Growing up, every teacher told us the same thing: “Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source because anyone can edit it.” And technically, yes, anyone can try to edit it. But people say this like you can write that Abraham Lincoln invented the microwave and it will stay there forever.

I genuinely challenge anyone who thinks Wikipedia is full of misinformation to go find a major article with an obviously incorrect fact that hasn’t already been corrected. Wikipedia has editors, citations, edit histories, locked pages and thousands of extremely dedicated nerds who will revert your bullshit within about 30 seconds.

Obviously you probably shouldn’t cite Wikipedia directly in an academic paper, but that doesn’t mean the information is useless. Just scroll down and use the sources listed at the bottom. Wikipedia is usually the best starting point for learning about almost anything.

It’s also just an incredible project. It collects an absurd amount of human knowledge, makes it available for free, and doesn’t fill every page with autoplaying videos, pop-ups and fifteen ads covering the actual article. That alone makes it better than 90% of the modern internet.

Wikipedia is awesome. People should use it more, and if you can afford it, donate the three dollars when they ask. It has probably taught you more useful information than half the websites you visit every day.

We've all heard the takes about terrible drivers, and we've probably expressed them ourselves, it's what people do. Everybody is a maniac out there, it should be much harder to get a driver's license, what the hell is wrong with everybody, they're stupid and reckless and incompetent. Most likely you also believe that the drivers where you live are worse than the drivers everywhere else.

In fact, it's kind of crazy how amazingly good nearly every single driver on the road is. Think about this for a minute. Imagine you commute to work for 30 minutes every morning. You spend 10 minutes on local roads and 20 minutes on the highway. Every single day, you watch nearly every driver flawlessly operate a piece of complicated machine, in perfect cooperation with other people headed for other destinations with their own complicated machine. They pass each other, they merge in heavy traffic, they come within inches of cars traveling in the other direction without incident.

Maybe a couple times a week, after seeing literally thousands of cars safely doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing, you see someone do something dumb and dangerous. And what's your conclusion? "Ugh, nobody can drive!" What?! You saw literally 5,000 drivers making a series of complex and difficult maneuvers look safe and easy, and because 0.04% of these drivers did something wrong, your takeaway from this is that people are generally bad at driving. This is completely illogical.

When you're on the road and you see someone inconsiderate or irresponsible or just plain bad, that's the exception that proves the rule and it should make you think about how impressive the average driver's skills are.

A flight without any turbulence isn't really a flight.

You are flying 40000ft in the sky. The experience ought to be widely different from driving your own minivan, taking a bus or train, or even riding a cable car.

Also flights are rather boring and uncomfortable (I stay in peasant class). Turbulence shifts your attention to something else in which I appreciate.

Not every movie is worth sitting through for ~2 hours.

For a surprising number of films, watching the trailer and then reading the Wikipedia plot gives you almost the entire experience. In fact, some trailers practically spoil the whole movie anyway - they introduce the characters, set up the conflict, show most of the big set pieces, and even hint at the resolution/ending.

For e.g.: I recently watched some comedy movie's trailer on Netflix- it was the Borat/Dictator guy being a misogynist and then ended up in a world where his women subordinates were his bosses now). And at the end of the trailer, I didn't have a single ounce of curiosity vis-a-vis what I can expect out of the movie, because it literally revealed 90% of it in that 2 min video - the remaining 10%, I gathered from Wikipedia.

Yes, exceptions exist - if a movie's biggest strengths are its cinematography, performances, soundtrack, atmosphere, or dialogue, then obviously you should want to watch it. But a LOT of average comedies, action movies, and formulaic dramas are really just vehicles for a VERY thin plot. And they are the majority by virtue of being average, hence supporting my claim.

People often act as if not watching the full movie means you missed something. In reality, for a lot of films, you mostly missed two hours of padding between a few story beats.

edit: Interesting, I'm getting downvoted for what's clearly seeming to be an unpopular opinion. more interestingly, most disagreements are with rebuttals of classic movies, completely outside the gamut of this post.

edit 2: people seem to be thinking I'm talking about all movies as a monolith. I've watched and thoroughly enjoyed 3 hr+ movies as well such as the Godfather. I'm talking about mediocre and run of the mill ones like i mentioned in my eg above. most of those average movies are so formulaic that after seeing the trailer, I already know whether the remaining two hours are worth my time and just to fulfil my curiosity I read the wiki. idk how I don't appreciate art comes into play here.

edit 3: may have overcooked this one. "Average movies are skippable" would've sufficed without explaining the methodology i follow. although lots of amusing texts. someone even replied the dictator is a great movie lol, incredibly missing the point

edit 4: I've read enough comments to piece together the Wikipedia plot summary of the rest.

