Unpopular Opinion

It's cowardice because sometimes there are things worth sacraficing your healh for. Like if you were a soldier, and you didn't risk your life, you would be a very pathetic soldier. If you decided not to do important things because it was risky to your health, then that's literally the definition of cowardice ("the behaviour of someone who ...tries to avoid danger" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cowardice)

It's like yes, in a vacuum, it's better to be healthy than sick, but it can't be the ultimate good. The ultimate good is something you are willing to die for, fight for, and risk it all. I'm not sure what that is, but it is categorically not "health" as that would be a contradiction.

All my life I've been led to believe that unattractive men will treat you better or are more genuine. Mainly movies like The Hunchback of Notre-Dame and many others where they depict a pretty girl with an unattractive male partner/protagonist where she falls in love with him because of the way he treats her.

Who would have said life is not like in movies? But for some reason we will still have this stereotype in mind.

The truth is I've been treated worse by guys who were unattractive in comparison to guys who are attractive. Specially when they make you feel bad about yourself which never happened to me with an attractive guy. They never made me feel unattractive or lesser than them.

Nerdy guys have been the worst in my experience, no flowers, no gentleman behavior or trying to be interested in your interests. Many awkward silences and only interacting with you for sex.

This is just a tendency, not a rule. Just never believe that someone's appearance is related to their personality (even if it's in a positive way).

What's the worst case scenario? Usually the answer is some manifestation of immense pain and death, but these things will happen regardless. There is no avoiding it. All things come to an end. "The world is ending" has been true for 99.99% of life who have since gone extinct. It's all part of the way it is. Atheists say God is cruel, christians say god is loving, but in reality god just is in the same way that 4 just is 2 and 2. The end is coming, and it has been coming since the moment you began, for all beginnings have an end or else there would stagnation.

Maybe it’s the retro-futuristic style or reminiscent of sci-fi and cyperpunk, but I genuinely really like the design.

I would never buy one due to the MYRIAD issues plaguing the stainless steel body, interior build quality, or give Tesla money. But still a cool looking car, if nonfunctional truck.

The followup is to the second truism that real and true are different concepts. Reality is worldy but truth transcends our reality. Math is universal in all possible and real worlds, which means math is both real and imaginary. Knowing this, use reason as a compass to navigate the pain. Truth will be the guide in a world of illusions. Faith in reason and logic is faith in the good and ultimately in god. This is the case even when you wish the logic was not true and want to resist it, like a child disobeying his parents. It's only natural and real for you to have instincts, but truth will guide you to the right path regardless of the pain and suffering appears

If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.

I don't think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.

Been following the developments on the shooting of Charlie Kirk quite intensively from Europe these past few days. This whole thing stinks. Investigators had no idea who the shooter was, then BOOM, all of a sudden they do? Tyler Robinson goes home, tells his dad (who is former law enforcement) and he then tells a family friend???? This stinks. if the father is a former cop or whatever, he would either go full out and snitch his son to the people searching for him, or take it with him to his grave. Makes no sense, I don't buy it. Trump knew about the shooting before any media, that was on-site, reported about it? Fishy.

I dunno man, maybe its just my extreme distrust in the US but with all the radical shit that's been happening over there since Trump's reelection, I think nothing is too wild to not be considered. The american right needed someone of significance to get popped so they could use their image for martyrdom to push their ideals.

On a person note (yes, this is going to get me down voted to shit): I'm quite appalled at the sadism and joy that many people on Lemmy are taking to the killing of Kirk. I'm not getting into his politics. Yes, he was radical, i disagreed with his messaging and values and he was a piece of shit. But from a humanitarian perspective, way too many people here are making fucked up memes about the death of a young man with two young kids and a wife. You don't have to like him, you can even hate him, but leave the guy some dignity ffs. Maybe Lemmy isn't the platform of intellectuals I thought it was. This will probably be my last post. Americans are fucking insane.

