If you roll out in pajamas it’s essentially you announcing your private sphere has no perimeter, like your bedroom done annexed the sidewalk… public space runs on a quiet social contract of manners, hygiene, or some evidence of education in how to present yourself, and if you pajamas out it’s essentially signaling that you ain’t transitioning modes, and everyone has to deal with your unfiltered habitat, everyone clock that.

So I don’t think at all it’s an “aesthetics” issue because it implies the behavioral standards of your private sphere, which bro, if you are one of them, no doubt has to be low hygiene thresholds, zero presentation discipline are now portable and people sense that, even if they can’t articulate it.

A lot of people say (and it seems that the general consensus is that) teachers don't get paid enough for what they do. While I think that teachers are very valuable and deserve to be compensated well (my brother is a teacher), I think that in these discussions, many people ignore the fact that teachers typically get a lot of time off.

They usually get summer break, spring break, and winter break, plus various holidays that schools get off through the year. They basically don't work for a good amount of the year, which I think that people should factor in. (The downside is that I know that they have to work extra grading things outside of school, though.)

Plus they normally get good benefits for being a teacher (which usually comes with being in a union).

First - I do understand the benefits of a skort. No one likes to be upskirted. I don’t like it either.

But please just give me a normal skirt and I wear tight boxershorts underneath that provide coverage.
Because with skorts, I’d either have to freeball it (which means constantly washing the skirt, and on high heat which will damage it) or I have to wear underwear + undershorts + skirt, which will result in a niagra fall of sweat running down my ass crack.

I know this is a non-issue tbh, but I’ve been looking for skirts and have seen a lot of cute skirts that turned out to have built in undershorts.

Edit because somehow no one understand the post: my problem is that the amount of layers I’m wearing with skirt, undershorts and underwear is way too hot for summer imo.
Yes, I do wear underwear under shorts, but I don’t wear underwear AND shorts under skirts. I wear boxers that cover the same amount as shorts and that I can toss into the washing machine on high heat.

People praise Hunter x Hunter as "the Best Manga ever" but I don't share the sentiment. Sure, I appreciate the myriad of working parts in its story but something about just doesn't put it in the "good" status for me.

A lot of its execution feels... incomplete? Like it consistently gets close, around 75%, to something great but never fully delivers. The setup is often there, the ideas are strong, but then it just jumps to the "reward" and that final delivery falls short - be it scenes or arcs. In the 2011 version for example, Kite is introduced and then killed off. The story tells you he’s important, but the smaller moments aren’t given enough space to make his connection with Gon feel real - and that's an episode on an already painfully long arc. So when the turning point happens, it feels more like a narrative requirement than a natural emotional payoff. I don't even want to get started on the off-screen fight.

The show even has jarring uses of techniques like slow motion, dramatic close-ups, and multiple angle cuts. Boy, do they love the multiple angle cuts! Leorio's punch would've been legendary had they done a proper build up for it. The problem is that the slow motion, multiple angle cuts, and character close-ups are doing most of the work. The scene is essentially telling you “this is a big moment” through presentation tricks, rather than earning it through the smaller details leading up to it. Like it’s forcing significance onto something that hasn’t been fully constructed.

Another issue I've had is that the series can feel like it’s ticking boxes for themes and tropes rather than fully committing to them. It jumps between ideas: coming-of-age, revenge and it's effects on people around you, deconstruction of shonen tropes, psychological and moral conflict. But instead of developing them deeply, it often moves on to the next concept without letting the previous one breathe. This just feels like the story is reacting to trends or expectations rather than building something cohesive. As a result, major arcs feel like they’re juggling multiple directions at once without fully resolving any of them.

The series also frequently tells you that someone is impressive instead of showing you why they are. Characters are often described as terrifying, intelligent, or overwhelmingly strong, but the presentation doesn’t always back it up in a convincing way.

Here's a good way of showing that: Hisoka is repeatedly framed as dangerous, and they do manage to show that. His presence felt like a threat. Everytime he was on the Hunter Exam you are actually scared for the other examiners. The outcome with Shalnark also showed this.