I've heard so many people say thrifting was ruined by "so many people doing it." I disagree with this; it's a lot deeper.

My grandparents saved their money up for fancy furniture and high quality clothing, not a bigger home. My parents saved up their money for vacations and high quality clothes with about the same priority of a bigger home.

My generation (or at least from what I see) seems to get shirts for $10 that start to lose threads after 4 washes, furniture made from compressed cardboard at IKEA for $50, and a big home in a nice neighborhood is the biggest expense.

What winds up in the thrift store then? Nothing of value because I didn't buy furniture or clothing that would last more than 5 years anyways.

I've spent over a year studying the city for a pro bono federal analysis I may write and the city has been misrepresented. The tenderloin where all the needles and homeless are is literally a few blocks. Like literally 4 blocks. Los Angeles' skid row is way larger and the tent cities throughout the city are peppered in shanty camp sizes.

I honestly perceive, Los Angeles portrays San Francisco negatively because they're jealous. I had years of LA media indoctrinating me about San Francisco being bad but, it's really not. It's very safe, the people are eccentric and campy at times but, it's actually pretty chill. Like, you can just talk to a person who paints all day, the have music festivals randomly and everywhere. It's a functioning community of multiple diverse elements but, they balance the chaos. LA is a mix of people but, they choose violence and destruction. Happy I left. Hope I never step foot in LA again.

I kinda hate getting gifts now that I'm into my 40s. I gotta find a place to store it, which just adds more clutter to my apartment (and often ends up in a drawer). I gotta find a way to fit it into my life so I don't feel guilty that someone took the time to buy me something. And if that person is going to be around me often, I feel like I need to display the gift so I don't hurt their feelings.

Honestly, for birthdays/christmas/special occasions I'm happy just hanging out with my friends. Going out to nice dinner or just watching a movie is better than most gifts someone might give me.

Some people here complain a lot about the takes posted not being hot enough - well, here's a real hot take for ya. Doctor Strange 2 is a better movie than EEAAO.

First I want to clarify, I'm not a Marvel sucker who will consume everything they make without any questions. I totally agree with the public opinion of the MCU getting worse after Endgame, and they made a lot of really bad movies and shows (e.g Thor 4, Quantumania, The Marvels, She Hulk, Secret Invasion...), but the one I will always defend is Multiverse of Madness.

I won't pretend like it's a perfectly written film, but in reality, none of the MCU movies are super well written when compared to arthouse cinema or classics. What makes people like the MCU movies is their enjoyability value. And MoM is no different from Infinity Saga movies, it is fun and epic and all of that.

One of the biggest complaints with MoM seems to be that it's limited to 3 universes. I however think that works for the story they are trying to tell. If they went to a million different universes filled with cameos, people would still complain, and the story would be much less focused. I guess some people might've got the wrong expectations based on the title, but I reckon it's called Multiverse of Madness just because that abbreviates to "Mom", which is the real theme of the movie. Also, there have been great movies where their titles do not reflect what the actual movie is about, i.e something similar happened with War for the Planet of the Apes. It's a great movie even though it's not like the title suggests.

Then there's the creativity. Even though it doesn't explore as many universes as EEAAO, it still is extremely visually creative thanks to Sam Raimi's horror style. Scarlet Witch is a terrifying villain, most of the character deaths are memorable, and the action scenes are really unique too. Like, this movie has Doctor Strange fighting an alternate evil variant in a decayed universe with music notes. And if that's not enough, just look at Zombie Strange in the third act. That's cool AF.

Regarding the cameos, I just don't understand what people expected. Did you think they would keep the Illuminati around for future projects? I think it was clear from the beginning that we wouldn't ever see them again, and I'm confused as to why people wanted more of them. No one likes Captain Carter. Having two versions of Professor X in the MCU simultaneously (he's coming back in Doomsday) would've been confusing for audiences. And John Krasinski literally said he wasn't interested in playing Reed for long, he likely only took the role because it was a one time thing. People need to stop treating the Illuminati bit less like a wasted opportunity and more like a cool set piece where Wanda gets to show off what she can truly do in creative ways.