Responsibility necessarily implies care. For example, let's say you are responsible for baking a birthday cake. What would be a failure in this context? Obviously, failure would be to neglect your responsibility, therefore no cake was made. Or, failure would be if you haphazardly mixed ingredients together, making a disaster or a subpar cake. Okay, then, what would be the best way to succeed at this job? It would be to pay extra careful attention to every important step and ingredient. Likewise, if you are in a position of power, you are burdened with great deal of caretaking. Parents know this. Dog owners know this. What is a bad parent? It is an irresponsible one, one who does not care. What is a parent? It's someone who has power over a child.

Moving on to the second point now, a mother's love for her child is often cited as the most powerful human connection. A maternal bond is the basis for all of us being alive right now. Do you think you'd survive, as pathetic newborn infants are, if humans were like snakes and left you immediately after birth? "You're on your own, kid". No, of course not. This applies to every level of authority, from workplaces to government. The maternal bond is the golden standard form of governing, and the citizens ought to be like crying babies (i.e., protests). The government should cater to each and every citizen like a doting mother.

The end

I say "dead" because to be dead is to "not make an appearance". They describe celebrities as "making an appearance". Appearances has become our reality now. If you do not speak up, you are not heard and may as well be dead (invisible).

Think about all those people in prisons. they are invisible. They are to be tortured and no one knows about it. Think of all those people wrongfully detained or beat up by cops and there's no recording of it. No record = didn't happen; no pics = didn't happen. Why is it that we know of Einstein and not some other great genius? it's because Einstein has records while others don't.

If you don't not understand how to "look good on camera" you're basically screwed. We are all models, so might as well smile for the camera Understand how to look good on camera

“Modeling is truly an art form, and you have to respect it and do the research and the work,” says Liris Crosse, a leading plus-size model and former Project Runway winner, who also runs a model workshop and masterclass. It’s not enough to be physically attractive, she explains—you have to understand how to look good on camera. “I think it's important, especially for new models, to get information from people who have actually done it. I see people who offer classes and I’m like,** ‘I’ve never seen you** in an ad.’ I have the actual credentials to back it up. And I’m still working, so I'm continuously backing it up. I'm giving you the shortcut of what took me over a decade to get myself.” https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/become-model-4598/

cross-posted from: https://reddthat.com/post/49472387

I really can't think about any reason that this products category even exists.

I imagine people who buy hand-made products as office workers who choose to ride a human instead of ordering taxi to work, just because why not.

It's like, For people who buy handmade products:

• A Product that is made of good material and made by machine in a factory and sold at reasonable price: 😡😡😡
• A product that is 10x the price of normal product and is made by a human using less advanced machines: 😍😍😍

As the title says, I do not care much for 007 Goldfinger. It's not awful, better than like Thunderball, but it's a very strange film. It's got this weird car crusher scene, James does like nothing in the third act, and he's a freakin creep. I mean, more than usual. He gets so freaking lucky, again, more than usual. I do like Goldfinger as a villian, and Oddjob is pretty cool. But I just think this movie has a very weird tone and at the same time, is kind of bland.

Bonus opinion: I really like On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The tone and atmosphere are top notch, and I really like George Lazenby as James.

Most jokes keep their meaning in text form.

Ironic

This makes memes more accessible to blind people, and costs less internet traffic bandwith and electricity.

Used to be wendys had these somewhat bland fries, that most of the time were soggy. If you ever got Wendys in the 90s, you know what I'm talking about.

In the 2000s and 2010s, they seemingly had a new set of fries every few years. Burger King did the same thing in the 90s.

But Wendys fries that were soggy, were the BEST. They had flavor. It was slightly bland, but it was there.

Now these fries today are just "salt flavor", and they're always crispy. Never soggy. I miss the soggy fries. They were my 3rd favorite.

Cynical copyright-maintaining or quick-buck-making remakes are obviously not great. We can all agree on that. I'm talking about remakes/reboots done by people who are passionate about the project and who want to do the best they can with the material. I think, in a perfect world, we'd have a new Godfather II or Goodfellas every few years, made by directors and writers and actors who bring their own interpretation to the material. I want to see Quentin Tarantino's version of The Exorcist. I want to see Martin Scorsese's version of The Godfather. I want to see Ari Aster's version of Spaceballs. I want to watch Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman playing Grumpy Old Men.