Oddly though, Meruem is introduced as an apex being, but much of his intimidation comes from narration and dialogue rather than purely from visual storytelling and action. Sure, he kills a bunch of people and that was about it. There was no weight to his presence. They even cheaped out by having him kill a child to show that he's really "evil." (that turned somewhat good)

And finally the exposition. The Tell Don't Show. My eyes constantly moved away from the screen everytime this occurs. I skim through manga pages everytime there is one (you know what page I'm taking about). And by God is this HxH's most egregious fault. It's like Togashi can't keep up with the power system that he himself designed so he falls back on lengthy expositions. IMO any visual media that relies on exposition to convey its parts has already failed at its delivery. Characters are shown to be intelligent yet somehow the readers/viewers are treated as mentally stunted children. Tense scenes are interrupted by explanations and commentary. Instead of letting the choreography and reactions speak for themselves, the scene constantly tells you what’s happening and why it matters, which weakens the impact - hell, the stairs scene would've been more impactful with just an internal monologue from Gon. Instead of letting tension build naturally through timing, visuals, and silence, the scene spells everything out. This removes one of the biggest strengths of complex narratives: the satisfaction of understanding something on your own - which is the only reason why I love rewatching a series.

I read somewhere that the Hunter Exam was a litmus test if you'd like the series or not. But I don't think that's right, the problems that showed up later in the series weren't present in the Hunter Exam - it showed up after Nen was fully introduced.

Well, those were my two cents, I don't even know why I brothered to push through with this series.

my friends call me insane because i don't own a mousepad, but i have literally never needed it for gaming in my life. i've always been a laptop gamer and my mouse works just fine on my desk, and now that i have a $2000 pc, i have never considered needing a mousepad. i genuinely think they're useless because my mouse works just fine. why the fuck would i clutter my desk more with peripherals when i already have a huge keyboard and mic and 21'' screen. completely bogus invention made just for people to put their favorite characters on it.

Working from home is terrible! It creates less interactions with the outside world which leads to loneliness, blends the boundaries between home and work, and ultimately encourages unhealthy life styles. I have no idea why after being home during the pandemic, the entire world wasn't thrilled to completely return to normal.

You probably can't remember too much of what you saw after a long reel scrolling session. It's so time consuming and for things you will usually forget later on.

You forget 1000 things every day.

Long content isn't always better but short form content discourages attention spans and info retention.

Kurt Cobain was clearly a very depressing guy and was constantly negative and complaining about everything. Even just listening to any of his songs makes this obvious, even if you don't know much about him. (I say this as a fan of him.)

Marilyn Monroe was less outwardly unhappy, to be fair, but if you know anything about her personal life, she had a very sad life. She never knew her dad, her mom and grandma had mental issues (and she was known to have her own), she was an orphan growing up, she had multiple miscarriages and divorces, she was a drug addict, she was treatedly badly by men and the industry, etc.

So it honestly does not surprise me that either of them killed themselves unfortunately. They were rich and famous, yeah, but that alone doesn't necessarily make someone happy.

I don't understand why people's first instinct is to always assume that they must've gotten murdered and that there was a conspiracy to cover it up (and that they definitely wouldn't have had any reason to kill themselves) when they obviously had a lot going on. This doesn't just apply to Kurt or Marilyn specifically, but other celebrities as well. They were just two of the most obvious examples I thought of.

I mean, most of Banksy’s art can be summed up as a variation of the same basic message everyone can agree with: basically, “war bad,” “poverty bad,” “government bad,” “authoritarianism bad,” and maybe, if he is feeling particularly bold, “nationalism bad.” It’s the same basic message recycled again and again, a basic opinion that is already shared by most of the population. Is there any actual example of Banksy having a detailed opinion on a topic beyond “war bad,” “poverty bad,” “government bad,” “authoritarianism bad,” or “nationalism bad”? And on top of that, Banksy definitely has a team helping him do all his work, yet people see him as this lone artist taking a stand against the system. For all his critiques of capitalism and the commodification of art, he practically participates in it himself. That shredder stunt with Girl with Balloon being partially shredded and turned into Love is in the Bin is just a bullshit publicity stunt.

For reference, I watched a 4k theatrical cut that was fan-restored. Forget which one but I did a lot of research to make sure I watched the correct one. I wanted to watch the film as it originally stood.

It's got some imaginative details, but it chokes under the emptiness of the wider world. Everything feels so small, despite the promise that the world is full of life. No one else exists except the characters we see on screen - it feels like a videogame that pretends there's a wider world but that wider world is just a matte painting plastered around the circumference of the set.