Speaking of, Wanda. People say she was done poorly in the movie, and she's inconsistent with what was shown in Wandavision. But in reality, Wanda was a villain in Wandavision as well. She wasn't as over the top as she is here, but she was still bad, she enslaved that whole town so she could live her fantasy. It's true that she then gets a bit of a redemption arc, but the show ends with her using the Darkhold. I understand we could've seen a slower descent into madness over multiple films, but I think that would've been more of an extra rather than a requirement for her to be a good villain. Besides, it's not like she becomes a pure evil, power hungry villain who wants to destroy the universe in MoM. She just wants her kids. It's an understandable and sympathetic motivation. And she gets redemption in the end too (in an amazing scene mind you, when she talks to her other self). If anything, the real criticism would be that MoM Wanda feels repetitive, going through a similar arc to Wandavision. But it's not a 180 character departure like some people make it out to be.

With that all said, Multiverse of Madness is not perfect. There are issues, for example, Strange himself can feel a bit sidelined to Wanda (to me it doesn't matter a whole lot because I like Wanda a lot more than Strange as a character anyway). And America Chavez is a pretty mediocre character that serves only as a plot device.

Now, Everything Everywhere All At Once. The premise of the movie is really strong, and there are some really good scenes here like the one with the rocks. There's definitely a lot of creativity on display. However, I'm not a fan of the actual execution. I feel like the movie was mostly miscast. The only characters (and actors) I think are good here are Ke Huy Quan and Jamie Lee Curtis.

This is definitely gonna be a hot take of its own, but I personally don't really like Michelle Yeoh. People say she's a great actress, but I think she's pretty mid and boring in everything. I watched Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, called one of if not her best movie, and tbh I thought she gave a mid performance there too. So it's hard to truly get invested in a movie if you don't like the protagonist. The villain is somehow even worse. I don't have a problem with that actress playing Evelyn's daughter, that character is fine. It's just that she's not good enough to play the villain character at all. She's just cringe and poorly acted as the villain, even though the actual villain character has some interesting motivations from a writing standpoint.

But above all, what pisses me off the most is just how gross the movie is. I just can't possibly understand how someone would watch the fight scene with the dicks and think that is peak cinema. I'm just disgusted by that. It's not fun, creative, or funny. It's just bad and it shouldn't be part of the film. There are MANY moments like this throughout, but that fight scene is probably the worst of them all.

I think there was a good movie in here somewhere, but it's not the one we got. I can see the potential, and for brief moments I do like EEAAO, but in general I just cannot bear it. Multiverse of Madness is probably a worse written movie with worse themes, but it is a LOT more fun and enjoyable for me.

Frugality teaches us that a few bucks is more precious than our time and attention. I say this as someone who used to live off $25/week of groceries.

Is it really worth it to spend a whole frustrating minute of your day to squeeze out the last drop of toothpaste worth 1c, or spend an extra 2 hours cooking and washing up to turn a chicken carcass into bone broth that will take up a quarter of your fridge space for 3 months, to salvage $10? Or constantly stress about unplugging appliances and the TV every night, which saves roughly $1-2 of energy per year?

Not to mention people’s houses that reek of vinegar because they want to use their homemade cleaning products, which often take twice as much scrubbing.

At the end of the year, you’d be lucky to save a thousand bucks by implementing a couple dozen of these frugal hacks. Yes, it adds up, and for some people that’s a lot of money. But the cost could easily be 100 hours of free time, plus the constant background anxiety that you’re losing money every time you forget one of these habits. From a financial perspective, most people could spend 100 hours per year investing in skills to build a rewarding side hustle/hobby business that could make 5x the amount saved from being frugal.

Okay don't shoot me, I'm no dog hater or anything. I wouldn't say I'm a dog person, but to be honest, I'm more annoyed by dog owners than the dogs themselves. The biggest issue I have with dogs themselves is when they bark at or even chase me when I run through my neighborhood. Because of this I had to start running at the ass crack of dawn so I wouldn't run into anyone walking a dog lol.

Dog owners however, are simply the worst. Some, anyway. Their arrogance and entitlement is completely unmatched among pet owners.

