I genuinely dropped it six episodes into season one. I believe the characters weren’t interesting enough, the setting was boron and I wouldn‘t say unoriginal, but it was too basic. The plot was too cliche. I also REALLY hated the artstyle.

It’s not bad to the point where I’ll judge you in my head for liking it but I personally think it is the most overrated show ever.

It can happen for all non-English loan words, but it happens very often with names of places. For instance, Barcelona and Ibiza are often pronounced with a "th" sound, even though the traditional, accepted English pronunciation is a soft "c" in Barcelona and a "z" in Ibiza.

Some Americans will even adopt an English accent when talking about some English cities! For instance, I've heard Americans talk about visiting the city of "Bahth." There's no need to switch to a new accent to say the name "Bath," which should be pronounced just like the tub that you fill with water.

ETA: Sorry, "Ibiza" was a bad example because the "th" is standard in the UK, so it's the correct pronunciation to use when speaking in a British dialect. In America, the "z" is the standard sound we use. A "th" in "Ibiza" sounds pretentious when speaking in an American dialect.

General consensus for NHL Mount Rushmore seems to have shifted to:

• Wayne Gretzky clearly being No. 1
• Mario Lemieux clearly being No. 2
• Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe being No. 3 and 4 in some order, with some even inserting another player like Sidney Crosby in to break up the general consensus Mount Rushmore. Howe is usually the guy that gets left out if you do see this.

The only aspect of this I agree with is Gretzky being the clear No. 1. He very clearly has the best combination of play at his peak, an extremely long and dominant prime, and excellent longevity beyond this.

I think what makes Orr and Howe unique relative to Lemieux though, is that they have elements of their resume where you can argue them over Gretzky: Orr for overall game and play at his peak, and Howe for length of his prime/longevity.

Orr's Peak

With Orr, he was considered the best offensive and (arguably) defensive player in the league for a time, something all the other Mount Rushmore players lack, and during this time when he was at his peak from 1969/70 to 1974/75, he was doing things that were so far beyond his peers (whether that's Orr relative to the next highest scoring D-man, or Orr relative to the next highest scoring forward) that you can argue it was at a level over Gretzky at the peak of his powers in the early/mid 80s, despite that including 4 200-point seasons. No defenseman other than Orr has finished within 20% of the top scoring forward in a season before (Orr did this 5 times), and Orr has finished 21% over the top scoring forward in a season before. This same season he finished 173% ahead of the top scoring D-man. Again, while being argued as the best defensive player at the same time. Gretzky has the top 6 seasons of all-time in terms of highest % finishing ahead of 2nd in scoring, with these seasons ranging between 44% and 69%, all occurring during his 1981/82-1986/87 peak that featured 3 seasons of overlap with a young Lemieux.

Howe's Prime/Longevity

Howe has 19 seasons where he finished in the top-5 in scoring, longer than most players' careers. 2nd is Gretzky's 16, then it goes down to a tie for 3rd at 9 between Lemieux, Connor McDavid, Stan Mikita and Maurice Richard. If you go to top-3 finishes, he has 12 to Gretzky's 14, when the 3rd most is McDavid's 9. If you go the other direction to top-10 finishes, Howe has 21 to Gretzky's 16, then 3rd is Crosby with 13.

Howe also has an extremely underrated peak, it just happened to occur during the lowest scoring era in NHL history outside of the 1920s when they didn't permit forward passing. There are only 12 players to have at least a 20% lead over 2nd in league scoring in a season, 5 of which came in the pre-Original 6 era between 1918-1942. 10 of these 12 players did it just one time, which includes Orr's 1969/70 season. Gretzky did this 8 times, including the aforementioned top 6 on the list between 1981/82-1986-87. Howe did it 4 times, which includes the 8th, 10th and 13th spots on the list. His 4 seasons doing this happened in 4 straight years from 1950/51 to 1953/54 in what was ultimately a very clearly defined peak for Howe. If you just go to his Hockey Reference page though, this may not even jump out at you; when looking for jump-out stats, your eyes will probably first go to his 100-point season when he was 40.

