Someasy

When a person online, or even a news website, says that something is happening in "winter" for example, there's no way to know whether this means (roughly) Q1 or Q3, since the same seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere. You can assume the common convention of using the American or Northern Hemisphere system, but there's always some doubt because people in the Southern Hemisphere typically also use the seasons that relate to their own region even when discussing things on a global platform.

Not to mention there are probably people who may not even know what that terminology refers to if they're in a location that doesn't use the same seasonal weather system, forcing them to learn and use a system that doesn't apply to their country and is only relevant to a different part of the world.

It's often said that on the internet, everyone assumes you're a man. I think it's also true that everyone assumes you're American or at least from the Northern Hemisphere... Which is fine for the people that are, and that may well be the majority for certain "Western"- or English-oriented platforms, but for those that aren't it can be very confusing...

Possible objections:

• Quarters/trimesters (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) are also used for the fiscal year, which luckily mostly aligns with the calendar year-based quarters in the majority of the world, but in some countries such as Australia and New Zealand (which ironically, due to being in the Southern Hemisphere, would benefit the most from abandoning the seasonal system in favor of a quarter-based system), use a different fiscal year system that begins in the middle of the calendar year, meaning what is Financial Quarter 1 for most of the world would be Financial Quarter 3 for certain regions. So this does create a situation where Financial Quarters could be confused with Calendar Quarters and in cases where they don't align, but if it's established that the default system for describing those approximate time ranges (3-month periods, or trimesters) universally is the calendar-quarter system, then it could be understood that the fiscal quarter system would only be used when talking in a strictly financial context, and additionally it should be specified what country or region that refers to regardless since it does differ (unless it's implied based on the context) - in the same way that if you're describing seasons because it relates to actual weather events, the region should probably be specified.

• Quarters and seasons aren't completely aligned - which is even moreso the case in the Southern Hemisphere where the seasons are more along the lines of Dec-Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr-May, Jun-Jul-Aug, Sep-Oct-Nov. However, when the seasons are relevant for weather purposes, then it still makes sense to use them context dependantly, and I think the fact that Quarters can be more clearly defined as exactly 3 month periods of the year that begin on Jan 1 and end on Dec 31 makes them even more logical to use to refer to time ranges for events that aren't weather-dependent - using seasons is just a rough heuristic for describing time ranges that are more relevant to actual quarters anyway, but one that is failing in my opinion.

• People can just say "Autumn/Fall (USA)" or "Spring (Australia)" for example and always specify the region along with the season, as an alternative to using quarters/trimesters, but this is overly complicated, seems likely to be abbreviated to just the season in contexts that assume the audience is from the same region (in the way it already typically is), and also requires people to work out what time periods the seasons refer to in the country specified rather than an immediately understandable universal system of Quarters (I also wish the International Standardization Organization would promote this [correct me if they have already, but there is a Wikipedia discussion to normalize using Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 instead of seasons for most pages that aren't weather related] in the same way they promote the ISO 8601 format of YYYY-MM-DD and 24 hour time, both for better digital alphabetical ordering, and to avoid confusions between different date and time formats).

Help me settle a debate - is this a Mandela effect? So many people believe Leonard Cohen either wrote the song (he didn't, it was Alabama 3) or that he covered a version of the song. Many online sites report that he sang the song for the version used as the theme song of The Sopranos, Google Gemini says he did, but ChatGPT says he didn't. There are Youtube videos titled Leonard Cohen - Woke Up This Morning with a picture of him and there are ongoing debates in the comments about whether he ever sang it or not. What is going on here?? Why can't we get accurate information about this?

Waiting . . . Tick tock, Croc goes the clock 🕑🐊

Only found this online but it's for the original PS1 version: "Pac-Man can gain extra lives by collecting gold 1UP Pac-Man items, by earning them in the slot machine at the end of every level or for every 10,000 points scored at the results screen."

