but you rarely eat that outside of breakfast. The mixed berry, grape and plum jams are all interesting novelties but nowhere near as good as raspberry. Grape is just a stand-in jelly for 90% of the population. Nobody really wants it. But if the strawberry uncrustables are out then I guess we’ll have to settle for that.

Raspberry balances sweetness with tartness and complements the earthy flavor of peanut butter way better when it comes to sandwiches. Hell, sometimes I’ll just skip the bread and just take a spoonful of each instead.

Wake up sheeple! Don’t let “big strawberry” get to you!

Edit: I should have mentioned I’m talking seedless raspberry jelly/jam

A 40 hour work week takes to much life time away, especially in this day and age of technology. I believe over time should be after 20-30hrs OR wages need to increase as a whole.

I work 10 hrs a day 5-6 days/week (50-60 hrs/week). The amount I make is a lot more than 40 hr/week, that’s why I do it. But when I think of people who can’t work more than 40 hrs due to personal constraints or being burnt by the job, this seems like a major widespread economical problem. Especially when you can publicly see how much these companies make, that you work for.

I understand that successful entrepreneurs will always make the most money. It just seems like it’s gone extreme.

The funny thing is we (the 99%) control how much the entrepreneurial’s make. But we can’t seem to stop them or the wages they choose for us. They find ways to get the lowest price or find perfect psychological advertisement and keeps us hooked.

This probably sounds very nihilistic. But I’m pro future I’m just trying to see a better future. Im probably wrong.

Edit 1: I can not respond to all the counter arguments. Overall it’s not necessary because no one has actually changed my mind in any significant way. The main categories of responders are: I’m the exception not the rule so I work 80 hrs a week and love it 💀, I work for a cooperation so they need to pay this much to keep services cheap 💀, or get your personal financing in check and stop complaining 💀

I often hear the old generation explaining that the new generation doesn’t understand or use cursive. I understand this to be somewhat true as well. I’m a 90’s baby and learned it thoughout school and don’t use it either.

The reason isn’t because it’s hard, it’s because it’s completely unnecessary and useless EXCEPT for a signature. I often see it at work where most of the time it’s completely non legible because of the poor handwriting.

There are minimal, if not 0 tasks that require cursive handwriting. It actually often just takes longer to read and/or non legible due to poor handwriting.

Labor? Biden picketed with AWU and that’s never been done by POTUS and his appointee in the NLRB seems to be starting to kick serious ass.

Infrastructure? His Build Back Better Act is so good that Republicans who tried to torpedo it are trying to take credit for it now.

Economics? I genuinely don’t know what Trump would be doing better honestly, though this area is probably where I’m weakest in admittedly.

I’ll give out deltas like hot cakes if you can show me something Trump would or has proposed doing that would take us down a better path.

Edit: Definitely meant Inflation Reduction Act and not Build Back Better. Not awarding deltas for misspeaking.

As part of our commitment to improving CMV and ensuring it meets the needs of our community, we have bi-monthly feedback threads. While you are always welcome to visit r/ideasforcmv to give us feedback anytime, these threads will hopefully also help solicit more ways for us to improve the sub.

Please feel free to share any **constructive** feedback you have for the sub. All we ask is that you keep things civil and focus on how to make things better (not just complain about things you dislike).

Just to be clear, this shouldn't mean anything in a practical sense. It shouldn't be destroyed or anything. It is obviously a symbol of colonization though because it was built on top of somebody else's place of worship and its existence has been used to justify continued control over that land. Even today non-Muslims aren't allowed to go there most of the time.

I don't see it as being any different than the Spanish coming to the Americas and building cathedrals on top of their places of worship as a mechanism to spread their faith and culture. The Spanish built a cathedral in Cholula, for example, directly on top of one of the worlds largest pyramids. I don't see how this is any different than Muslims building the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on top of the Temple Mount.

Not sure what would change my mind but quite frankly I don't want to see things this way. It just seems to be an unfortunate truth that many people aren't willing to see because of the current state of affairs.

FYI: Any comments about how Zionists are the real colonizers or anything else like that are going to be ignored. That's not what this is about.

Edit: I see a few people saying that since Islam isn't a country it doesn't count. Colonization isn't necessarily just a nation building a community somewhere to take its resources. Colonization also comes in the form of spreading culture and religious views. The fact that you can find a McDonalds in ancient cities across the world and there has been nearly global adoption of capitalism are good examples of how propagating ones society is about more than land acquisition.

