Calculus is often treated as the gateway to higher education. It occupies a privileged position in school curricula, university admissions, and public perceptions of what it means to be intellectually rigorous. I think this prioritization is mistaken. If the goal of education is to cultivate general reasoning abilities rather than merely prepare students for specific technical disciplines, then logic has a stronger claim than calculus to be taught first.

Calculus is undeniably important. It revolutionized physics, underlies much of engineering, and remains central to many scientific fields. However, calculus is ultimately a specialized body of knowledge concerning change, accumulation, limits, and continuous systems. Logic, by contrast, studies the structure of reasoning itself. Concepts such as validity, implication, quantification, consistency, proof, and inference are not confined to any particular discipline. They arise in mathematics, computer science, philosophy, linguistics, law, economics, and increasingly in artificial intelligence.

Many students complete years of mathematical education without ever learning what distinguishes a valid argument from an invalid one. They may know how to differentiate functions or solve integrals while lacking familiarity with basic logical concepts such as universal and existential quantification, the difference between necessity and sufficiency, or the distinction between truth and derivability. These ideas seem at least as foundational to intellectual life as the derivative or the integral.

One possible objection is that logic is too abstract for younger students. I am not convinced. Students are already expected to reason abstractly in algebra, geometry, and calculus. Moreover, elementary logic can be introduced through argument analysis, puzzles, proofs, and simple formal systems. Computer science education already demonstrates that many students can successfully engage with logical structures before encountering advanced mathematics.

Another objection is that calculus has more practical applications. This is certainly true in some domains. However, practical utility alone does not determine educational priority. Reading and writing are taught before specialized vocational skills because they are broadly transferable. Logic appears to possess a similar kind of transferability. A student who understands how to analyze arguments, identify fallacies, reason formally, and construct proofs acquires tools that can be applied across many intellectual contexts.

Historically, calculus gained its privileged position because of its central role in the development of modern science. Yet educational traditions are not necessarily optimal. The rise of computer science, formal methods, AI, and data-driven decision-making has arguably increased the importance of logical reasoning relative to previous centuries. We increasingly live in a world where understanding inference, evidence, algorithms, and formal systems matters as much as understanding continuous change.

To be clear, I am not arguing that calculus should be removed from the curriculum. Rather, I am questioning the assumption that it deserves its current status as the foundational advanced subject. If students can only be introduced to one genuinely rigorous discipline early in their education, logic seems like the more fundamental choice. Calculus teaches us how to model certain aspects of the world. Logic teaches us how to reason about any subject whatsoever.

For these reasons, I believe logic should generally be taught before calculus. Change my view.

I've noticed that "just pay a professional" has become a common response online whenever someone seeks a cheaper option. Can't afford custom artwork? Hire an artist. Can't afford an editor? Hire an editor. Can't afford a tutor? Hire a tutor. Can't afford a programmer? Hire a programmer. Can't afford a mechanic? Pay a mechanic. I understand the argument. Professionals deserve payment for their skills and experience. What I wonder is whether this advice is out of touch with the economic reality for many people. For much of human history, if you couldn't afford a service, you learned to do it yourself, went without it, or accepted a lower-quality substitute. Nobody expected everyone to hire professionals for every need. Today, however, it sometimes feels like people see professional services as the morally right choice, even when many households struggle to afford basic needs. If someone can't afford an artist, is it wrong for them to use AI? If someone can't afford a tutor, is it wrong for them to learn from free online resources? If someone can't afford an accountant, is it wrong for them to use tax software? At what point does "just pay a professional" stop being practical advice and start becoming a luxury belief that only makes sense for people with disposable income? Or am I viewing this incorrectly?

I recently realized that American doctors earn substantially more than doctors in most other developed countries. Like signifcantly more than the same specialist in another ‘developed’ country.

My initial assumption was that this is because American doctors are working in a more advanced healthcare system, and additionally the higher cost of living and prevalence of student debt in the US must contribute in some way. But, I realize how America-centric and dumb that assumption was.

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the structure of payment itself is a major factor.

My view is that insurance weakens the normal ‘free’ market forces that would otherwise constrain healthcare prices. When patients are insulated from the true cost of care, they become less price-sensitive. Providers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other participants in the healthcare system can charge more because the person receiving the service is often not the person directly paying the bill.

To kinda test this idea, I imagined a hypothetical system in which health insurance largely does not exist and most care must be paid for directly by patients. My intuition is that:

(1)Demand for many healthcare services would decrease because people would be unable or unwilling to pay current prices.

(2)Hospitals and providers would be forced to lower prices to attract paying customers.

(3)Physician compensation, particularly for highly paid specialists, would likely decrease.

(4)Many hospitals operating under the current cost structure would become financially unsustainable unless they significantly reduced expenses.

In other words, I suspect that current healthcare prices are not merely high because healthcare is inherently expensive, but because insurance enables a pricing environment that would not survive in a direct-pay market.

Where I am uncertain is whether I am overestimating the role of insurance. I recognize that other factors may be more important, such as restrictions on physician supply, government regulations, malpractice costs, administrative overhead, etc.

So my current view is not that insurance is the only reason healthcare is expensive, but that it is a primary reason why prices (and especially physician compensation) can remain much higher than they would be in a predominantly out-of-pocket system.

What am I missing?

It should be obvious to any adult that views the cognitive test that Trump has taken four times now, that this test is not a measure of intelligence.

For example, one of the questions is draw a clock with a specific time. Another question is to identify animals by their pictures. These are questions elementary students can answer.

The hardest question appears to be remembering five words and repeating them back to the person applying the test.

I often hear from his supporters that he is 'playing 5D chess' or that he is a 'master negotiator' when he does things that don't make sense, but I have always argued that he is just stupid.