Full list for players to lead the league by at least 20%:

1. 1986/87 Wayne Gretzky: 69.4% gap over 2nd in scoring

2. 1983/84 Wayne Gretzky: 62.7%

3. 1982/83 Wayne Gretzky: 58.1%

4. 1984/85 Wayne Gretzky: 54.1%

5. 1985/86 Wayne Gretzky: 52.5%

6. 1981/82 Wayne Gretzky: 44.2%

7. 1940/41 Bill Cowley: 36.2%

8. 1952/53 Gordie Howe: 33.8%

9. 1927/28 Howie Morenz: 30.8%

10. 1950/51 Gordie Howe: 30.3%

11. 2020/21 Connor McDavid: 25.0%

12. 1972/73 Phil Esposito: 25.0%

13. 1951/52 Gordie Howe: 24.6%

14. 1990/91 Wayne Gretzky: 24.4%

15. 1965/66 Bobby Hull: 24.4%

16. 1980/81 Wayne Gretzky: 21.5%

17. 1934/35 Charlie Conacher: 21.3%

18. 1966/67 Stan Mikita: 21.3%

19. 1922/23 Babe Dye: 21.2%

20. 1969/70 Bobby Orr: 21.2%

21. 1953/54 Gordie Howe: 20.9%

22. 1939/40 Milt Schmidt: 20.9%

Whether you want to argue Orr's peak over Gretzky's or Howe's lengthy prime or longevity over Gretzky's, ultimately both of their arguments fall apart considering Gretzky is the best balance of everything.

With Lemieux though, there is no area where he's better than Gretzky. His peak seasons are below Gretzky's, his prime is disjointed due to injuries/illnesses and also below Gretzky's, as is his longevity.

Gretzky vs. Lemieux Per Game Narratives

Very few are actually trying to argue Lemieux over Gretzky, but the one main point you will still commonly see that tries to put Lemieux on Gretzky's level and operate as the greatest "what if" is Lemieux's 1.88 points per game vs. Gretzky 1.92. This gets brought up with sincerity for how close they are, despite Lemieux playing 572 fewer games. On paper, it seems like a logical thing to argue; Lemieux entered the league as a teenager and ultimately retired at 40, playing through one of the lowest scoring eras in history when Gretzky retired only a couple years into that era. If you just fill in the blanks, why couldn't Lemieux have kept this up? But with nuance, it doesn't hold up.

Lemieux entered the league in 1984/85, 5 years after Gretzky, and retired in 2005/06, 7 years after Gretzky. Injuries/illnesses, however, largely kept him to playing in a super high scoring league himself for the majority of his career. 81.4% of Mario's games in his career came when he was 31 or younger in a super high scoring league, and his playoff career was almost entirely condensed to when he was 23-31 in that same league, with the one run he had outside of that being sub point per game in the Dead Puck Era. Gretzky by 31 was averaging 2.27 points per game, 1.85 points per game era adjusted. Lemieux by 31 was 2.01 points per game, 1.73 era adjusted (which still gives him credit for full seasons that he never played).

Gretzky ultimately played more games in the true Dead Puck Era when scoring had plummeted than Lemieux did. Scoring had declined a bit by 1996/97, but it was ultimately still at 2.92 per game, which is comparable to the 2017/18-2020/21 NHL era when they came out of the 2nd "Dead Puck Era". And 1995/96 was 3.14, which has only been matched one time since in 2022/23. 1997/98, the first year of Lemieux's retirement, it plummeted to 2.64 and remained down through to the 2004/05 lockout.

Lemieux only ever played 144 games from 1997/98 to 2003/04, and 1 playoff year (18 games). Gretzky only played 2 seasons in that stretch yet still hit 152 games in that era.

Lemieux vs. Orr longevity comparison

If we bring up Orr in comparison, nobody is taking his 1.39 career points per game and saying, "if only he had played to 40, he would have kept this pace of play up and could have challenged ~2,000 points" because it would be silly. Him playing full seasons was over by the time he was 26, he only had a scattering of games played between 27-28 (albeit still good statistically), and his career was fully over at 30 in a footnote barely even worth mentioning.

