flaminm

there’s a word in german: sehnsucht.

i don’t think there’s a perfect translation for it in english. maybe there is, but i don’t know one.

it’s that feeling when you deeply long for something you’ve never had, never experienced, or never even truly known.

it begins with the cutting of the umbilical cord.

right now, what’s happening in new york city is honestly absurd. rent has gone completely out of control. even studio apartments are going for four to five thousand dollars a month. so mamdani says, “i’m going to freeze rent increases, and the city will build affordable housing.” can he actually do that? i have no idea, because it’s a complicated issue. the mayor can’t just snap his fingers and freeze rent. the state government has to approve. we’ll see how that plays out. at the very least, i think he’ll try.

public transit is a whole separate disaster. the subway system is falling apart. half the stations don’t even have elevators. they replaced the old metrocard with this new omny system, but it barely works. you used to be able to buy unlimited weekly or monthly metrocards, but they removed those. now omny claims you ride 12 times in a week and then it becomes unlimited, but then you check and your balance is negative instead of unlimited. it’s a mess.

food prices are skyrocketing. i see it where i live. there’s a trader joe’s nearby, and everyone shops there because at least it’s a little more affordable and the quality is good. other grocery stores are empty because everyone flocks to trader joe’s. and it makes sense: if you’re paying thousands for a tiny studio, of course you’re waiting in line for cheaper groceries.

anyway, what i’m saying is: people here are hungry for food that is both good and affordable. so mamdani says, “the city should run its own grocery chain. not for profit. its mission will be to provide good, affordable food.” it’s like the public city cafeterias i̇mamoğlu started in istanbul, and i fully support that idea.

new york’s city budget is around $130 billion. so the money exists to do these things. but of course, it’s not that simple. for example, he says public transit should be free. but the transit system is run by the mta, which is a state organization, not a city one. so mamdani would need to negotiate with the state. either the city covers the revenue the mta would lose, or the city starts its own bus system in selected neighborhoods as a pilot.

he also talks about free healthcare clinics. that’s actually realistic because it already exists in some form. there is a program called nyc care. i was unemployed for a while and enrolled in it, and for a year i didn’t pay a single dollar for hospital visits. if he expands that, it’s already a win.

he also promises free childcare, a $30 minimum wage, and higher taxes on the wealthy. we’ll see how much of that he can actually deliver.

but here’s what i want to emphasize: this guy won as an openly socialist candidate in the capital city of capitalism. that means something. it means you cannot just buy new york. people are saying “enough.” new york is not only wealthy folks in the upper east side. we live here too. you can’t just pretend we don’t exist.

cuomo’s side poured millions into trying to defeat him. trump supporters and billionaires backed cuomo. and even with all that money behind his opponent, mamdani still won.

have you ever heard of the region-beta paradox?

imagine someone starting a new job. they tell themselves, “if my office is less than a mile away, i’ll walk. but if it’s farther, i’ll bike.” walking is clearly their first choice because it means the job is close and easy. but it turns out the office is two miles away, so they have to bike.

here’s where the paradox comes in. if the office were only a mile away, walking would take ten or fifteen minutes. but because it’s two miles and they bike, it only takes four or five minutes. the situation they thought was worse actually works out better. seen from a time-saving perspective, it makes perfect sense. strange, right?

psychologist dan gilbert from harvard university described this idea in 2006 and called it the region-beta paradox. he explained that people often get stuck in situations that are only mildly uncomfortable. they’re not bad enough to fix, but not good enough to truly enjoy. because these situations don’t cross the brain’s “alarm threshold,” we don’t change them. we just adapt.

the region-beta paradox reminds us that sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. it’s the space where seemingly negative outcomes can lead to surprisingly positive ones.

think about it: your relationship isn’t amazing, but it’s not terrible either. you tell yourself, “we’re fine.” years pass. your job is okay. the pay’s decent, your boss isn’t bad, but you wake up every morning feeling drained. you think, “it’s fine for now.” five years go by. you have a small ache that’s not serious enough for a doctor, but not minor enough to ignore. months later, it’s still there.

that “it’s fine” zone is where life quietly stagnates. if things were worse, you’d take action. if they were better, you’d enjoy them. but in the middle, you stay stuck.

maybe if that relationship ended, you’d meet someone who truly fits you. maybe if you left that dull job, you’d find one that excites you. maybe if you stopped tolerating that ache, you’d catch a health issue early.