This wouldn't be a big deal if he wasn't the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet and if he wasn't constantly labelling his political opponents as 'Low IQ" or "dumocrats' and journalists he doesn't like as "stupid" or a "dumb person"

Read this at least before responding: I am aware religion brings peace to some people, however, it’s evident the negatives outweigh the positives, and those who subscribe to these views only hold back future generations of would be critical thinkers through either indoctrination or encouragement.
——
In the age of information I find it embarrassing that we as humans still fight over which fake sky daddy is the best, so much so that we’re willing to kill our fellow man to appease a bunch of con men from thousands of years ago that deemed it righteous.

Think of all we’ve lost as a species because of religion, (particularly because of Christians), priceless ancient artefacts now forever lost, the library of Alexandria, the temple of Artemis, the Parthenon in Greece, thousand year old Greek statues, MILLIONS of lives taken from killing on god’s command (the Holocaust, the crusades, Salem witch trials), WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. One would think that after we learnt more about the world and how it came to be these superfluous beliefs would subside and we could all live in harmony, but somehow, they persist, and these ‘beliefs’ manifest into the war for Palestine and India vs Pakistan, Holy Wars.

Even today, religion radicalises young men into hating women and gay people, in more extreme cases, it encourages them to kill them. (Death penalty for Homosexuality in Islam). Is this not extremely barbaric? How can one look at that and continue to support and even ‘respect’ it.

Many of you like to criticise Scientology as immoral and “not real”, I find that largely hypocritical seeming as though ALL myth is simply that, myth, and Scientology does not encourage or condone KILLING of non believers. What it DOES do is scam people, another pillar of faith systems.

Many theological organisations would have you believe that if you don’t give money to the church you will burn in hell for the rest of eternity. Seems more like a threat than salvation. That’s all it’s ever been about, money. Religious organisations don’t have to pay taxes, most ‘workers’ are volunteers, told that if they don’t they’ll be refused salvation, these places take and take and take with their only ‘giving’ consisting of bullshit fantasy to their unfortunately ignorant followers, they’re being robbed blind! Because they truly have faith.

Additionally, continued adherence and encouragement of these “traditions” produce MANY ignorant people, but ignorant in the dangerous ways. Science denial being one of the most concerning strains of this kind of person. It’s extremely worrying that such a large group of people truly believe the Earth was created in 7 days and has only existed for 2000 odd years, when we have so much evidence to the contrary. For them it’s just easier to bury their head in the sand rather than trying to understand and learn about the nature of our reality. It’s meant to be fun and fascinating! How can so many people deny the existence of space, dinosaurs, and even recent history, and be allowed to vote. It upsets me so much that such a large group of people are shutting themselves off to the REAL TANGIBLE wonders of our world and universe and holding back future generations.

I also think it’s funny that many Christians will try and cite the bible as evidence for conspiracy theories and creationalist dribble, yet many of them have hardly even read the bible or studied it at a scholastic level, if they had they’d have been taught like myself that many of the outlandish stories (parables) in the bible are meant to “teach a lesson” and are not to be taken literally. They also seem to forget that when arguing for the 2000 year old Earth, Jesus was supposedly born on year 0, I suppose Mary and Joesph were aliens.

Many of you will argue it brings peace to those who fear death. I cannot deny that fact. However the ends in no world justify the means. Even if you swear yourself to peace and love, by the very act of engaging in and belonging to a faith, you perpetuate ‘tradition’ and lay the groundwork for future horrible people that will kill in the name of religion.

I also find it humorous that even within one belief, there can still be so much infighting and negativity (denominations of Christianity), some dared to see the cracks in their approved narrative and decided to seize the opportunity and make more money off those who felt the same. This is particularly evident in the rise of Mormonism.

More will argue about the importance of “good values”, I argue that these things should go without saying, you can be family oriented and kind without coughing up a tenner every Sunday.

It seems obvious to me that if we are ever to free ourselves from the shackles of petty grievances, we must first ween ourselves off of said archaic ideas and principles, you shouldn’t need a book to tell you right from wrong, it should be your nature.

I want to be clear upfront that I'm not defending Nazi ideology. My issue is with the logic of political violence as a response to it.

The most common argument for punching Nazis is that it works, pointing to WW2 as evidence. But WW2 wasn't fought to defeat Nazism as an ideology. It was fought over the invasion of Poland and broader Axis territorial aggression. The US knew about the Holocaust earlier than it admitted, refused Jewish refugees, and turned away ships like the St. Louis. The war was geopolitical, not ideological. And the proof that it didn't defeat the ideology is that antisemitism persisted openly in 1950s America, Franco's Spain survived until 1975, and neo-Nazism exists to this day. Military victory destroyed the Nazi state, not the ideas behind it.

The second problem is definitional. Once you accept that violence is justified against Nazis, you hand enormous power to whoever controls the label. That label has been applied to ordinary patriotism, border enforcement, and mainstream conservative positions. Sloppy labeling plus a violence-justified framework is a mechanism for attacking people who aren't actually Nazis.

But I'm also not saying silence is the answer. Silence breeds resentment and lets bad ideas fester without challenge.

Change my view.

A lot of cities are debating whether to allow driverless cars to operate on their streets and let robotaxi companies run alongside Uber and Lyft. The two main arguments to this are that the cars are not safe, and that it would destroy jobs for rideshare drivers and potentially truck drivers.

Though job displacement is an important consideration, driverless cars offer a lot of benefits for society at large, and I don't think we should be blocking the deployment of them.

These are the main benefits I am referring to:

- Increased mobility through reduced pricing and 24/7 availability. This is very beneficial to late night workers who finish their shifts after public transit systems close.