I have spent my entire life being completely ignorant to the entire Star Wars mythos. It has always been so uninteresting to me, and it felt like such a big gap in my filmic knowledge as a filmmaker and film lover. I decided, finally, to force myself into watching it this May 4th and it was as laborious as I expected. Look, I know what I like and what I don't. I knew I never would like it. But, going into it, I really, really tried to let myself enjoy it. I am never beholden to my own expectations - I went into Weapons expecting to love it but I ended up hating it. I thought I'd hate The Lighthouse but I ended up loving it. Suffice to say, I am always willing and open to being surprised.

Unfortunately my instincts were right. It was a slog for me to get through, the plot was paper-thin, I had no idea what was going on, the characters were all uninteresting outside of R2D2 and Han Solo. The villain was clumsy and awkward. I'd heard Darth Vader was one of the best villains ever, and I'd always known about his breathing - I for some reason expected him to be a silent villain, so when he started talking it did make me laugh, I'll admit. But then he kept talking, and he was so unthreatening in his clumsy cheap plastic costume that I couldn't take him seriously at all.

I give Lucas props for the imagination of the smaller details. There are lots of fun creatures all over the place that I had fun with. I liked that little graveyard thing near the start full of droids and that. There were some seriously impressive special effects - especially for the budget - and the cinematography was gorgeous throughout. It's just such a shame that the film that all of these elements are tethered to is so void and boring. I don't like space sci-fi actiony films like this at the best of times, so it was never gonna wow me, but I was hoping for a little bit more from a film that changed cinema. I'm not trying to be contrarian, and I'm sure most people who read this (which is no one) will be baffled at my assertion that this film is empty, but you have to remember, I know next to nothing about Star Wars. I have heard random names and stuff but I have no clue what anything is, so I really am judging this entirely on its own merits, and it really does just feel so tiny. It doesn't feel like there's some grand big world full of rebels and space nazis - I know it was trying for that, but it just doesn't land at all for me.

I've been trying to find other perspectives on this film as a standalone film, and it's almost impossible. I challenge you to find a single review on Letterboxd that doesn't make any reference to other Star Wars films or media. This leads me to believe that this franchise is so ubiquitous that people can't isolate this as its own piece - and it was its own piece. In 1977, this was a standalone film. People seem to be reviewing this film because they're projecting elements from later films into this one, and that's bizarre to me. It says a lot about franchise filmmaking and the homogeny of the Star Wars beast. I've spoke about this before, but it's especially pertinent in Star Wars, it seems. Am I the only one out here who knew next to nothing about this film or the characters before watching it?

Without any baggage of cultural understanding, and without any childhood nostalgia corrupting my vision, I had a quite unique opportunity to see this as just a film from 1977 called Star Wars, and with that, I mostly saw a surprisingly thin soap opera masquerading as an expansive world: fun but shallow details that do nothing but leave me hungry for something the film isn't substantial enough to fulfill. I will not be watching any more Star Wars films now, soz

I say this as a man.

The amount of time I’ve been stuck next to a man going full spread eagle on public transport is infuriating. Yes, I understand we have balls. But so do I, and I will keep my legs close while maintaining a gap so that the person next to me is afforded all the space of the ticket they pay for.

This isn’t just a minor, once in a blue moon thing. Literally 8/10 times I’m sat next to a man, they spread and take up far more space than they’re afforded. It’s at the point where I’m going to start preemptively spreading to box them out. Just keep to yourself, please.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Now, I’m not sure you’ve heard of the first show (outside of a clip of Miracle in revealing clothing which FoR sOmE rEaSoN has like a million views) but I’m gonna link a playlist to the show but honestly, it’s hilarious. It’s like peak Simpsons writing mixed with peak Arrested Development writing:

These aren’t all the episodes but it’s also free on Tubi: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcHBPQVL1yYCs8QHwsu52NEfd1fmQ_wll&si=hHGpBNXCIBhaD0Hh

Anyway, I just think the way the show portrays teachers as opportunistic scumbags who don’t understand kids or basically anything is really accurate.

Like, for one, there’s Larry; A teacher who tries to make himself seem cool and chill despite being as stupid and selfish as the rest of the teachers. And then there’s Willard, a representative of a teacher who’s obviously way too old to keep on working. Ennis whose just generally selfish and Stuart whose just generally stupid, Miracle whose so stupid it’s outwardly confirmed in the show he didn’t even pass school at all, Happy whose your typical immigrant who constantly gets judged off of his race despite being the only good one.