Shakespeare's plays are done all over the world all the fucking time. You can't get away from the cunt. His work is remade and remolded into different forms, like West Side Story or The Lion King. The themes and story beats are stolen and remixed and given different spins by pretty much everyone. No one says "no, I only like the FIRST recorded version of his plays, anything after that is shit by default" or "why are they re-recording Macbeth in 2025 when we already have the 1889 Talkie version??"

Recorded media should not be treated as a final, authoritative version of anything. It should exist and be respected and all that jazz, but Taxi Driver isn't going anywhere just because they make a Muppets version in 2032 (god willing). Being sold as a commodity doesn't bestow a story with finality and immutable perfection.

I love films and I love having them on Blu-ray. I would be even happier if I had 10 other interpretations of my favourite films made by film-makers I respect that I could also enjoy. I want people to treat recorded media the way they treat plays; that is, they are never "done". Storytelling is an organic and squishy affair. I believe recorded media, for all the good it brings, also brings a weird sense that once something is printed on a DVD or played in a cinema, that the process of storytelling is completed and that's that, forever. It's really, really weird to me.

Most people are tolerant of, and in fact get very excited by, the idea of cover versions of songs they already love. Many of us have cover versions of songs we like better than the originals. Most of us take cover versions to be tributes to the original artists inasmuch as they're unique interpretations. Why can't we have the same attitude toward movies or TV shows? No cover version is "needed". No cover version is expected to either surpass the original or die on the vine. But when a film remake is announced, the comments are always "what's wrong with the OG?" or "the OG is only 10 years old!" or "this isn't needed, I wish Hollywood would have original ideas for a change" etc.

Let's lighten up a bit and be happy that we're blessed with remakes at all. A world without the concept of remade movies would be a very bereft one, in my [unpopular] opinion.

The injuries you sustain when hanging yourself can vary greatly depending on countless factors. Are you dangling with your feet off the ground? Are you sitting or crouching on the ground? What's the temperature of the room? Is the ligature wound tightly or is gravity doing most of the work? How much slack is there? How thick is the ligature material? How close are you to other objects and furniture? How old are you? How much do you weigh? How long was it before you were discovered? And so on.

When you die by hanging, unless it's a trapdoor neck-snapper affair, you're going to convulse and spasm and twitch violently as your body shuts down. If you doubt this, the internet is replete with videos people have taken of themselves as they die in exactly this manner.

The end result might look like you were struggling, and maybe you'll break some tiny bones in your neck that you wouldn't have if you'd been orientated differently. However, if you really were strangled and you were fighting for your life, there would be CLEAR signs that this was the case. It wouldn't require much interpretation. Just imagine the things you'd be doing if you were being garrotted. Now imagine the ways in which the killer would try to subdue those things. Bruising would be everywhere. DNA would be ploughed up by fingernails. Knee or foot-shaped bruising in the small of your back as the killer flexes you backwards. There would be blood, and probably not just yours. You and your cell would be a fucking mess. If the killer injected or blowdarted some sort of sleeping agent into you before calmly strangling you, or just spiked your prison food with it, both the puncture and the substance would be detected in the autopsies, especially in the adversarial second autopsy done with murder already in mind.

He tried to kill himself in the week or two before the attempt that succeeded. If he weren't suicidal, and he was being murdered, he sure didn't feel the need to tell anyone he fought off a Clinton goon in his cell who unsuccessfully tried to strangle him the first time. So, if we all agree that this first attempt was legit, and he wasn't being coerced or murdered, then the problem of Epstein was clearly and publicly in the process of sorting itself out. No murder needed. No gigantic risk involved, both of being caught and of revealing the existence of the paedoratti by intervening directly. There were clearly no attempts to cut a deal by handing over his evidence of paedo activity on his island, and he obviously wanted to die. So just... wait.