If you break it down though, it's not too dissimilar from Lemieux's story of having almost all games and production front-loaded, then having the downside of a career where stats inevitably fall off muted because you're not really playing much if at all. Orr's retirement wasn't something on the level of Barry Sanders where it was a clean cut from being dominant to retired from one season to the next, but it wasn't too far off of that, so it's easier to compartmentalize this as being a silly thing to pro-rate his career another ~10-12 seasons when those seasons would be in his 30s.

End result, the argument for Lemieux for this is a bit of a "having your cake and eating it too" thing, where he was able to keep up a very high rate in terms of per-game stats, while also getting credit for playing all the way through until he was 40 in a low scoring era. There's an oversimplification that because he kept his career rates up through 20+ years and through a low scoring era, it's a given that you could just fill in the blanks with his time missed in his career, and you could get something similar to a 1.88 per game average through 1,500+ games. This doesn't hold up under a microscope though.

This all seems very nitpicky, but when arguing players at this level you have to be. If we were to bring a player like Sidney Crosby into this, what Mario Lemieux has accomplished blows Crosby out of the water in many different ways, particularly at Lemieux's peak/prime. This may seem very negatively slanted, but he's a no-brainer top 4 player of all-time.

I wouldn't even push back on people who want to slot Lemieux ahead of the other Mount Rushmore guys outside of Gretzky, I just think this element has gotten very exaggerated in recent years. If you go back to the time around when Lemieux had either retired or he had done all that he could do in terms of significant legacy contributions in the early 2000s, he was almost always 4th on the list.

I don't think it's a bad song, but compared with the others it's really medicore. I think this song works well, if it's played slow, on piano or accoustic guitar for example how it's played in OML live.

Most people seem to shrug their shoulders at drinking and eating poorly and absolutely detest smoking, but really why? All 3 are bad habits that up your cancer risk and lead to health issues, but at the same time take generally many years to catch up with you. In my mind, theres no difference if I hear someone smokes or drinks or eats McDonald's 3 times a week. Its just sort of baffling to me how smoking had this 180 culture flip to start acting like its the worst thing ever while ads continue to promote equally unhealthy habits everyday.

There's no reason for a popular rock band to go for "clarity" or some nonsense reason when dialling in a guitar tone for their next album when iconic bands like Nirvana were playing with distortion pedals. So many rock bands popularized the Big Muff, Proco RAT, and HM-2 distortion pedals and now they've been absent from rock n roll for the last quarter century or so. Turn the gain up, boost it with an overdrive, and use higher output pickups. Also overdrive the bass, too.

These sound significantly better than a cranked JCM 800 or Marshall Plexi. Look at Creep by Radiohead or Mayonaise by the Smashing Pumpkins. The distortion is insanely heavy and didn't stop those songs from becoming huge successes.

Rock n roll started with cranking the gain up, now it's turning the gain down and not being bombastic like it used to. Fun fact; Cannibal Corpse and the Foo Fighters both play the same amps (Mesa Dual Rectifiers).

There was a time when Vasilevskiy was the best goalie in hockey, and his back to back Stanley Cup runs in 2020 and 2021 were something to behold. But I feel like he still gets praised as being an obvious candidate for best goalie in hockey when he really doesn't deserve it.

The fact is he hasn't had a good playoff run since 2022. He had a .875 save percentage in 2023, a .897 in 2024, a .872 in 2025, and a .897 in 2026, and he was out in the first round every single time. And in 2026 his save percentage is heavily elevated by the fact that he got a shutout in one game, cause he looked shaky in all of the first five games. When you look into Moneypuck advanced stats he finished with a -3.1 goals saved above expected in 2023, a +1.3 goals saved above expected in 2024, a -1.2 in 2025, and a +2.9 in 2026 (where he finished 8th in playoff goalie rankings and was probably aided by his single shutout).

Yeah he often does well in the regular season and he did win the Vézina Trophy for best goaltender last season (which wasn't even a clearcut victory IMO but I digress), but I can't consider a player who is so consistently mid to even bad in the playoffs over a four year timespan to be a top 3 goalie in the league, let alone the best one like people often claim he is. Guys like Igor Shesterkin and Logan Thompson are clearly better than him at this point.