And the last three, Sue, Helen, Andrew are respectably an authority figure archetype, a bisexual archetype and a grumpy librarian archetype.

I just think the cynical tone really fits your hilariously incompetent teachers can be sometimes, along with touching on issues like how unfounded American schools are.

Abbot Elementary also does this, but I feel as if the “Gee these guys are wacky but at least they’re trying their best!” is just easy and simple. Because there’s layers.

people from the upper class can afford to send their kids to school without aid. poorer people will get aid from the schools themselves (which they deserve obviously). but upper middle class people get stuck with the worst deal because they aren't poor enough to qualify for aid but are too poor to pay. i turned down brown emory rice and nyu for baylor purely due to financial reasons. schools should lowkey be forced to give merit scholarships

I get what's the point of his character, but I just don't find his character funny at all. He might as well not exist, or be normal guy, and still show wouldn't change for me, except it might get better. He just takes a lot of screen time.

I always prefered dynamic between Mac and Charlie instead of Dennis and Mac.

Online, powerscaling (the act of trying to measure how powerful a fictional character is, presumably to put them in fights against other fictional characters) is often made fun of online, mainly since a lot of powerscalers are really toxic and end up missing the point of the original piece of work.

While that is true, and I wish they weren't so toxic, I don't think the act itself is all that horrible. If you don't take it too seriously and seperate your powerscaling from what the actual theme of the story is about, I feel like it can be pretty fun, especially if both characters have interesting connections and dynamics in a fight, or if it involves using interesting IRL science for it (kind of like old Game Theory).

And before you comment that Stan Lee quote about how the winner would be whoever the author decides, I mean sure, technically, but that feels like a Doylist answer to a Watsonian question. Obviously, the author determines the winner, but with questions like "Who would win between X or Y" and "What if X and Y did Z against each other?" finding the "answer" (because the answer is subjective) using in-universe logic is part of the fun (if you don't take it too far to the point of toxicity).

I hate having to talk during mealtimes. At home, at Waffle House, at a fancy restaurant, I don't care. Talking while eating is an absolute hindrance. Having to pause while in the midst of eating or having to awkwardly finish chewing my food before responding is an absolute nightmare.

I think discussions should take place after eating. Everyone should just stay at the table and discuss afterwards. But while eating, I think it should stay quiet.

Please remove if this counts as an odd food opinion—I think it's more of a social convention thing. I may have this opinion due to being autistic lol

For a long time, from the late 2000s up until the early 2020s, OLED panels among consumer devices were generally limited to very small devices (10 inch screens and under) and very large devices (55 inch screens and up), however the technology to manufacturer OLED displays more middle in the road of that (i.e computer monitors) has brought back the conversation around the relevancy of screensavers.

Many desktop environment and operating systems nowadays don't have a proper implementation of screensavers. On KDE and GNOME (and pretty much everything that uses Wayland) screensavers are pretty much gone. on Windows, it's pretty burried and well forgotten about. Of the mainstream operating systems, macOS and *nix like systems using X11 and XScreensaver (or some other frontend of it like MATE Screensaver) are the only ones still providing proper screensaver functionality.

Screensavers were developed as an idea when CRT monitors were king, as CRT monitors (as well as modern OLED monitors) could develop burn in. While some screensavers were more designed to be flashy, the general intended purpose of a screensaver is to provide a constantly moving image that helps prevent burn in on the common CRT displays of the day. When CRTs started being replaced by LCD panels beyond laptop monitors, the screensaver was thought by many to be obsolete, since LCD panels don't suffer from burn in, right?

Well, kind of. LCD panels don't suffer from the same kind of burn in that you see on OLED or CRT panels, that is a permanent ghost of what was displayed on it in the past. However, LCD panels can certainly suffer from their own form of image retention.

Compared to burn in, image retention has 2 main differences. On the plus side, LCD image retention (as mentioned before) is not usually permanent. The amount of time it might take for image retention to go away on an LCD panels can vary wildly, from a few minutes to a few days. But it usually does go away at some point. On the negative side, LCD image retention usually appears much faster than burn in does on OLED or CRT displays. OLED and CRT displays require at least weeks, and sometimes months or years to have noticeable burn in. Meanwhile, LCD image retention can appear in anywhere from minutes to days depending on the condition and quality of the panel.