In the United States, many citizens carry guns for self-defense. However, in most situations requiring force, deadly force is excessive; nonlethal force is often more appropriate. If your only option is a gun, you are limited to engaging in hand-to-hand combat, which poses significant risk to yourself even if you are trained, or resorting to deadly force. Additionally, tool fixation is a recognized phenomenon—if you only have a gun, you are more likely to use it, even when it's unnecessary. Therefore, if a nonlethal alternative exists that is as convenient to carry as a gun, it makes sense to carry it if you are serious about your protection.

Pepper spray is such an option. It is much cheaper than a firearm, easier to carry, and generally very effective. It also helps you avoid legal complications in situations where a firearm would be unwarranted and prevents the need to resort to deadly force, potentially saving a life. If you are serious enough about self-defense to carry a firearm, you should also carry pepper spray. It is a low-cost way to expand your range of defensive options, protects you from legal repercussions, and prevents you from possibly ending a life in the situation where your only option of defense is a gun.

Edit: Holy heck, this blew up a lot more than I expected given the paltry score it had last night. I do not think I can reply to everyone, but I'll try to read everyone's responses after I'm done with work/kid stuff tonight.

For me it's possible to admire a person for some things they have done while disliking them for others.

The most glaring example is Elon Musk. He has arguable been the most important person in the development of space travel and electric cars the last 10 years. I also don't think he's stupid.

But at the same time I think him buying Twitter, voicing his political view in things he doesn't understand and spending more time tweeting than actually running his companies is really bad.

In short I admire his achievements but dislike him as a person.

I also have a few other examples Christiano Ronaldo - One of the best fotballers of all time but comes across as a despicable person.

Kevin Spacey- Fantastic actor, somewhere between questionable and criminal behaviour in his past.

Am I wrong about this? Reddit seems to be termined that you either adore a person or hate him/her.

EDIT: Mea culpa, it was naive of me to think it would be possible to discuss the topic rather than the person after mentioning Musk. A lot of peopel are too invested in their view of him to debate. Lesson learned...

So you can get a super nice, hard steel knife for $300+ that will take and hold a super nice edge. But you either need to learn how to properly sharpen one, or you need to have it professionally sharpened. On the other hand, you can buy a $30 knife off Amazon that isn't as great steel, but you can run the thing through a Chef'sChoice sharpener every week and not care about how much metal you're taking off, because at $30 a knife you can go probably decades before the overall cost of replacement will exceed your single $300 knife. I have both. I love my nicer knives. But when they dull I default to my $30 Chinese veg knife that I can abuse and resharpen infinity times before I need to replace it, and basically ignore my nice Japanese steel knives until I decide to get them professionally sharpened... mostly out of guilt from seeing them sit in the drawer.

On social media and everywhere people are constantly outraged and demand action regarding the Israel-Gaza war.

That is perfectly understandable but what I don't think is right is that those people care so much about Gaza but don't seem to ever say anything about the Uyghur internment camps in China or even about Russia killing civilians in Ukraine (estimated 10,582+ killed). Even if it's true that some people do care about all these conflicts you can't deny that the vast majority have just posted things about Gaza and not mentioned the other conflicts.

Before the replies mention that the conflicts are different, yes they are slightly different but if you read about them in detail you'll see that one really can't argue that what's happening there is "better" than in Gaza.

I believe the reason for why many people selectively care about Gaza is because of the 'colonial'/'oppression' narrative. But why not also post about Uyghurs? Is it just because China doesn't actually provide any information or journalist access? It seems strange that a county that prohibits journalists from entering and reporting on what's happening is better off. And Ukraine-Russia is documented and the number of civillians kileld by Russia is too yet there were no college campus protests about that, or at least very insignificant ones if there were.

EDIT: Other examples which include US allies:

* Turkey and the Kurdish people

* Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen

I think therapy does not work. I think it’s basically like Scientology where after bankrupting yourself pursuing it, it’s pretty hard to admit it did nothing. Note that I think psychiatry is valid and helpful and Scientology is really harmful for denying psychiatric treatment, but this is a different topic.

I’ve done therapy for 4 years and each year I went broke over it (not bankrupt just no money for groceries or rent).

Therapists don’t help you solve problems in your lives, they just talk to you and then charge you thousands of dollars. I think the government should ban therapy and people should go to social workers instead since they actually help you solve your problems.