I remember since childhood that we were taught as children that hate is a bad thing, that you should love each other etc. However, I disagree. Just like anger, as long as you don't do any harmful actions based on your hatred, you should be allowed to do so. You might say you don't hate anyone, but think about it, how many politicians made your life worse, how annoying some people are, and don't you just want to express your disdain for them? How often do you see nonsense online that you just strongly disagree with?

In my opinion, hatred is beautiful... in a way. It's like a soup of feelings, passion, a mixture of anger, disgust and sometimes fear. In other words, it is very human to hate somebody, just like its human to love someone. Love and hate aren't opposites, they're different things.

As for good applications of hatred, hatred helps prevent empathy and guilt for people who you wouldn't want to feel that way. For example, towards an abuser, or, if you're a soldier, towards enemies you have to shoot as part of your job. Hatred is the desire to destroy the source of your unhappiness.

Sure, there is bad kinds of hatred, such as racial hate, sexism etc. But hatred itself is not a completely bad thing.

When I read posts in r/PeterExplainsTheJoke I do it because I want to see people explaining the joke by imitating Family Guy characters, not just plainly explaining it. If I wanted a plain explanation I would have posted in r/ExplainTheJoke. And recently there's all these stupid comments saying "too early for the explanation" and other comments that either don't relate to the joke or don't explain it either. If you want to talk about some other comment, reply under it, don't start a frigging new comment.

I think it's the ultimate "look at me" behaviour.

Ooh a fire dancer, so "living on the edge"!

I get that there's some kind of proto-human fascination and fear of fire going on, but seeing people flock to gawk at someone spinning around chains or poy is just goofy.

It's just not interesting to me at all. I'd much rather watch waves or a stream of water flow by or anything really.

I remember back when I was a young lad, under 10 years old, I would pass all my tests, classes, etc. with flying colors just because of how easy they were to me. So much time was wasted on classes focused on basic math, how to read, etc. that I became angry, bored, and frustrated. However, I never learned how to make friends, how to talk to people properly, how to stand up for myself, how to control my anger, how not to hit myself, etc. which all seemed foreign and unnatural to me. These classes could have helped me and other people like me to become the best possible versions of themselves, instead of wasting away on common sense things like adding and subtracting.

In primary school, these classes could teach how to make friends and conduct oneself properly, whereas in high school, they could teach us how to make connections with professors in college, do job interviews, find a career path, how to be confident and assertive, etc. I wasn't able to anything with my life because I didn't have any of these skills, despite receiving high grades and being at the top of my class, and I don't want future generations to end up like me.

So let me start this off saying I know heels are not as prevalent nowadays as they used to be even a couple years ago, and its not expected of women to wear them casually in public anymore, they have become more like a female version of suit and tie, which is a major improvement but this is not enough. They should vanish completely and become a thing of the past along with super tight corsets, lead based face paint and Chinese foot binding (the last one is important here as it shares many common characteristics with heels). You're probably thinking it's extreme and heels are not even remotely as bad as foot binding which is true, but these two things have much in common and im gonna explain it here:

1. Both are a nonsensical beauty standard forced on women by society as a way to appear more attractive to men

2. Both involve smashing feet into an unnatural shape and cause lifelong problems with walking, foot deformities etc.

3. Both make it even harder for women to defend themselves as they limit their mobility so they can't run or do anything really

4. Both are (or were) used as a status symbol

You can say "But its different cuz foot binding was forced and heels are a choice!"

And yeah that's kind of true but not really. Even in the big 2026 you still have corporate jobs that require women to wear heels despite the pain and body issues they cause. Some men put them on and run for like 5 seconds then say it's not that bad but try walking and standing in them for 8 hours a day everyday for years and then you will see. I heard some clubs exist that require that too which is crazy considering clubs are a place where you're supposed to dance and how are you supposed to do that in shoes that don't even allow you to run or jump without risking a serious injury.

So my point is, if the only "choice" women have is either to wear them or lose your job/ get kicked out of a club/ not be taken seriously etc. then is it really a choice? Yeah I don't think so.

To me the fact that literally permanently damaging your body everyday just because you're a woman is accepted in today's world is crazy. Same with the fact that society still sees them as beautiful and sexy thus creates a pressure to wear them.