Unirregardless, killing Epstein would have made zero sense for the shadow people. I mean, why not just kill him in the '90s in that case? If he had dirt on everyone who raped kids on his island, and threatened to have it released should anything happen to him in some kind of last gasp nuclear "FUCK YOU", why kill him in jail if you didn't feel safe to kill him before? Don't forget, he had already been arrested and convicted of similar crimes in the past, and didn't feel the need to offer dirt in exchange for leniency back then, and didn't need to fend off Paedo Inc. killers while he was in the process of being prosecuted. It would be more in the interest of the shadow people to keep him alive, so that his alleged 'nuclear option' doesn't get activated.

The prison CCTV video has a much talked about minute or two missing. I invite anyone here to write a paragraph describing how they would go into a man's cell, strangle him as he fights for his life, stage the scene to look like suicide, clean up the probable blood and sweat and scuff marks from your shoes, then slip out, all in under 2 minutes. If there are other theories as to what those missing minutes might contain in support of the murder scenario, I'm all ears. The only thing that would work is the aforementioned drugging of Epstein first, so all the killer would have to do is arrange him into suicide pose. But again, substances strong enough to KO him or even just render him imbecilic would be detected. Unless, of course, the shadow people have special secret pharmacology that's undetectable. In which case, just give the cunt a heart attack instead. No killer/faux suicide required.

Look, the cunt killed himself. This dumb shit is the least-interesting conspiracy theory I've ever heard. The memebrain shit revolving around it is the most inane and tedious of all memeage. It's just plain boring.

"Epstein didn't kill himself" is a shibboleth; it tells you that the speaker is a regurgitator of spurious factoids he overhears in bars. He's a meat-based chain email forwarding algorithm. He's a Facebook granny who clicks Temu ads for cowboy hats for cats.

"Censorship is bad" yeah, sure, I agree. But the fact that you still know it's a curse word means it's not really censoring anything.

Curse words are so common now that they've lost a bit of their oomph. They're supposed to convey intensity, but they're used so casually that they're basically lazy filler.

A strike through line, or a box that doesn't quite cover, reintroduces a bit of the taboo. This is a bad, naughty word, you shouldn't be reading it. You know what it is, but attempting to cover it draws attention to the fact that it's something some people want to cover, which reintroduces some of the oomph.

It's kinda like sequined pasties at a nudist colony; it turns something that was once taboo, but had since been normalized, back to taboo again to reclaim some of the intensity.

(I moved this post over from !mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world because it fits better here)

I'm currently watching Futurama for the first time because i always kinda thought it was cool when i was younger.

I recognize now how much it sucks.

The major thing that annoys me is that it displays the world in the year 3000 as if people would still have to hold down a job to earn enough money to live. The idea of full-employment sickens me. In my mind, i exclusively do tedious things in the hope that some day, they won't ever have to be done again. Like software development. Linux only has to be written once. Once functional, it basically lasts forever, or at least close to (only minor modifications need to be made, like adaptations to a new protocol or sth).

The very idea that people will still have to work in the year 3000 is very repulsive. It shows that society hasn't matured enough yet. I hope this is not the future that we actually end up with.

I was thinking this while watching the SpaceX flight get scrubbed for the third time in as many days.

I don't know if it was the stream I happened to be watching, but it was just a heavy heavy circle jerk about how part of the goal of Starship is to have "30 minutes" to anywhere on earth by going suborbital.

But it struck me that business relies on consistency. Flights leaving on time, arriving on time. If I have a conference in Hong Kong, am I going to wait three days for the perfect launch conditions because my sub-orbital flight launch is delayed by a bad cloud somewhere in the launch zone?

Until orbital and suborbital launches ae robust enough to happen like clockwork in ANY weather condition, it'll never be popular enough to be feasible.

Apparently this is an unpopular opinion among feminists. If feminism is about equality for everyone, it needs to address that. As an example, LGBTQ+ was extended many times to cover everyone in the community, and that's the right thing to do. There isn't just L and everyone repeats "Oh! Lesbians are for rights for everyone, no need to update that"

I don't know what the new name should be, but it should cover gender equality for everyone.