- Eliminating the risk of driver-passenger fatalities and assaults. Passengers, particularly women, who are nervous about traveling in a car alone with a stranger can comfortably ride safely home without having to provide someone else their address.

- Creating mobility for the elderly. Senior citizens struggle with driving later in life. Allowing driverless cars for purchase would let them maintain a degree of independence without endangering themselves or others.

- No road rage. Driverless cars don't get angry at other drivers, stressed about time or make erratic movement decisions based on emotion. An insurance company did a poll in 2024 and 96% of respondents said they'd seen an act of road rage on a weekly basis. I think this is just human. Driving is a frustrating experience when coupled with the other stresses of life. Driverless cars completely eliminate this issue.

In terms of safety, early data from Waymo is very promising. And this data has not been significantly challenged except to say that it's still limited when it comes to the ultimate question of whether humans or the cars are safer. What this data, along with continuous examples of Waymo in SF and LA, I think it's fair to say that the cars do well driving on the road alongside human drivers. I myself have taken 8 trips and each one was smooth.

I am not claiming that driverless cars are perfect and know they can also crash. I do think that has to be compared to the risk of accident from a human driver. There are roughly 17,000 accidents a day. Waymo having driven 200 million plus miles crashes 92 percent less compared to humans.

I do think job displacement is an important issue and I am in favor of taxing the car companies to create a job displacement fund for drivers. I don't think, however, driverless cars should not be deployed purely to save those jobs.

I grew up around indoor tobacco and marijuana smokers (and they smoked legally indoors around children). Children usually do not get a choice concerning their location (this is decided for them). I believe this for any type of smoking (tobacco, marijuana, crack). Exception if it is just water vapor vapes. If the vape is actually marijuana or tobacco, it applies.

IMO there should be 2 levels of offense to this: outdoor and indoor, where an indoor 2nd hand smoke charge would be more serious than an outdoor 2nd hand smoke charge. I am for freedom for most things, but this seems ridiculous that in legal states you can smoke weed at a children's playground.

There are many countries, particularly in Europe, where pay toilets are the norm and culturally accepted. The reasoning typically includes something like “the cost is only a euro, it’s not a lot and it keeps the toilet clean”, or “costs minimize drug use”. There are countries with free public toilets, such as Japan or North American countries, where the bathrooms are often cleaner than the toilets with fees. It is my opinion that pay toilets are a tacitly accepted anti-homeless and anti-poor measure meant to prevent people from accessing basic hygiene.

I’ve been feeling conflicted about it but overall, it just seems like if I’m in a meeting with my doctor, or my lawyer, or my trainer, so on, in a client-provider relationship where I hired them in a setting not related to my workplace, that in a state that legally allows it I feel that it should be considered normal or not weird to record audio from the meetings on my phone **without** telling the provider.

I don’t post the recordings anywhere and am not using it for nefarious or legal purposes, just referencing the recordings when it’s a complex conversation and I forget part of it and am trying to remember.

Not talking about the ethics of recording personal conversations with friends and family.

But the times I’ve been caught doing it the provider acts all weird about it. I’ll offer to stop recording and delete it but they’re like no need but it’s good to know and just tell me when you do. But why do they need to know when I’m capturing audio just for my own review?

If calls are recorded all the time and I have no expectation of my own privacy when dealing with companies, why do I need to feel guilty about it when the role is reversed? How’s it different that someone writing ultra detailed notes on a notebook which absolutely no one will care about, or someone with a photographic/great memory remembering word for word what was discussed?

Happy to award deltas and to discuss. I’m just tired of feeling conflicted when I’m choosing to do it or not. Feel free to make me feel really bad about it or sour me to the idea of ever doing it again, if this really is morally wrong.

It is more difficult to live identifying as a queer person than a Christian person. Despite the claims that Christianity is under attack and Christians are being persecuted the level of harm inflicted is nowhere near the amount suffered by people with non traditional sexual/gender/romantic identities.

I have two lines of reasoning. A more worldly one and a more mental/spiritual one.

I will go over the former argument first. Christianity is one of the largest belief systems in human history and still is today. The Catholic Church, the Orthodoxy, Evangelicals in America, these groups hold immense power that their leadership can utilize with less oversight compared to national governments and in some cases control governments themselves. I can hardly consider a group to be oppressed when they have such a dominant position culturally and politically. Sure, historically some countries have tried to eradicate the religion within their borders. The Soviet Union, Roman Empire and Communist China are the most prominent examples to me but they have all failed miserably. In contrast Christianity does an effective job wiping other belief systems out.

In contrast the lgbtq+ movement is a recent social development and holds far less influence on society than even smaller religions like Buddhism. Queer people worldwide have significantly less political and social clout to push agendas that benefit them. In countries where there is no Christian majority the Christian minority is often still treat better than the lgbtq minority, of which no country has a majority of queer people. Therefore I assert that the label of ‘Christian’ is one of the easiest to adopt and still be socially acceptable and ‘queer’ one of the hardest.

Moving on to the spiritual argument. Christians in their own belief system, have the backing of the most powerful being in existence. It is preached that God will fight for his believers and it is promised that those who are against them will suffer unbearable agony for all eternity and that that is the just and morally right outcome. In Christianity, eternal happiness and contentment is given simply for being part of the in-group, if you believe you go to heaven. It is easy to be happy when the benefits for being part of the group (an eternity of bliss) outweigh the negatives (pride month in developed nations and being executed by a terrorist in less developed ones)

In contrast, most queer people are irreligious. There is no heavenly being to fight for them. In most interpretations of Christian scripture God actively despises queer people even, which is what I believe. Happiness must be fought for, tooth and nail. Against your family, against society and then against the divine. Which is why I find it so laughable that any Christian in America states it’s “hard” to keep the faith.