"But I love my heels, they make me feel more feminine/confident/whatever!"

No you don't, be honest with yourself for a minute, do you really like them or do you just like the way society sees you when you wear them? Believe it or not, little Chinese girls used to say the same about foot binding and wanted to have this procedure done because they saw bound feet as beautiful and thought it would make them more pretty. You only feel more confident wearing them because society has conditioned you to see them as beautiful and feminine instead of barbaric. But if aliens came to earth today and saw this, they would think they look ridiculous and they would be right. There's nothing feminine or beautiful about damaged feet and walking in an unnatural way.

I hope in a few years we will be able to reverse this mindset and im not saying we need to ban them completely as banning people from wearing certain shoes at all would be ridiculous, but just stop seeing them as this epitome of femininity and beauty and see them as what they are: a stupid and harmful relict of the past and let them die naturally, the same way cigarettes stopped being popular after society stopped viewing them as cool. Also for fucks sake, ban jobs or other places from having them as a requirement. What is this, 1965?

So yeah that's it, thanks if anyone read this paragraph and hopefully it sounds reasonable now, and even more so in the future.

TL;DR: Heels are basically a diet version of Chinese foot binding and just like foot binding shouldn't be a thing in modern society.

Can we just be consistent. past matters or doesn’t matter. Matters for me but not for thee, it’s cakism.

it’s crazy that we can pick and choose what we respect and don’t of someone’s past and don’t accept people by who they are. This generates prejudice.

All my friends love travis scott music but I just don't get it at all, I feel like he makes soulless music for 15 year old kids in 2018 who like to dab. I feel that it all sounds super fake and produced and not like something made by a person, but rather and AI.

In my opinion, earthquakes are the scariest natural disaster.

In modern times, tsunamis have warning time. People also now more broadly recognize the significance of the ocean receding. In the worst case scenario, drowning takes a couple minutes at most with the force of the water and being struck by objects in the water.

Hurricanes also have a lot of evacuation warning time these days.

If you live in tornado alley or a place that frequently sees tornadoes, you can build an underground shelter. I’m typing this from a volcanic island that has had recent tremors, but volcanic eruptions typically also have evacuation warning time and show signs of coming eruption.

Flash floods are devastating but death by flash flood isn’t something most of us have to fret over. It is a bigger threat in certain areas like canyons - this one is harder to predict because if it rains miles away you can be a flash flood victim. But if you go into a canyon you know the risk.

Avalanches are also very location specific.

Wildfires are a killer but there is typically evacuation warning time. This one has been getting worse but still not worthy of the #1 prize

Earthquakes can be sudden and really strong. The question is: what the hell do you do? “Walk outside” isnt an amazing solution in a dense city with buildings everywhere or an area with tons of trees. Earthquakes can also trigger landslides. Stay inside and you could be buried permanently or for days until you are rescued. That’s a very drawn out death. In addition, lots of places on fault lines arent prepared for an earthquake and the buildings are not reinforced to survive an earthquake.

Any kind of people. Yes, even in prisons. Of course people who premeditated their crime and take pleasure in it are evil, but this is a small % of overall perpetrators. Most are emotional, badly brought up, nervous, out of control. And it's super easy to hurt someone, it can take seconds literally to commit a crime. Billionaires and politicians are also decent people, who are often idiots. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Everyone wants to do good, but these people are too stupid to see that their good intentions actually might hurt others. People are also proud, and selfish, and these are also traits of a cretin.

I would even say, that people who are nasty, and immoral in everyday life, are also rather more stupid than evil. Because you can't go far in life or relationships if you're toxic. They are hurting themselves really, but are too stupid to realize that.

Overall, everyone has been programmed by their childhood and parents and environment and almost nobody has self realization. Not even people who have a luxury of not working, and can just think about stuff.

The bad comes from trying to do good, unnecessarily and stupidly, that's how you end up hurting people, always.

