You’re going to need to be more specific. What movie are you looking for and on what platform?

My initial reason for not having kids was financial. I think a lot of people have learned it may be better to have children later in life when you can properly care for them. I know many people who’ve had their first child in their late-30s and early-40s. My aunt had her first child in her fifties. That’s not something that was common before modern medicine.

I have always had the idea that I would have a kid if and when I met the right person to share parenting with. That hasn’t happened so I’ve had to put some thought into my priorities. It’s not fair to have a child just because it’s what society says you should do or just because you want someone to take care of you when you’re old. It’s so much more than that and I think people should be more mindful of the responsibilities and long term repercussions.

I offered two reasons I personally may regret not having children. I could list several others such as the pure joy of watching them grow into adults and mimic you and your partner. If you want to say that’s selfish, to bring another human into the word to experience a universe of emotion you’d otherwise never experience, I understand that perspective. No argument.

But then I offered that choosing to prioritize your own life is in and of itself a selfish act. It’s more explicitly about you than it is about another person.

Would you disagree that going out to eat by yourself is more of a selfish act than inviting a friend to eat out with you? Sharing an experience is less selfish, no?

That argument makes sense. Though I see it more from choosing to prioritize yourself and own self interests over having children and sharing a life with them as selfish too. I guess we’re all selfish one way or another.

I’m not sure you’re going to get an objective answer to this as no one has lived a life of either having kids or not having kids, hungrythirstyhorny.

I will say that, as a single male in his mid forties who has observed a good amount of life; first, the thought of not having people to rely on in you’re old age is a little worrisome; and two, not having had someone to pass my knowledge and skills down to is a little sad. However, I really enjoy the freedom and opportunities my life (and bank account) affords me.

There is always a cost to freedom. Or, as Jonis Joplin put it - freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose. Choosing to not have children is a selfish act. Whether “selfish” is a bad thing or not is subjective.

I would offer that anyone who’s going through life without children, find some altruistic outlet to participate in. You can otherwise find yourself wondering what your legacy may be or what the point of your life has been - aka a mid-life crisis.

What people often leave out of this is that it only applied to broadcast publicly available television. It did not pertain to subscription cable tv which is why it was deemed unfair to local stations leading to its demise.

Considering this and other “public” versus “paid” examples in commerce and welfare, it says a lot about our culture. We care more about our freedom to spend money than we care about the general welfare of the population. We Americans want the freedom to be “bad” people (for lack of a better term) while rejecting a government that would promote our wellness and prosperity.

This is because our federal guidelines (aka The Constitution) merely outline the root level philosophies and leaves the majority of government responsibilities to the states. And in a time when borders are nearly meaningless in an always instantly connected world, beginning with nationally distributed cable television channels, a lot of people are ignorant to their own state’s legislation and power of their local representatives and own voices.

This country has changed a lot in 250 years. The old rules and guidelines are failing us. The death of the Fairness Doctrine wasn’t unfair, so to speak, but there’s a desperate need for new legislation that does the same on a national level. That’s never going to happen because the federal government can’t limit the “free speech” of entities people have to pay for to gain access to.

I would guess that anything that requires an account to gain access to it, even just an email log in or ISP / cellular subscription, skirts around the same rules that apply to free over the air television. To reiterate, we want the freedom to pay to be lied to. And our Constitution grants us that right.

I’m just now realizing that one industry that may benefit most from humans being replaced by robots is law enforcement. Teaching AI empathy and rational reasoning may be easier than teaching humans all the laws and how to let go of their bigotries.

The title’s wording suggests, to me, that people are going to TikTok for their news. That’s not what the article is claiming. It’s reporting that Americans distrust TikTok the least compared to other social media platforms.

compared to Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter), respondents felt that TikTok was the app least likely to influence the news stories they saw, whether that be via algorithmic recommendations or content moderation.

By the numbers, around 61% of US adults said they felt TikTok was influencing the news they were shown, while 74% said Facebook was, 72% said Instagram was, and 66% said X was.

71% reported seeing inaccurate news on TikTok “sometimes” or “extremely or fairly often,” compared to 76% on Instagram, 84% on Facebook, and 86% on X.