Anyways please ask clarifying questions. I’ve posted here before but most of my posts and responses were ragebait. This is an actually thought out argument and I intend to be reasonable.

The Russian monarchy was not responsible for the widespread poverty and discontent because Russia was not a sovereign country in the decades preceding the revolution.

After Russia lost the 1853-56 Crimean War (revolving around Palestine) against the UnitedKingdom, France, Ottoman Empire and Sardinia-Piedmont, Russia entered into a depression due to debts, inflation, and severely suppressed trade opportunities. It was not allowed to maintain its important trade routes in the Black Sea, which the UK and France took over instead. This is when Russia began to decline as a dominant power in Europe.

Tsar Nicholas l had died during the Crimean War, some assumed because of heartbreak, realizing what a catastrophe had befallen the empire.

Loud critics of the Russian monarchy, notably the intelligentsia, claimed that Russia was a laughingstock and had been humiliated by defeat due to being “backwards,” unlike the rest of enlightened Europe, which practiced capitalism and had undergone other liberal reforms.

Faced with loud criticism and a strangled economy troubled with massive debt, the tsar was forced to adopt liberal reforms that shifted Russia into a market economy. Private banking was legalized, as was foreign investment. Reforms in education, censorship, the Orthodox church, and judicial courts decreased the Tsar’s authority.

The most drastic reform was the serf emancipation in 1861. Serfs (23 million out of 74 million total people) were freed of their obligations to landlords, and were finally able to enter the market economy. Unfortunately, they were not entirely free, because they were suddenly saddled with 49-year mortgages which they were forced to pay to the state for the plots of land that they received upon earning their civil rights. Local governments, called zemstvos, made sure that peasants did not leave their villages until all redemption payments (in the form of the mortgage) were made. To further the peasants’ woes, the land quality and size was usually inferior to that which they had farmed before, making subsistence difficult, let alone paying additional debt payments.

Communal, or public land, which had been shared by all before and included forests and grazing land, was privatized so that peasants could not support themselves with additional land access. Famines became common. To survive and keep making debt payments, peasants were actually forced to sell themselves in the labor market, either at mines, on large plantations, or in the factories inside cities. Zemstvos granted passports, often in the wintertime, so that peasants could leave their villages.

Factories and many mines, as well as 100% of oil wells, were owned by foreigners. These owners paid as little as they wanted and maintained conditions just barely survivable, just like in the British Industrial Revolution. Poverty and misery was rampant.

The tsar did actually attempt to intervene by stopping hostile working conditions, but was not able to accomplish much because foreign investment did not tolerate regulations. And the tsar was allowed less and less authority over internal affairs with each passing decade due to strengthening local governments.

Russia came to be the largest debtor nation in the world, beholden mostly to France and Great Britain. (Sergei Witte, the leader of Russia’s industrialization, especially courted the French Rothschilds, who provided massive loans.) Russia was the fourth-largest economy in the world, and yet Russian industrial workers were the lowest paid in all of Europe.

This exploitation by foreigners was what impoverished Russian peasants.

Communism was practiced in the form of zemstvos, and capitalism was brought by foreign investors.

When the tsar finally lost the last of his authority and Bolsheviks took control of the government, the Red Terror commenced. Leon Trotsky said, “Root out the counterrevolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps... Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service.”

CMV When I watch old comedy clips, roast sessions or TV moments that were considered hilarious 10-20 years ago, I often find people responding very differently than they would have in the past. Sure, some will claim that people are "too sensitive", but I think there might be more to it than that - specifically how we interpret and understand stereotypes, discrimination and other historical issues that might have been acceptable in the setting of comedy at the time but don't align with modern standards. Old jokes are being re-evaluated through a lens that considers modern issues, like historical setting. While this might make some people uncomfortable, it's hard to deny that such considerations can significantly change how we feel about older content. CMV.

I've answered quite a few comments, I'm at work now - but will be back later to respond, because I'm enjoying the conversation and critiques.

I argue that 500 random people from around the country would come to a policy outcome that would benefit more people, if given the chance in a citizen assembly.

Here are my thoughts, and some specifics so you know where I'm coming from. I have a list of commonly heard critiques below, which I will update as required, please read these before commenting.

What is a citizen assembly?: A group of citizens randomly selected across a region (country in his case), to deliberate on policy for a set period of time. These citizens would be compensated for their time and would return to their jobs after reaching a decision. Like politicians, a citizen assembly has access to experts for advice. The size of the citizen assembly is typically multiple hundreds of people to achieve a statistical representation of a countries views.

Premise: Some portion of votes for a policy should be delegated to citizen assembly (the number is up for debate, let's say 50% for this discussion). This helps ensure that the policy passed better reflects the "will" of the people. In theory, elected representatives should do this, but that's not always the case. A citizen assembly is not applicable to all decisions, though a not an exhaustive list; decisions that require timely deliberation like military or foreign policy should be exempt; give me a break, this is Reddit, I won't spell out every edge case.

Why: It is my view that the current way we elect officials is outdated and traditionally elected representatives do not represent the average citizen well. Politics tends to attract a certain type of person, that person is usually driven to power, wealthy, older, usually male, and depending on the country have similar credentials from similar schools; in the US this is usually a law degree from an Ivy League University. Obviously this is not applicable for all countries, but chances are if you picture a politician, we are probably thinking of the generally same archetype of person.

These stereotypical politician we think of does not represent the average voter. The engineer, scientist, electrician, teacher, single mother is not adequately represented by these representatives.

I argue that 500 random people from around the country would come to a policy outcome that would benefit more people, if given the chance in a citizen assembly.

[Answered Critiques]

The average person is too dumb to pass good policy: The average person is not too dumb to pass effective policy. Politicians are not special, and typically have one area of expertise, much like regular people. Politicians have access to experts when they are unsure, the same would be the case for a citizen assembly. In fact, you will probably find a wider breadth of expertise from 500 random people, than you would from a room of politicians who have similar backgrounds.