But I don't know what these gold 1UP Pac-Man items look like or how to recognise them, couldn't find a pic or any more information on it. Does it mean the gold coins you collect during a level? I thought those were for using in the slot machine.

Also does it mean you can only get lives at the end of the level or is there a way to get lives during the progression of a level as well?

And what does it mean the results screen, can we earn lives by getting 10,000 points while playing a level or only after finishing it?

Wikipedia says this: "He can find small fractions of health to replenish it in levels, as well as extra lives."

I was wondering if we can get new lives by collecting more fractions of health once we already have full health, but not sure. And if there is a separate in-level collectible that grants you a full life, what it looks like.

One Woman in the Justice League

Just one woman, maybe two, in a team or group of men.

Also watch Jimmy Kimmel's "Muscle Man' superhero skit - "I'm the girly one"

The Avengers:

In Marvel Comics:

"Labeled "Earth's Mightiest Heroes," the original Avengers consisted of Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hulk, Thor and the Wasp. Captain America was discovered trapped in ice in The Avengers issue #4, and joined the group after they revived him."

5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.

Modern films (MCU):

The original 6 Avengers were Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, and Black Widow.

Again, 5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.

Justice League

In DC comics:

"The Justice League originally consisted of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman"

6 / 7 original members are male. Only one is female.

In modern films (DCEU):

The members were/are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg. (+ introducing Martian Manhunter (in Zack Snyder's Justice League director's cut))

5 / 6 main members in both versions of the Justice League film are male, with appearances by a 7th member in the director's cut who is also male. Only one member is female.

The Umbrella Academy (comics and show)

7 members:

1. Luther (Number One / Spaceboy)
2. Diego (Number Two / The Kraken)
3. Allison (Number Three / The Rumor)
4. Klaus (Number Four / The Séance)
5. Five (Number Five / The Boy)
6. Ben (Number Six / The Horror)
7. Vanya (Number Seven / The White Violin) Later becomes known as Viktor and nonbinary in the television adaptation after Elliot Page's transition but that's not really relevant to this.

Here, 5 / 7 original members are male. Only two are female. Only slightly better than the other more famous superhero teams, and they had to add another member (compared to Avengers' 6 members) to improve the ratio (maybe executives still demanded to have 5 males).

Now let's look at some sitcoms and other stories.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia:

4 males, and 1 female slightly less prominent character who is abused constantly. The show claims to be politically aware and satirical but gets away with a lot of misogynistic comedy, tbh, that I'm willing to bet a lot of people are finding funny for the wrong reasons.

Community:

Jeff, Britta, Abed, Troy, Annie, Pierce, Shirley. This one is a little better, 3/7 are female. Notice it's always more males though, they never let it become more than 50% female, or else then it's a "chick flick" or a "female team up" or "gender flipped" story. And of course the main character, and the leading few characters, are almost always male or mostly male.

Stranger Things:

Main original group of kids consisted of: Mike, Will, Dustin, Lucas, and El (Eleven). 1 original female member, who is comparable to an alien and even plays the role of E.T. in direct homage. When they added Max, I saw people complaining that although they liked her, there should be only one female member. 🤦

Why is it 'iconic' to have only one female in a group of males? Does that just mean it's the tradition, the way it's always been? Can't we change that? Is it so that all the men can have a chance with the one girl, or so the males can always dominate the discussion with their use of force and manliness? Or so that whenever the team saves the day, it's mostly a bunch of men doing it, but with 'a little help' from a female/a few females (at most), too!

It's so fucked up and disgusting to me I've realised. And men don't seem to care. I'm a male and this is really disturbing to me now that I've woken up to it. How do women feel about this? Am I overreacting?

Plus it would be cool if you could recommend some particular essential non-fiction books that should be taught in schools, or that people should read if they didn't read them in school.