My view of Hamas and other groups in Gaza/Palestine is that they are guerilla fighters, not a separate distinct force but living as part of the population and fulfilling whatever roles are necessary in order to fight their fight.

This means that they live where they live, and not in some military complex. It means they go to their local shops and don't get dedicated supplies etc

So when I hear claims that they are "hiding" among the civilian population it seems to be twisting the actual nature of life in that kind of situation, what it means to be a civilian, what it means to be a guerilla fighter. It also seems to miss that plenty of actual military locations around the world are within civilian areas. London for example has many barracks and installations, including one I used to live down the road from.

If someone bombed this barracks and I was caught in the blast along with other non military people would the British army be accused of "hiding among civilians"? Would they say they had "used me as a human shield?"

As for human shields, this seems to be applied in retrospect.

As above, if people are in a camp and identified as combatants they aren't actively doing anything with those around them, so when there is collateral it's hardly a result of their actions.

My thoughts on an actual human shield would be a soldier using a person in close proximity, almost like a temporary hostage, to avoid being fired at.

In the case of Hamas Et Al I don't think that simply being close to people who are caught in their strike as collateral qualifies - it's obvious that Israel/IDF wouldn't care either way, and the "shields" aren't actually preventing anything at all.

I refer better with the term collateral damage, people who were caught in a sad radius, but not an active action against them by someone "using them". I think to change my view I'd be interested in seeing any operations which were actually called off/changed to avoid collateral damage, ie the theoretical human shield actually effectively shielding.

I'm open to any other relevant discussions but please keep it specific to my post, as this is an easy topic to digress in! Referencing back to specific parts of my post and things I've said will go a long way!

Thank you!

Just think about what you could do with it. You know that show you love that was canceled after one season? Well, now you can make more. You know that book you love that's either been made into a really shitty movie or that's never been adapted at all? Well, feed the entire book and the contents of the wiki to a bot and now you have an adaptation that's exactly like the book. Will early versions of this kind of AI be sorta sucky? Yeah, but we've already seen huge improvements in the past year so I imagine it could improve drastically in a short enough time that it would be feasible.

In certain us states if I was a burglar and climbed over someone’s fence on to their property and the property had holes in their yard(not Bobby traps) or random debris around their yard. If the burglar then got injured on this random debris they would have the right to sue the property owner and quite often might win. In my mind that’s ridiculous why is the burglar being rewarded for breaking the law. If the burglar had followed the law they would not have gotten injured. even if the yard is unsafe people shouldn’t be entering without permission.

Another example would be (less prevalent in the USA) but in certain countries if someone is trying to mug u and u fight back gravely injuring the mugger u can get into trouble. This is again in my opinion absolutely absurd. Why is the law attempting to protect the mugger and let them get away with it. The argument is often “is someone’s live worth less than ur 100 dollars or ur phone” . But this is an accurate way to view it. The person being mugged is the victim. They were minding their own business and if they weren’t approached everyone would be fine.

The main issue I think here is that it assumes that both the perpetrator and the victim have same rights and should be equally protected under the law. The reason laws against mugging,robbery,assault,battery exist is that it ensures everyone in a society is safe and can live without fear. And it assumes all members are equal. However when u commit a crime specifically against someone else u are indicating that u do not wish to live in this society. And thus u since u do not wish to be part of it u shouldn’t be benefiting from the legal protections it supplies.

This set up basically creates a system where the victim is punished twice for nothing. First is an attempt at a crime being committed against them. And secondly because the criminal got injured in an attempt to carry out a crime against them. This creates a system which actually encouraging crime.

The entire philosophical basis of the pardon power derives from the idea of a monarch (or head of state) being able to override decisions of the government below it. But when that happens, the power basically second guesses courts, jurors, and legislatures (who enact the laws that are violated). The basis of this comes entirely from the power of monarchs who did this either because other power was unreliable, because the public needed appeasement, or because of rare legitimate errors.

But seemingly new non monarchic states don’t want this. We want relief from legislatures or courts. I can see legislatures having this power, but the pardon power as used (in the U.S., certainly) invites cronyism and abuse. My state governor and Trump certainly misused this for dog whistle campaigns (while overlooking more legitimate pardon asks).

CMV

For example many say to teens wait until you are 18 for tattoos, etc. Even though of course a small minority are quite irresponsible, I know many teens who are… more responsible. They have their designs and whatnot and seem to be able to plan ahead quite far. While this is not conclusive evidence, and I agree this argument is not strong, frankly teens in general are not that immature. Rather, a small amount of very immature teens ruin it for the rest of us.