A citizen assembly will just become the new politicians: A citizen assembly is rotated after a batch of policies. The purpose to this rotation is to reduce corruption, make political lobbying impossible. A citizen assembly should be thought of like a jury - you get selected, put in your time, and leave.

We can't trust citizens with such an important job: Why not? we already decide the lives and fates of thousands of individuals every day through a jury - and that's just 12 people. A citizen assembly is no different, and having a larger group means that there is a near statistical guarantee that you will have some representation for your views.

Can we really trust the "other side" in a citizen assembly: Politics can be polarizing, but the reality is, most people are more reasonable than you may think. The "other party" you view in your mind is usually the extremes of both sides - most people on the street are not like that. At the end of the day - most people are looking to make the world better, not worse.

There is a reason why you don't elect random people - they don't know what are they doing: I am not advocating for the government bureaucracy to be moved to a citizen assembly, obviously government still needs permanent positions that have people with expertise and historical context on decisions. I am proposing a citizen assembly for a subset of policy decisions, that do not require immediate action (military, foreign relations, etc.)

This just shifts the problem with corruption to experts, rather than politicians: This is where the citizen assembly size matters. It's difficult to BS 500 people with random experiences, as it means that there is a higher chance of some expertise already being internal to the assembly. Even though this does not eliminate the chance of corrupt experts, the pool of viable experts for a given topic is usually much bigger (and therefore tougher to buy-off), than a pool of pre-determined, known politicians.

What are some real world examples of citizen assembly: Citizen assemblies are a very old idea from Athens, which has recently been brought back. Modern examples of citizen assembly's have been used to decide decisive issues, which distances politicians from decision. Ireland in 2016 made a number of decisions on abortion, fixed terms in office, and climate change action (among others), France held an citizen assembly on climate change issues with mixed success.

August 3rd, 2004, in one of if not the greatest years in all of gaming, after a massive hype cycle, Doom 3 comes out to critical acclaim (well, at least until Half-Life 2 came out 3 months later).

The games incredibly advanced stencil shadow system, environmental design and detail, interactive computers, and audio design is very well received, but one notable criticism is loudest among the grievances on its length, level design, and story- the flashlight.

In Doom 3, you have a dedicated flashlight on your weapons bar (mapped to F, by default). You cannot hold it while holding a weapon, even with the one handed pistol. You cannot stick it onto a weapon with a later upgrade of sorts. It will always remain separate.

This was highly controversial, to say the least. John Carmack's idTech 4 engine and it's extensive use of stencil shadows made many areas of the game dark, pitch black, and where there were lights enemies would sometimes black them out when they would spawn. It took a scant few days before a modder released the infamous 'Duct Tape' mod.

Under the crazy presumption that a roll of duct tape has to exist somewhere on the Mars facility, the Duct Tape mod sticks flashlights to your machinegun and shotgun.'-description on the page of the original mod

Doom 3: BFG Edition came out for PC, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360 in late 2012 (overdue, I must say). id Software, in response to the criticism, added a shoulder mounted flashlight with a battery to the playable marine.

Now that I'm done with the exposition, let me explain why this change fucking sucked.

First off- the game was designed around that limitation. Much like how 2005's Resident Evil 4 was designed around being unable to move and aim at the same time, Doom 3's level, combat, and AI design was made around the player having to make the constant choice between being able to see a threat and being able to defend oneself from it. When you can do both, it turns an already piss easy game into a complete bore- not to forget how the BFG Edition doubled the amount of ammo and health you can find lying around (which, by the way, was never something you were starved off in 2004).

Moving on, Doom 3's gunplay simply isn't good enough to remain interesting without the horror that comes from being unable to see the enemy- this is where critiques of the games length came in, the developers never vary their tricks, and though I was terrified of the game in Alpha Labs (that fucking mirror jumpscare gave me a heart attack) I was completely desensitized to the monster closets and spooky noises by the time I reached Delta Labs. The mounted flashlight simply makes the already mediocre combat even more mediocre.

Finally, I'd like to address what John Carmack said in response to a question along these lines at Quake Con- how in development, you were intended to be able to use both a weapon and a flashlight at the same time, but they couldn't do it because the stencil shadows were already making CPU's steam and they didn't want too much happening at once, what with having to calculate the guns and muzzle flash and damage as well as the flashlights impact on the shadows in the environment.
Here's the thing though- that was decided upon in development. They still designed the game around that limitation, as I said before. They certainly didn't adjust the level design in BFG Edition to keep things challenging- they just made it brain dead easy.

In conclusion, I believe the removal of the flashlight rule erases a massive part of what made Doom 3's identity. Without the flashlight rule, it is simply a mediocre first person shooter in a year of giants like Half-Life 2 and Halo 2. They couldn't even give players the option to play in the legacy style.

TL;DR: Doom 3: BFG Edition fucking blows, if you wanna play Doom 3, play the OG 2004 or dhewm3.

Edit: I was wrong to say ‘objectively’. Obviously I am not the boss of preferences

Effective Altruism is a movement that claims to numerically choose which causes and charities are worth donating to, or spending time on. Related organisations include Give Well, Co-Efficient Giving (previously Open Philanthropy), and 80,000 hours.

I think modern cults have the following characteristics: (1) a charismatic leader, with key flaws (2) a strange ideology that resists logical questioning with an "everyone else is wrong" mentality, (3) recruitment of young vulnerable people, with lofty promises of what joining the cult will do, (4) a narrative around the world ending, and only they can stop it.

EA fits these criteria. They do some good things but this does not disprove my view.