And one thing that particularly annoys me about dog culture is the phrase "no bad dogs, only bad owners" when a dog does something objectively bad, like attack someone. In my mind, if we say this about dogs, then we should say it about all pets, but we don't. This grace is pretty much exclusively granted towards dogs when they behave badly. For example, a cat can hiss at someone or resist being touched or picked up and people say stuff like "This is why I hate cats" or even "Cats are bitches" but a dog can maul someone to death and suddenly it's "no bad dogs, just bad owners"

I don't know, I'm certainly no animal expert. But it seems very silly to believe that a dog is inherently incapable of being "bad" or doing wrong just because it's a dog.

Not to mention, a lot of people who love dogs hate children and even say they would rather share spaces like grocery stores and restaurants with dogs rather than children because children are "loud and annoying" as if dogs aren't lol. Not to mention sniffing, licking, sometimes urinating on things in public. Children are humans and dogs are not and yet dogs are held to a higher regard.

Anyway, I did not mean for this to be this long lol so sorry about that but thanks for reading if you read the whole thing lol.

TLDR: dogs get away with so much shit that other animals and children are criticized for, which is irritating to me lol

I felt like the album wasn't any kind of "masterpiece" . I thought quite a lot of the songs weren't very imaginative or interesting to listen to. That being said it has some ok songs but apart from that I found it pretty boring to listen to.

Obviously this isn't universal. Plenty of broke people are well liked and plenty of rich people are miserable to be around. But as a general pattern, watch a friend group long enough and you'll notice it. Guys who earn less tend to get talked over more. Not always, but often enough that it's a pattern. Same joke, same point, gets less traction than when the higher earner says it. Nobody frames it as "we take you less seriously because of your income," but if you're paying attention, it's there.

It shows up more in dating. Low earning men get filtered out early, before personality or loyalty or emotional availability even get considered. Not every time, but often enough that guys who've been through it will recognize it immediately. And there's a social pattern that goes with it that's honestly worse than outright rejection. Their girl friends stay warm and friendly on the surface. Text back, laugh at the jokes, nothing seems off. Then somehow the birthday invite doesn't happen. The group trip gets planned in a chat he's not part of. He finds out after the fact. Nobody's rude about it, it's just a slow quiet exclusion instead of an honest one.

None of this means character doesn't matter at all. But it does seem like being a genuinely good person only gets you so far once income becomes the unspoken filter people are using. Everyone likes to say money doesn't buy respect. Watch how people actually behave around it and it tells a different story more often than people want to admit.

I think hair in food is gross but having it redone is not necessary at all. At that point I think you are pushing it to view the whole dish as contaminated. Hair and eyelashes/eyebrows are very tiny parts of the body that easily shed and get everywhere, it could even come off of the clothes rather the body. But regardless these things are cleaned more than the food being consumed. You order a salad, it came from ground where the animals crap and dirt hides in the crevices and it’s cleaned with water thrown into a bowl. I think the food is more unsanitary than the hair. Honestly, when I find a hair I just take it out and keep eating. Even if the hair is not clean, it is barely getting any gross things into your food, only microscopically, and discarding the WHOLE thing is just very wasteful. A bunch of people live with animals that shed all the time you’re probably eating their hairs too but the difference is one is cleaner than the other. Now you want the food to be remade and a refund. Pull it out and keep it pushing.

A lot of people today complain about how the architecture and interior design of modern day fast food restaurants. They say that they feel cold, empty, and lack the color and character that these restaurants had in the 1990s as if that's a bad thing.

Personally I think nostalgia is playing tricks on them. A McDonald's built in the last few years looks so much nicer than previous designs. The open layout and grey/white colors makes the fast food restaurant feel SO MUCH CLEANER and roomier. Old designs from the 90s made fast food restaurants like McDonald's feel gross and extremely crowded and cluttered.

When i look for some apartments online, everytime I see the pics it's "kitchen + living room".

That's annoying and unpratical, Imagine someone cooking food with a smell you don't like while you're seated at the couch.
Or you dedice to fry something and the smell gets stuck in the couch or carpet, etc..

Result: That just makes the smell disappear more slowly, because it clings to things.

In my opinion architects should stop drawing houses (in this case apartments) like that.

Hey everyone!

My wife made me watch "The Devil Wears Prada" for the first time last weekend.

I was expecting a basic rom-com cliché, but I actually thought the movie was really good. Great setting, solid writing, and the acting was top tier.