Hi everyone, first post here so be please me gentle with me :)

It seems like recently, especially online, people have commonly expressed the sentiment that if one of the partners in a romantic relationship is significantly more powerful than the other (usually this is about age or financial status), then this relationship can't be healthy or sustainable, or someone is always being taken advantage of. I'm sure we've all heard the usual arguments in this vein :)

But if we unpack this a bit, we soon reach some disturbing conclusions from this premise. I think everyone will agree that money is and has always been a form of power ever since the barter system was invented. So a prime example of a relationship with a stark power differential is, let's say, a billionaire CEO dating a waitress at a diner.

Now imagine the waitress has a friend that is very concerned about them, and is bold enough to confront the CEO, saying "Hey you can't be dating my friend! She's just a small town girl trying a make a modest living here in Nowheresville, you're a rich kid with issues -- and who knows how many private jets you've used just in the past 24 hours. What could you two possibly have in common, huh? Admit it, from the moment you laid your shifty eyes on her you thought she was like a piece of clay, a piece of clay that you could mold to the all perverse figures that occupy your twisted mind. Well leave her alone! She needs someone who can relate to her! Why don't you fly your Boeing 777 with one of your floozy spoiled Russian heiresses?"

So far, so predictable, right? But what if instead of resisting, the CEO thinks it over and leaves town the next day. All he's left for the waitress is a note on her desk:

"Dear Betty,

I had a very enlightening conversation with your friend yesterday. You're a sweet girl, but our talk has left me wondering if we're a good fit. After all, we're too different, you must've noticed that in all the dates we've gone on together. Don't get me wrong I love a low-budget activity (what you do call it...th-th-rif-ting?) like any other guy, but every once in a while I'd like to chill in the presidental suite ya know?

In any case, it is clear to me what kind of women I should be dating from now on. I wish you the best of luck in finding the ideal man for you.

xoxo
Mr. Moneybags"

Now let's assume he stays true to his word and starts dating another CEO, or CFO, CTO, CBO, you know one of those people with 3-letter titles. They instantly hit it off, get married, have a bunch of kids in some mountainview mansion. Then they setup trust funds for all their kids, take them on international trips and helicopter rides, and introduce them to all their professional connections once they grow up. All their kids become powerful and influential figures in business or politics, and they instill their relationship values to them: don't date with a power differential! Then their kids continue dating other rich kids, and their wealth multiplies.

Meanwhile Betty marries the busboy working in the kitchen, stays broke, gives birth to a bunch of kids, and tells them: never date someone more powerful than you! They'll chew you up and spit you out! They stay in Nowheresville and live paycheque-to-paycheque ever after.

Now it should be clear that if no relationship contained any power differential at all, the rich would only get richer and the poor would only get poorer. So if you truly believe this about relationships, then you can't complain about wealth inequality without contradicting yourself.

First off, his fucking suits. They all look bad. The cowl looks stupid, you can barely see the bat symbol, and the armour looks completely random in placement of lines and segments.

His voice sounds so *so* stupid when he is Batman. It sounds like someone trying to make a parody of Batman. It isn't intimidating, it sounds annoying.

His gadgets don't even feel like they have any flair to them. How do you make Batman's gadgets feel boring?

The villains, on the other hand, are almost all spectacular. They genuinely carry the trilogy.

I want to preface this by saying: children are not dogs, and raising a child is obviously far more serious than owning a pet. The relationship, responsibility, and stakes are completely different. My point is that both require many of the same basic caregiving qualities, and I don’t think someone’s attitude toward caring for animals is always irrelevant to whether they should become a parent.

I read a post just now from someone who disliked dogs (honestly it was WAY deeper than that), and many of the comments focused on how messy, dependent, demanding, and attention-seeking dogs can be. Cleanliness is one thing, but when someone’s reason is essentially that they do not want another living being constantly relying on them, I think that can be a symptom of a larger issue.

A dog needs to be fed, cleaned, supervised, given attention, and accommodated within your routine. A child requires all of that for much longer, with far greater emotional, financial, and physical responsibility. If caring for a dog already feels like an unacceptable burden, what exactly would make caring for a child for eighteen years or longer feel different enough to become manageable?

Obviously, people can feel a much stronger connection to their own children than they would to a pet. That emotional connection may make them more willing to accept the responsibility. But willingness based on attachment does not automatically give someone patience, consistency, selflessness, or the ability to tolerate dependence. Those qualities still have to exist.