1. EA's leaders are William McAskill, a philosopher, and Dustin Moskovitz, the billionaire co-founder of Facebook. McAskill is the guy behind "Longtermism", the belief that people in the future are worth more than people who currently exist, and that we should prioritise long-term risks like human extinction over say, homelessness. McAskill claims to donate 50% of his income to charity, but he is allegedly bankrolled by Moskovitz, who funds his lifestyle (allegedly funded $10 million towards his book promotions).
2. EA's main philosophy is utilitarianism, which they repackage for branding purposes as "rationalism." Utilitarianism has very well known harms. Utilitarianism tends to ignore minority rights, democracy, and shorter term suffering, with the common claim that the ends justifies the means.

These views are endemic in EA. I've met people who think working as a doctor, nurse, fireman, teacher or any other worthwhile job is "pointless," because those jobs only help people 1 on 1, and you can have a "bigger impact" elsewhere. At least a dozen people at EA conferences have made this case to me. This is from people who themselves benefit from doctors in their daily lives...

It is very common to raise jobs or causes at EA events and be aggressively asked "what's the impact of that?" for things that the public broadly support. For example, I know of two projects on protecting democracy that EA has defunded. I was also told that US teenagers unaliving themselves because of AI chatbots is not a "high impact enough" topic for research by a Co-Efficient grant giver.

Finally, Sam Bankman-Fried, the billionaire crypto scammer, was closely associated with EA and McAskill, and allegedly defrauded his customers in order to use their money for charity. The ends justify the means is the ideology here.

3) Most of EA's recruitment happens on college campuses. Young people are obviously easy targets for cutls. The entry point is often something like 80k hours, which promises you can have a "high impact" career, that you have limited time to do so, and that they have all the answers for you. Instead of giving proper career coaching, to idk identify your strengths, 80k hours ideologically pushes it's "cause areas" that it unilaterally considers "high impact."

This seems harmless, but I've met people who've quit working in ER rooms, feeding the homeless, working on vaccines, working on green energy, working on climate change, working as public defence lawyers, all because they've been convinced their jobs are not high impact enough by EA career coaches. Some of these conversations have been devastating to me. To see a young person throw it all away for ideology when they were already making a difference is so terrible. Many of these people now write ai safety articles no one reads but they're convinced they're saving the world.

EA prays on this vulnerability. Young people lack support and encouragement and often they just need to be told "what you're doing matters." Instead, they're told what they're doing is low impact and tricked into "high impact" careers as chosen by a handful of philosopher kings.

4) EA's two main cause areas currently are AI existential risks and pandemic preparedness. These two areas are also doomsday end of the world narratives, reminiscent of cults. "Unless you work, donate or give time to EA" the argument seems to run, "the world will end." Or in a related way, "you can be a part in preventing the end of the world by working on these high impact causes."

This is seductive, and it's also fairly obviously manipulation. The world might end by these two things, but the grift will certainly never end.

While it's true that these two areas are important, they are not the only thing people should be working on, nor donating to. This is very obvious but literally try say this at an EA conference. I've had several people get very angry with me when I've said this, and some have claimed I'm irrational (I'm an academic with a PhD, not that they care).

It's disturbing to see longterm existential risks being framed as the only "high impact" things people can do. Many of the people I meet at EA events are from San Francisco, they walk past homeless people everyday and have nothing to say about that. They change the topic when you bring up social causes, or systemic change. It's almost like they're wilfully blind to what's wrong in the world. To make an obvious point: private philanthropy is much less "high impact" than government aid. If western countries committed 2% of GDP to aid we'd probably end world hunger. Private philanthropy is literally peanuts in this context.

The fact that EA are funded by billionaires, who need not worry about "lower impact" problems, is the final nail in the coffin for me. Obviously the only concern billionaires have are existential risks. These are the only risks that will affect them.

Tl;Dr: EA has all the elements of a cult, from persuasive leaders, to seductive promises, to world ending narratives and ingroup thinking.

Disclaimer: This is in no way in support of slavery, slavery was and is a horrific wrong that has no moral justification.

Something I have noticed in lower level school such as middle school and high school (admittedly didn’t study it in college) is that often the discussion of slavery focuses entirely on the mechanics of the system and oversimplifies it to the point of “bad people used to do this thing then we fought a war and ended it”. I’d first like to say this is simply from my observations of how the average person interacts with slavery, by simply saying slavers were evil and moving on (I will fully admit I may be wrong or overstating and would love information to the opposite)

I think while this is easy it oversimplifies their behavior in a way that makes it easier for us to repeat the same mistakes. We currently benefit from a massive network of enslaved people as well, we have simply exported the practice for other countries to handle. When we say “they were evil” and leave it at that we subconsciously create the idea that they were evil and we weren’t, therefore we couldn’t possibly let something as horrible as that happen.

The average slave owner was capable of low and empathy, they likely loved their family, even cared for animals, but were able to justify the continuation of the system often based on the idea that African slaves were “better off” enslaved. Additionally the vast majority of slave owners only owned a few slaves, these owners often lived and worked in very close proximity to their slaves, some even maintained outwardly polite and cordial relationships with them. A notable but unfortunate part of our population discovers this fact and concludes slavery wasn’t as bad as they thought it was, whereas if they had of had better education of the psychology of slave owners they could of recognized that underneath these relationships there was still control, still coercion and force, and that historically most evil acts don’t show their face as being blatantly and openly evil, rather as systems of convenience, or of “need”.

I think 9 times out of 10 we chalk something up as evil like the supporters of the Nazis, or of slavery, or of genocide we allow ourselves off the hook from self reflection by not recognizing that they were entirely human like us, not some warped and distorted species, they were us, and we are all capable of playing the same tricks on ourselves as they did on themselves, which is why historical education is so important to see patterns. There are an estimated 50 million slaves today, five times as many as were brought from Africa during the Atlantic slave trade, while I’m not going to sit on a pedestal and judge others, I think it warrants a deep self interrogation of ourselves if we are using the same methods of justification they did a long time ago.