I’ve never seen more TikTok than a few embedded humorous videos so I don’t know what kind of news is on TIkTok. I would venture to guess though that these numbers seem plausible.

The larger concern is that people are getting their news from social media and what these platforms are suggesting to people based on their ‘likes’ and who they’re following. If I’m only following Republican political leaders or MAGA members of congress, the business model of these platforms is to keep you engaged with more emotionally baiting content.

And, to repeat the author,

what respondents view as “inaccurate” should also be scrutinized, given that we live in a polarized news media ecosystem where information can be labeled as fake to serve a particular interest.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240618202713/https://www.businessinsider.com/social-users-think-tiktok-news-more-reliable-than-instagram-facebook-2024-6

That’s because of the need for an ally / military presence in the middle east. It has nothing to do with Gaza.

I’m of the opinion that an individual with the explicit intent to commit genocide is the main obstacle, regardless of who is supporting them.

This is of course entirely accurate. If you’ve lost your mind and forgotten who Netanyahu is.

But you haven’t because you say, “Biden refuses to use his leverage, even though he has admitted in an interview that it was “reasonable” to conclude that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political benefit.”

Joe Biden is an enabler but the US is not “the main obstacle to peace in Palestine”.

You’re not helping to describe the use of “would” by adding extra words to negate the intent. “I would, but I won’t” is two statements. You’ve instead described the use of the word “but”.

Would: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/would
• a simple past tense and past participle of will
• used to express an intention or inclination
• used to express an uncertainty
• used in conditional sentences to express choice or possibility

Could: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/could
• a simple past tense of can
• used to express possibility
• used to express conditional possibility or ability
• used in asking for permission

Would / will is used when something is possible but you’re not sure.
Could / can is used when you’re not sure if something is possible. –

I guess I’ve been living under a rock because I’ve never heard this story. So, as a curious person, I would have expected someone writing an article about the story would at least take a few sentences to explain WTF beaglegate is about.

I searched on my own and found the story to be mixed truth.

It is a fact that, in two different NIAID congressionally funded studies, beagle puppies were tested on and euthanized.

It’s not clear if Fauci specifically knew of or approved of these studies while he was head of the NIAID. Though all tests were done according to existing procedures and regulations. There’s a lot of misrepresentation of what the tests were or how the dogs were treated for political theater.

Source: snopes and politifact.

Relationships require the attention of your entire body and mind. If you don’t find a place or activity to refocus your attention, you’re left with a void it once occupied. Take time to appreciate what you had but set a limit for yourself to move on.

Personally, I’ve always come out of a relationship with a better understanding of myself and more motivation to be a better person. I take what I’ve learned and direct that towards self improvement, hobbies, new interests.

I generally put short term things on index cards and long term things on digital. Or I just note something down with whatever’s most accessible at the time.

So, for work, I have a long list of tasks in Microsoft Planner I should get done in the mid-term and long-term. If someone asks me to get something done asap, I put that on paper. I’m really bad at getting things done on the digital list but I’m trying to get better at it.

Chores and groceries go on the white board on my fridge. Then I transcribe them to index cards if I need to remember them out of the house.

I try to keep a pad with me when I’m out of the house to note things down. I use a tiny little Fisher Space Pen which easily fits in my pocket.

My problem with digital is that it’s too easy to forget about. When I mark things down on paper, specifically index cards, they start to stack up and I feel motivated to reduce the clutter they create. Throwing out ten index cards because I got shit done feels good.

This is so huge. And I’ll be shocked if this makes it to the nightly / cable news outlets. We have more important things to worry about; like if someone lied about doing drugs in order to get a gun.

No we’re not. They’re the rats, we’re the maze.

they didn’t really vote to protect access at all.

It’s incredible how easily people assume something to be true and take the time to unintentionally spread misinformation in a public forum. Had they just taken two minutes to read the content which they’re commenting on, this could easily be avoided. I mean, “rejected” is right in the headline - really didn’t even need to read the article.

And yet people are upvoting these inaccuracies because they emotionally agree with the comment even though it’s proven false in the headline.

voted to protect access

That’s wholly incorrect.

They refused to consider the case because “the plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury”.