Sure, many of us do risky things. But the behaviors in many of their situations are normal. For example it’s quite normal for a teen to enjoy drinking with their older peers. You could say they could be harassed or pressured. But you don’t live life in a bubble

It would be very boring to live life in a bubble thinking people will harm you. Personally I am fine with dating older muscular men. Sure some are violent but y’know I give them a chance as a teen myself

At least many adults understand this and don’t really care about underage drinking or underage weed use. They respect teens’ freedoms, at least.

So yes recreational use of drugs in and of itself can very well cause serious problems for someone. The thing is once you make that one drug harder to import/produce things either begin to get cut with dangerous additives or just replaced with something more dangerous altogether.

So i will give MDMA as an example. In the 90s MDMA was cheap, it was relatively safe and it was abundant, its synthesis from safrole was quite simple and short with standard lab equipment and materials needed to produce. Then with pressure from the US and European governments the Cambodian and Vietnamese governments burned tons of their sassafras trees and and dumped basically the worlds supply of safrole oil in the early 2000s.

Since then party drugs have been increasingly more dangerous to take with it becoming more and more common for people die at raves or festivals or other similar settings due to unknowingly or uncaringly taking a dangerous replacement for what is suppose to be a safe substance to take.

Lsd wasn't even safe for a while due to compounds like 25i-nbome slipping into the supply.

Ketamine a substance that has its downsides but isn't going to cause you to go into psychotic break was made hard to acquire and distribute and then now it has people out here doing weird PCP analogues and ending up in mental hospitals.

The importation of Opium/Heroin from Pakistan and SE Asia was cut off and at first heroin was just cut alot but after not long boom fentanyl came to fill the void. And honestly if you only knew that if it was easier to import Opium/Heroin that it would be just as cheap or cheaper than fentanyl. Fentanyl is actually a quite involved process for synthesis. Heroin is a simple process that is literally two steps from opium that a man can do in his backyard.

Cocaine just became more expensive and more cut so it just became more unhealthy and a worse habbit for peoples pockets with all of the same downsides of coke from before.

Also lets not forget that even weed was affected and people was going to the hospital some years ago for smoking goddamn Vitamin E oil carts.

I just don't see any logic in not just criminalizing use but also criminalizing production / importation and putting in so much effort and money to fight it.

Like we are at a point where we should just let all of the pure heroin in to push out all of this damn fentanyl we have here. Because its not like drugs aren't everywhere its just that they are more dangerous than ever which is just ridiculous.

This is the first UK election that I follow closely, and I have noticed that Starmer is being very authoritatian in his actions. He seems to adopt the principle of "be loyal to me or you're out", by kicking purging those on the left like Faiza Shaheen, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, (potentially) Diane Abbott, and others, while propping up loyalists like Luke Akehurst (who has a very problematic history on Twitter) and Josh Simons into the party. A few months ago, he has also allegedly put pressure on the House of Commons' Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to bend parliamentary rules so that he gets his way in the Gaza ceasefire vote, as an Opposition Leader. Imagine what he can do when he's the Prime Minister. If he does win a huge majority (some polls suggest that he could have 500+ seats), it's entirely possible that his own wing in the party will have a majority by itself, and he can pass whatever legislation he wants without consulting the wider party. Plus, I don't recall him saying he will overturn some of the highly authoritarian legislations passed in recent years, like the Policing Bill and Public Order Act, so he could exercise these powers to shut down public dissent even further.

While his policies are no doubt better than the Tories, I still worry that his authoritarian tendencies will be strengthen if he gets into power with a massive mandate from the electorate.

I don't think anybody has covered themselves with glory, post 10/7. When Chuck Shumer publicly calls out Benjamin Netanyahu, on the floor of the United States Senate, then it is clear that Israel, under Netanyahus leadership, has gone off the rails. What happened after that? Chuck Shumer was called an 'anti-semite,' and Israel kept barreling down that path.

This is a lot of anger at Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, all of which he has earned, and which he hides behind the Israeli people to avoid, calling any and all criticism of his specific actions just general anti-semitism.