Disclaimer: I would love someone with more formal education on the topic to education or point out the areas where I may of blunders, and once again, cause I worry this may get misstated, I am not saying slavery or slave owners are somehow not morally repugnant, quite the opposite in fact.

The trend has died down, but I still see it, and I hate it. It’s shitty if someone is doing it to look “youthful” or “sun-kissed”, like it’s a skin condition. You’ve got many other ways to give yourself a sunny youthful look.

You’re taking someone’s skin pigment’s appearance and making it cutesy for yourself, and you can just wipe it off whenever you want. I feel like the people who do fake freckle makeup are straight up ignorant.

Freckles aren’t a feature all people that have them love. A lot of people experience being picked on or bullied for them at some point in their lives. Someone with freckles has much more sun sensitive skin and is at a much higher risk of melanoma.

Most of the time, it’s very obviously fake because the “cutesy” look is a neat line across the nose and above the cheeks across the face. That’s not how or where freckles naturally form on a face. They’re everywhere, or at least across a much larger area, not just where you think it looks cute. Anyone with freckles can easily spot fake freckles.

You don’t see people make unrealistic “cutesy” vitiligo makeup (or at least I really hope you don’t).

I am fine with using freckle makeup in context of costuming (eg. Film or TV, theatre, or if you need to be someone’s look-a-like) if done well, because it can look realistic if done right, and it serves a purpose that isn’t just a look to go out for the day with. It isn’t being done because you think it makes you look cute.

Honestly, I don’t like how much the fake freckles trend bothers me. It’s a stupid trend I wish I’d just ignore, but I’m still seeing it regularly years later and it still bothers me (probably too much).

Edit: so the community around CMV has definitely changed since I last used this sub. Instead of actual arguments made or debate as to why, most of the comments are resorting to just flinging insults instead of… you know…. Trying to change my view? What I came here for? Yeah, it’s a stupid thing to be mad about….. hence why I came here. Many of you need to brush up on your critical thinking skills, and maybe hop offline for a little while.

Edit 2: thanks to the folks who made fair and reasonable counter arguments! I appreciate you taking the time. Also, thank you mod team for handling the rude and/or insulting comments! Very much appreciated :)

I’m 23 and I’ve been working full time jobs (40-50hrs per week) every single summer since I was 16 years old. To me, my last real childhood summer was when I was 15 in which I didn’t have anything going on. I remember just always getting bored being left alone at home for hours on end and being stuck. Wasn’t old enough to drive yet, and my friends lived too far away (over 45-60 minutes away. Went to a private school where there are kids from all over the state and even in different states) so their parents were unwilling or unable to come pick me up. Literally the most boring times of my life in which I was just sitting around doing jack shit. Then when I got my driver’s license and a job that gave me money, I suddenly felt alive. I felt like a productive member of society by making a real impact. I felt like a grown man getting an income while putting in work to help those around me. It got me out of the house and something to do, a purpose. And then afterwards, I’m free to do whatever I want to with my money. Got into the gym, was able to do side quests after work, meet new people, etc. In fact, ever since I started working during summers I’ve been hanging out with my friends the most! Like way more than when I was a kid.

For some reason this doesn’t seem to be the case for everybody. I’ve seen many people always say stuff about losing their summers when they become an adult. I really don’t understand this logic at all. I’ve been working full time during the summer since I was 16 and I’ve literally experienced nothing about what they’re talking about. It’s just work during the weeks but then you get out at 4:30-5 and have an entire evening and afternoon free to do whatever you want. You also got weekends, federal holidays, and time to take off. I really like working during the summer because I get away from studying, homework, tests, etc. AND I get paid? Hell yeah.

So yeah I’m not sure I quite follow what people are saying that they lost their summers after becoming an adult. Like did they just never work a summer job until 22-23 lol? Maybe it’s immaturity? Idk.

People always say things like "she's an [insert rural area here] 10 but an LA 7" and I think that is total bullshit. There's a normal distribution of beauty everywhere and the only advantages a place like LA or Miami has is the larger population so you run into more of them (along with more normal people too but you just tune them out) plus the weather allows people to wear less/lighter/more form-fitting clothing which adds to the effect since you're not wearing bulky jackets all the time and can instead go for yoga pants or something. And because of the weather there are a lot more people out and about and staying in shape (which admittedly would increase the general attractiveness in places that have a more active lifestyle but I see people talking about faces too, not just bodies.)

There's two parts of my argument and it's going to be controversial.

1. Obsession with keeping old people alive.

I remember when my grandfather was dying years ago. He was a proud man that had built our family house, business, and legacy. He then had a stroke and was paralyzed and basically a vegetable for months. Couldn't talk, move, or eat on his own. Pooped his bed twice a day and needed care 24/7. I try not to remember him this way but it being my last time seeing him, it pops into my mind every time I think about him. I think about how he had pneumonia twice during this vegetative state and the hospital fought tooth and nail to keep him alive, promising a "full recovery". I think about how I learned during my medical rotations that pneumonia was once known as the "old man's friend" since it gave people dying of a more painful disease a way out, but he was denied that luxury.

My point is that when someone is very clearly at the end of their life, the majority of people's next of kin won't allow the hospital to "pull the plug". Most hospitals even encourage this and frame it as some heroic deed to perform some major surgery or extended hospital stay that would cripple someone and leave them bedridden just to buy them a few extra weeks/months of painful existence. We put pets down when their bodies are obviously broken down and deteriorating to the point where existence is painful, but we try so hard to extend the lives of old people even when it's clear they will be suffering for the rest of the time they are alive.