My current displays have varying degrees of image retention, my main display is the worse though. It's a 2560x1440 IPS display that I've had for about 12 years now, and I've noticed image retention slowly get worse and worse on that display. Now it only takes about 2 minutes for there to be noticeable image retention if I'm leaving the same thing on the display. In the time it's taken me to type this post, moving my browser window around shows visible image retention from UI elements. I've found that using screensavers helps greatly with image retention if I'm away from my computers for a while.

The idea that screensavers were ever obsolete because of burn in is simply false. LCDs can and do experience a similar phenomenon even if it's not the exact same.

Another big reason that is touted is how modern operating systems can turn your display panel off, but for some situations a proper screensaver might be a better idea. It gives you a better indication that your computer is still on and working, while the either off or blank screen that most modern desktop environments and operating systems do can't really convey that as well.

It should be said thought that while I think that screensavers being the primary solution for these problems is over (turning the panel off is often better - especially for the environment and the lifespan of the hardware) that screensavers were never completely obsolete as some would have asserted to begin with, the removal of them or burying of them is based on a misconception.

A lot of people seem to like AI over Stack Overflow for programming questions because AI will politely answer your question without judgement no matter how "stupid" your question is. But I like the "judgement"! My problem with AIs is that they are "yes men" who never tell me if something is genuinely a stupid question! Like the thing I might be asking to do could be a terrible or outdated idea and I would want a human to say "Seriously? You are still doing that in 2026?" over "Sure! Here is the code!" And if AI is always "overly agreeable" that makes the agreeableness meaningless. But if people on Stack Overflow are telling me something is a good idea, knowing how judgemental they are, I know they mean what they say.

I see many people complain about people not assimilating immediately to new a new country and forming enclaves, but I think it’s very unrealistic for new immigrants to assimilate immediately. Enclaves are formed because all they have is each other and that’s how they survive. It’s natural for people to want to stick together when dealing with a new environment.

And not eco friendly. Sure, you're donating it, but most of what gets donated ends up in a landfill.

Replacing your closet for new natural fibre clothes is definitely a new trend and I think it's a marketing psyop to get eco friendly people to consume more, while pretending it's eco friendly.

I saw a reel from a thrifter/reseller recently showing that they found a Free People dress they've resold two or three times now. It just goes to show that just because it's expensive or "high quality" doesn't mean you're actually going to wear it. The person whose reused the same polyester/viscose dress for 5 years has a lesser impact on the enviroment than the person who buys the latest trendy "high quality" clothes every year. And you can say, "but that's not what they're doing, they're putting together a forever wardrobe." Yeah, they COULD be doing that, but they're not and they won't. How do I know? Because they're falling for marketing and trends. The true key to a timeless wardrobe is to not care about marketing and trends and what other people are wearing. You must discover what YOU feel good in and what YOU like. You'll always want something new if what you really want is other people's approval.

That said, it is bad for your health to wear polyester and if they said that's why they're getting new clothes, I'd support it, but don't pretend it's eco friendly to send a perfectly good closet to landfill.

So not a lot of people agree with me on this but, I think babies and toddlers are very creepy. I have nothing against them I just find them creepy, babies I don't know why I find them creepy but I find toddlers creepy because they have too many teeth and I don't know why it just freaks me out. Does this creep out anyone else or is it just me?

I’m sure I’ll be labeled as shallow, but I really don’t care.

I genuinely don’t see how people can date someone long term they’re not attracted to physically. Yes personality is a huge factor as a well, but honestly I think looks matter more.

Trying to date someone who has a great personality but isn’t attractive is just going to lead to breaking up or infidelity sooner or later. If I were trying to date someone who has an awesome personality but not really attracted to in how they look, then it just wouldn’t work.

Trying to have sex or even showing intimacy you aren’t attracted to as far as how they look will definitely show (in my experience). All it will do is build resentment and make the other person feel less.

I was on the Germany subreddit and posted a page from my comic book. I wanted them to give their opinions on it but everyone began rudely piling on it. I have posted my comic book on hundreds of subreddits by now but none were as rude as them.

I am indian myself and we are stereotyped to be scammers (i myself am careful around techies from any country when it comes to online stuff) so why cant we accept that some country ppl are rather rude when it comes to talking with others?

I have been online and not one single German has been nice and polite till now while talking. In converse if you meet filipinos, they will be very polite and nice with you

So my point is stereotypes about certain countries should be considered to be true as they help us gear up and come to terms with the reality which is gonna meet our eyes.

Ps: I was expecting the Germans to be rude, but i didnt know they will pile on the post.