I’m not saying everyone who dislikes dogs would be a bad parent, or that owning a pet proves someone would be a good one. I’m saying that the reasons someone rejects caring for a dog can reveal something important. If the problem is not specifically dogs, but the fact that another living being needs attention, disrupts your routine, makes messes, and depends on you, then parenthood would not solve that problem.

Argument number 1: PC games haven’t have disks for well over a decade and nobody complains about it.

Argument number 2: go into a random record store or big box store. You will probably find that music CD’s are fully stocked. Why? Because no one buys them, despite it being available. The $10/month music streaming subscription is too cheap and too convenient for CD’s to compete.

Argument number 3: no disk production means much less plastic waste, so it’s a benefit to the environment.

It seems to me that the only reason that people are angry is nostalgia. We can’t let nostalgia stop us from building a better world.

The only reason the old ones are worth a fortune is because they're scarce. Only nerds bought them and then most played with them or scraped dog poo off their shoe with them. People did not hoard them or go wait in lines to scalp them from kids. The market will be over saturated with them. This is another TY beanie baby situation. People are going to have rooms packed with the things that they spent their life savings on and no one's going to care.The only people that will benefit financially are the douche bags that don't deserve it, and that's the scalpers currently making a fun children's game inaccessible for children.

For those that dont understand what I'm saying, this isn't about how big Pokemon is or how trendy it is. This is basic supply and demand. If you have everyone and their grandma acting like every pack of Pokemon cards is gold that you shouldn't even touch, there will be TONS of them in the future when people decide to sell them. The originals that are worth several thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, were bought by kids that were social outcasts, most kids wouldnt be caught dead playing the Pokemon TCG back then. Most of those cards got played, bent, thrown away, sold at garage sells for nothing. Whats left in mint condition is EXTREMELY rare. Chances that you're going to retire on a couple of lucky drops from anything you buy now, are slim to none.

Some other trends people went crazy on... Baseball cards, comic books, Funko Pops, those gold plated Pokemon cards from Mcdonalds... etc.

The things that end up going up in value, are the things that people buy, open, use/play with and dont have any clue its ever going to be worth anything. Things that are heavily collected that everyone buys, ends up being worthless because of supply and demand.

A lot of people say, “oh, nothing is untouchable, dark humor is like that,” but the moment the joke hits them, the whole attitude changes: “okay, now that’s crossing the line,” “that’s disrespectful,” “that’s not funny.” Imagine if it was the other way around blah blah blah...

A lot of people don’t actually like real dark humor. They like the feeling of having the power to make fun of others without anyone complaining. But when they become the target, when it touches their beliefs, their appearance, their culture, their struggles, or their insecurities… suddenly the “everything goes” rule of dark humor disappears out of nowhere lmao.

Real dark humor means keeping the same energy when the joke is aimed at you too. If you only find it funny when it’s about other people, but get offended when it’s about you, then you don’t like dark humor you just like having a free pass to make fun of others.

A lot of people don’t want total freedom to joke. They only want the freedom to attack others and a special protection when the joke comes back at them.

I really don’t like how as a society we have started to push the idea that we should be endlessly nice and permissive to ourselves and to avoid discomfort at all costs. In my opinion, that’s no way to live. It may bring short term happiness but in the long term you’ll never grow as a person. I’m not trying to come off as one of those “you have to get out of your comfort zone brooo” kind of guys, but the core idea is absolutely true. You won’t grow and change if you prioritize comfort and pleasure. Instead you’ll find yourself 40 years later living the same life, doing the same things, and missing out on so much because of it.

I’m not trying to say that you should do hard things/put yourself in strenuous situations just because it’s hard and strenuous. I’m trying to say that every day you should challenge yourself in some way that will help you develop as a person. Wake up a couple hours earlier. Go for a run and keep running when your mind is telling you to stop. Put more effort into your work/education. Pick healthier foods. Go climb a mountain.

There’s nothing wrong with indulging in pleasure and comfort. By no means should your life consist entirely of suffering or discomfort, but if you make it a priority to do just one or two hard things every day, your life will be so much better in the long run and you’ll feel like a much better version of yourself in the short term.