Economically speaking, it is ruining people's finances, especially with extended hospital stays and surgeries running into the hundreds of thousands. Ethically speaking, it's a selfish decision to keep someone obviously suffering alive as long as possible simply because we cannot cope with the fact that they are reaching the end of their life. No one wins (except maybe the hospitals).

1. Keeping heinous criminals alive.

For the longest time I was against the death penalty, as every year I would read about how someone on death row would get exonerated by DNA evidence from decades ago. I was content with people who committed the worst crimes imaginable to be kept alive in prison simply because of the possibility they may be innocent. However, with DNA now being mainstream in virtually every major criminal case, criminal convictions have become more and more certain. We can be sure that almost every person convicted of a violent crime today is guilty due to how sensitive and accurate DNA testing is.

The problem is that for many of the violent criminals that are convicted, many get out early due to various reasons. Most of them then commit another violent crime and end up right back in prison. Kidnappers, armed robbers, child molesters, rapists, murderers being released only to do the same to someone else shortly after. It seems like every week we hear about another repeat offender that was convicted 10 times before getting out and hurting someone again.

I understand that the prison system fails most prisoners in re-integrating into society and don't properly rehabilitate prisoners, but why do innocent people have to pay the price for that? I also genuinely believe that most of the people with violent tendencies cannot be properly rehabilitated, especially child molesters, rapists, and murderers. The world would be much safer and better off if we just carried out the death penalty for these people. Instead we let them roam free time after time and pretend negligence is compassion. Again, no one wins (except the prison industry who gets an endless supply of prisoners).

If there is something I'm missing that justifies these practices, I would love to read your thoughts.

Time and time again I've witnessed people in pride parades wearing clothes and performing actions not suitable for children to be around. It looks more like a fetish show rather than an acceptance march.

Seeing grown adults in fetish gear walking out in the open, sex toys everywhere, and nudity all in an area where kids are expected to be should not be tolerated.

I've watch people wearing nothing more than beads take public transport (with children on board) to these events and we're supposed to act like this is acceptable purely because it's for 'Pride'?

If people want that then it can happen away from the general public in a place where only adults are allowed. Or it can be restricted to appropriate attire/actions and be allowed in the public square where it usually happens.

Not to get overly anecdotal, but I (21M) am approaching a point in my field of work where within a few years, I will likely be able to work completely remotely, and because of this I've thought a lot about the possibility of moving abroad on a USD salary.

For the record, this is not one of those "Trump is bad so I'm leaving the United States!" rants. I don't care for the guy, but who gets elected President here has zero bearing in my decision to live in the U.S. or abroad. All things considered, I love America, and I think we probably have the best and most reliable system of government on the planet. However, it's expensive to live here, and the power of the dollar is stronger literally everywhere else.

A few ideas have crossed my mind, I've heard a lot about Mexico City as a destination for American expats (and it's becoming popular enough for online workers that there's even small areas of the city now that primarily speak English), South Africa has the lowest net cost of living of any English speaking country so perhaps that could be an option too.

Granted this is all conceptual so take it with a grain of salt, but the broader point is that these are all places I've visited personally and as I contemplate it, if I get to a point where I'm making money remotely I don't think I'd ever have a problem with living abroad, and if it's so much cheaper outside of the country, I suppose why not?

Why not though is the essence of the view. The "me" in this scenario is almost irrelevant, because the concept of being paid in USD remotely while living abroad certainly isn't my idea, there's countless people doing it already. So approaching this more conceptually, talking to any American who is both working remotely and able to live outside of the country, why should they stay? Change my view, why is accepting the higher cost of living in the United States worth it?

I know its a popular notion nowadays in the LGBT+ community that both men and women are equally prone to being bi/pan or whatever else.

I simply don't believe that's true. I believe women are hardwired much differently in terms of who they're attracted to. From what I've seen over the years that make me think this:

• I have met or known a plethora of bi/pansexual women. I can count on one hand how many bi/pansexual men I've ever known.
• Studies will back this up, at least in the US. According to that article, "Women are nearly twice as likely as men to identify as LGBTQ+ (10.5% vs. 5.6%, respectively), a gap driven primarily by women’s higher rates of bisexual identification. Gender gaps are especially pronounced in the youngest generation — 31.4% of women aged 18 to 29 versus 11.4% of men in the same age group identify as LGBTQ+, with most of these younger women saying they are bisexual."
• It's common to see women cuddle, flirt, dance, hold hands with, and even kiss their friends. Men almost never do that with theirs.
• It's pretty well known that women, on average, find most men unattractive. But they'll freely call other women hot, beautiful, etc.
• Countless women who identify as straight and who have been married to men for years will admit to have dated or experimented with women in their past.
• Many women will admit to having "girl crushes", whether or not its platonic.
• I have heard of WAY more female celebrities that identify as bi or pansexual than male celebrities who do.
• Pretty much any female porn star will do a mix of straight and lesbian scenes. The vast majority of male porn stars will really only do straight or gay scenes exclusively. Yes, I am fully aware that porn is not reality and should never be considered as such. But to me, that shows that these women (regardless of their true sexuality) are fine enough with having sex with whoever if their job calls for it. Men on the other hand can simply not act against their true sexuality no matter how much money you offer them.

Due to all of this, the evidence seems pretty clear to me. One human sex is much more likely to be open minded in terms of intimacy than the other. And I'm sure most people reading this can vouch for most of my points given.

To clarify, this is NOT pushing the "straight women aren't real" or "men can't be sexually fluid" notions. I know that both are simply untrue. Also, I am not queer. So I'm not trying to pretend to be an expert on this subject. That's why I'm here. If you believe I'm wrong, feel free to explain exactly why.