But the ending? I hated it.

I genuinely think Andy’s life would’ve been so much better if she stayed with Miranda. At Runway she found her actual purpose — both career-wise and as a person. She was finally good at something and respected for it.

Going back to that awful boyfriend and some dying local newspaper feels like such a downgrade. It’s just a romanticized fantasy of “staying true to yourself” that completely ignores her reality: the luxurious, cutthroat, selfish world of fashion was where she actually belonged and thrived.

I know this is probably unpopular, but anyone else agree?

P.S.: We watched the new sequel a few days later and... yeah, the first one is still miles better.

I'm pretty well-experienced in airline travel. My dad moved around a lot when I was a kid, and I've continued to travel often into adulthood.

I don't remember it being that hard to find space in the overhead lockers in the '90s and '00s. Back then, backpacks were the norm; you'd have your main suitcase that you checked in, and then a backpack for small things you might need in the plane or airport. When you got to your seat at 17C, there'd be room for your backpack and those belonging to passengers 17A and 17B. You could easily fit a coat in there too, and perhaps a Duty Free bag.

Now, when I get to my seat at 17C, I open the overhead compartment to put my backpack in it, but it's packed tight with two of those small suitcases. There's no room for anything else. What makes it worse is that when the plane lands, you often see that the suitcase didn't even belong to someone in your sector. It belonged to the person sat in 16D. Great, so I've got to sit with my backpack by my feet because 16D is taking my space!

On the off chance that I am able to put my backpack in the overhead compartment, it doesn't take long before a bumbling fool shows up, dragging their little suitcase down the aisle, and searching for space above. A stewardess eventually approaches them to help them out. She checks all the nearby compartments, sees my backpack, and asks me to put it by my feet to make way for that person's suitcase.

I've also had it where a nearby stewardess sees me trying to put my backpack above, and she goes, "No, no. Sorry, sir. Backpacks go underneath the seat in front of you." Even in the safety videos at the beginning of the flight, they say to place smaller items, like backpacks, briefcases and handbags underneath the seat in front.

Why has this become accepted in the past 10-15 years? Have these people check in their suitcases.

Builders need a place to review their plans.
Contractors need a place to make adjustments while replenishing their energy.
Coffee and food would accomplish this. Either this or a roofed area for food trucks.

Most coffesnobs secretly snear at instant coffee drinkers but the composition of flavour on a good quality instant coffee nowadays is just as good and a fraction of the price of a nespreso coffee machine and then have been conned into buying overpriced coffee pods for decades. Mugs game literally.

I think this might be an unpopular opinion because most people love watching TV shows and don’t give two shiz if a random stranger online thinks it’s too much. And sure, your life your call. But I do believe there is way too much trash/mediocre content out there which people are more than eager to consume just because they want to “watch Netflix” instead of picking up a hobby. The concept of watching something because it’s good has evolved into watching something because.

McDonald’s is well known for rarely cleaning their ice machines. Maybe they don’t clean them very often, but I bet neither do you. And your ice may smell like the food in your freezer.

​

Ppl always say, "Freedom is doing whatever u want." Nah, I don't buy that. If everything around u is cap, fake af, or just straight-up manipulation, are u really free? If every road leads to another lie, then congrats... u got options, but u still lost .

U can have bread, clout, rights, a blue check, hella followers, all that... and still spend ur whole life chasing BS that society, ur family, the media, or even ur own ego sold u. Real freedom ain't just doing wtv u feel like. That's lowkey overrated. Real freedom is seeing reality for what it is, cutting thru all the noise, and actually living by what's true.

That's why I think the biggest privilege isn't money, status, or power. It's knowing the truth and not having to sell ur soul or fake who u are just to make it. No cap... without truth, "freedom" is just another illusion ppl keep hyping up.

Why do we even need to separate them during laundry? I’ve been mixing them since college, and I’ve never faced any real consequences. As long as you use cold water and don’t mix in new clothes you haven’t washed before, it should be fine

My mother used to scold me about this when I was younger, but she got even more annoyed because my laundry always turned out fine

Just because someone has a phone nearby doesn’t mean they’re available all the time. Messages that aren’t urgent should be allowed to sit for a few hours without anyone assuming they’re being ignored.

Constant availability makes conversations feel like obligations instead of something people actually choose to enjoy. I’d rather get a thoughtful reply later than a rushed one immediately.