So in the whole anti-natalism/pro-natalism conversation (which I'm mostly agnostic/undecided on, currently), my friend who is a pro-natalist, argued that the success/stability of our world economy is dependent on procreating more children each year than the previous year, so that we not only replace the numbers of the people who existed from the previous generation (and some, to account for the statistical likelihood that many won't have children or will be sterile or die young etc), but also ensure that the population keeps growing in order to produce more and more human labor to "pay back the debts" of previous generations, because all money is borrowed from somewhere else... this is all very murky to me and I wish someone could explain it better.

She is also of the view that this will inevitably lead to population collapse/societal/civilisation collapse because we live on a finite Earth with finite resources that can't keep sustaining more humans & human consumption (and are nearing critical environmental crises), but that there isn't any other option than to keep producing more children because a declining population wouldn't be able to support itself economically either. Basically the idea seems to be that economically & societally we're on a collision course for self-destruction but the only thing we can do is keep going and making increasingly more of ourselves to keep it running (however that as individuals, we should be plant-based & minimalist to reduce our impact to the environment, non-human animals and humans for as long as possible). And she is worried about the fact that fertility rates are falling & slated to reach a population peak followed by a decline in the relatively near future.

As I said I'm not sure how I feel about this view but at first glance I think that the effect of having fewer children in providing relief upon the environment and helping safeguard our future is more important than preserving the economy because destroying the actual planet and life itself seems worse than economic downturns/collapses, but I really don't know enough about economics to say for certain.

I want a word to refer to words and names collectively, and a word to refer to peeing and pooping collectively (not "relieving yourself" since that is disgusting)

I just don't want to mix them because I feel like it would make me less clean.

Relatedly, what's the best way I can follow the Patrick Bateman skincare routine as a simplified version that's actually practical to follow and contains the most important steps?

'Where negative rights are "negative" in the sense that they claim for each individual a zone of non-interference from others, positive rights are "positive" in the sense that they claim for each individual the positive assistance of others in fulfilling basic constituents of well-being like health.'

'Negative rights are considered more essential than positive ones in protecting an individual's autonomy.'

So when one individual's positive right to do something is at odds with another's negative right to protect them from something, as much as it would be ideal for both parties to have exactly what they want without harming or inconveniencing/upsetting the other, since that's often not possible, the negative right to 'protect' an individual from something seems to trump the positive right for an individual to 'do' something in hierarchy of moral importance and most ethicists seem to agree.

For example, I think people's 'positive right' to choose animal-based product or service options when there are equally suitable plant-based options that achieve all the same purposes, isn't as important as sentient animals' negative right to not be unnecessarily exploited and killed, and to be protected from those undesirable experiences, states or conditions. Hence the position of veganism is very clear and obvious for me, and resolves an "easy" ethical issue with a clear solution (essential negative (protective) right prevails over others' ultimately unnecessary positive ("doing") right).

When it comes to abortion however, I do believe that it's a tricky situation ethically. I'm pro-choice, but I say that with difficulty, because considering both sides it's not an easy position and I see it as much more ethically complex than the issue of unnecessary animal exploitation. That's because I think you can make the argument that either forcing a person to undergo pregnancy, or terminating the life of an (admittedly unconscious, undeveloped) fetus, are in both cases breaching a sentient (or would-be sentient) individual's negative (protective) right. It would seem to be a clear ethical dilemma, where neither outcome is desirable, in almost comparably important ways. However, ultimately I had to decide that protecting a woman/person from an enforced pregnancy (and the physical and life-changing, even life destroying (or killing) effects, results and experiences that can have), a person being a fully formed, conscious and sentient individual, is more tangibly important than protecting an undeveloped, unconscious "mass of cells" from being prevented from developing into a human being.

My thoughts on the matter aside... It seems like in one way the right to abortion is a positive right by claiming assistance from others to "do" something being terminate a pregnancy, while in another way it's a negative right by "protecting" the person via preventing undesirable states and experiences that would be imposed on them by others 'interfering' and forcing them to undergo pregnancy, by denying them an abortion.

I'm honestly just wondering what kind right this would be considered. Positive right or negative right? Or both? Thanks :)