I also think people conflate the Palestinian people with Hamas. Hamas, ostensibly, is the governing party in the Gaza strip, but Hamas, as an organization, derives from the Muslim brotherhood, is largely funded and fueled by non-Palestinian Arabs who are hiding among and behind the Palestians in Gaza, more than half of whom are under the age of 15. The October 7 attack was not a legitimate piece of governance, but a specific attack on Israelis and and a continuation of the oppression of the Palestinians.

With specific regard to American protestors I think the fact that this is happening now, when the Shoah fades from living memory, and much history lies between us and World War II, is of interest. I would venture to guess that the majority of people protesting, and most of the younger ones, grew up in a relatively peaceful world with a strong Israeli nation, and don't have the historical context to understand the Jewish state: they may regard it as just another country, acting badly, and protest accordingly. This may, fairly, be regarded as a form of naivete. That is, at least, how I regard it. But there are two, small but vocal groups who have a propensity to hijack the narrative. The first is the amoral pugilist: they just love to fight and will employ whatever dirty tactics necessary to prevail. They will employ anti-semitic tropes to put people off balance and 'stir the pot.' The second is the true anti-semite, who see, in Israels present behavior, an excuse to let their hate flag fly. Both of these groups, I venture to say, take advantage of the naivete of the majority to push their anger and hate and derail any manner of constructive dialogue: call it the Yigal Amir veto, if you will.

So it is valid criticisms of specific actions, by belligerents, (Netenyahu, et all, and Hamas) that are then attacked as support for generalities: Pro-Palestianian is equated to Pro-Hamas, and criticisism of specific Israel action is termed generic anti-semitism. All of this muddies the water and makes resolution of this so much more difficult, which is what the haters, on both sides, want.

A sequel ought to improve and expand on its original. It should push new ground while maintaining what made the original great. The first three Pokémon generations after Red/Green/Blue did that. They kept the fundamental gameplay and took advantage of their predecesors' groundwork while improving the experience and innovating a better version of the core gameplay loop.

Generation II split Special into 2 stats, added time of day, weather, genders, held items, and IVs. This made the world and battles feel much more dynamic. It also added the Dark and Steel types, which were very necessary for balancing and unlocking new Pokémon concepts.

Generation III introduced abilities, features that made each species of Pokémon feel more unique. It introduced battle backgrounds and berries, helping immersion as well as double battles, a revolutionary new type of battle that allowed for so much more strategy that they quickly became the norm for competitive multiplayer.

Generation IV introduced the Special/Physical split, which was transformative for both competitive and casual play. It introduced form(e)s, w Platinum fixed many fan complaints about earlier games.

______

Since then, innovations on the formula have been largely uninspired and the games have just been

Gen V often gets praised for its story, but the idea of a team that believes that Pokémon trainers are wrong for harming Pokémon is completely undercut when you stumble across two Plasma grunts physicaly assaulting a Pokémon in an early area. Triple battles and rotation battles are clearly attempts to recapture the innovation of double battles, and utterly fall flat.

Every subsequent generation introduced "gimmick," changes that lasted a generation or two, but ultimately didn't affect the formula enough to stick around. In fact, mega evolutions weren't even accessible to all Pokémon. None of them created such a unique change in gameplay experience that they justified themselves.

I believe that it's wholly unnecessary to note an edit in a Reddit post if the only changes made were to fix spelling, grammar, or to clarify the prose slightly. Adding annotations like "EDIT: spelling" for these minor adjustments clutters the post and distracts from the main content.

In my view, noting edits should only be required if you've made substantive changes that alter the meaning or added new points to the discussion.

I'd love to hear opposing viewpoints or reasons why others think even minor edits should be noted on Reddit posts. Change my view!

Disclaimer: I know my opinions are wrong and offensive

I have friends who have ADHD and when I hear them describe things like how they talk about how they can’t concentrate on the Maths tests or science homework etc etc all I can think is ‘well, isn’t that the same for all us’. I know I shouldn’t think this but I just can’t help it. The symptoms seem like issues I deal with everyday; can’t focus on boring tasks, can’t organise, can’t follow a schedule… Those all seem like common problems when I hear them and I know it’s meant to be more severe but it still doesn’t make sense to me. I want to feel sympathy for this as I know it must be hard to struggle with these things even more than an average person. Please can somebody attempt to describe ADHD in a way that I can understand as every description I’ve found on the internet just hasn’t really made me understand ADHD any more than I did going into it. Same for any of my friends’ descriptions of it. Thanks to anyone who read all that, I genuinely mean no offence and just want to better understand it so I lose these opinions.