sometimes a setback forces you forward, because that’s when you finally get on the bike. when discomfort increases, instinct takes over. when it’s mild, you just adapt.

the region-beta paradox is a hidden trap — the comfort of “not bad.” it’s not the disasters that ruin us. it’s the “it’s fine” moments that quietly do.

so remember: don’t forget to get on your bike.

the wampanoag are a native american community from the northeast who have lived for thousands of years in what is now massachusetts and rhode island. they are known for their farming, fishing, and strong traditions, and they played an important role in early american history when europeans first arrived.

a spiritual shepherd in sneakers. exiled monk, global peace icon, and master of dropping wisdom bombs with a smile. proof that compassion can go viral.

a russian oligarch who played chess with power in the '90s - kingmaker, exile, and enigma. rose with the empire, fell out with the czar, and died wrapped in conspiracy.

the guy who looked at the world and said, "it's all one big rigged game." architect of world-systems theory. saw capitalism not as a phase, but as the global plot twist we're still stuck in.

a reality-bending force of fame who turned selfies, scandals, and shapewear into a billion-dollar empire. proof that in the age of algorithms, influence > inheritance.

synonyms: mogul, muse, meme generator

tesla gets the sun confused with traffic lights video

it is now the worst buyout for banks since the financial crisis. the wall street journal

aldous huxley's dystopian novel published in 1932 has been the subject of debate since its release: is "brave new world" a dystopia or a utopia? to understand the genre of the novel properly, it's essential to look at the characteristics of dystopian fiction:

– the use of propaganda to control society
– restrictions on access to information, freedom, and independence
– society's adulation of a symbolic leader or concept
– society constantly feeling under surveillance
– society's fear of the outside world
– society living in dehumanized systems
– alienation from and disbelief in nature
– society conforming to the same expectations, resulting in a lack of individuality and diversity
– society being a reflection of a perfect utopia

huxley's novel exhibits all but one of these characteristics. the bokanovsky process and fordism in "brave new world" serve as tools of propaganda to maintain control. the book's representative of these themes is the western european world controller, mustapha mond. throughout the book, we see bans on science and art, and nobody is truly free. there's worship of the concept of fordism. you witness the fear of lenina crowne when she visits the savage reservation with john, who represents the outside world. the characters perfectly conform to the system, indicating the dehumanization of the established order. emotions, pain, or freedoms are absent; instead, they are replaced with sensory films and "soma," a drug they never part without. the isolation of john's place, the savage reservation, is an example of the exclusion of nature. characters are divided into classes, and each class is standardized. lastly, the book gives an air of utopia. except for the characters feeling under surveillance, the book perfectly encompasses dystopian elements.

the real issue, though, is huxley's choice of a soft dystopia over a harsh one. unlike 1984, where political oppression crushes society, "brave new world" offers its society a "false" happiness. this is what baffles readers and gives a sense of utopia: the characters are happy, but this happiness is tied to the system shaping them from birth and their frequent use of the drug soma.

in the novel, there is a robotic caste system: people are pre-programmed before birth as alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, or epsilons. alphas are tall, intelligent, and attractive, while deltas are short, programmed for labor, and stupid, with the intelligence of a five-year-old at most. thus, the lower classes, the deltas, and epsilons, are happy.

in essence, huxley has killed the concept of "human" and replaced it with "human-like robots," creating a utopia-looking dystopia. huxley's message is that it's impossible for humans to create a utopia on their own. if stability and order are desired, personalities must be killed and people must become dependent on drugs. the book lacks art, family, emotions, books, freedom of thought, or science. these are things that the system opposes because a robot does not need these concepts.

like "1984," "brave new world" contains a totalitarian regime, but instead of using torture like room 101, it aligns its characters with soft methods like the bokanovsky system and soma, yet the result is the same: society loses its freedom. the utopia "brave new world" provides is not for people but for humans who have lost their human traits. this is why huxley includes a character like john the savage. john represents "the human" in every sentence and action against the robotic system. what he tries to convey is that either we live in fake happiness as the system intends, or we feel real happiness like john, but with its pains.

in the sixteenth chapter, the conversation between john and mustapha mond mentions that they have given up science and art (or, in other words, their humanity) for stability and happiness.

huxley's model of utopia is a system cleansed of humanity. he does not envision a perfect political structure or educated people like thomas more, but a system that eradicates the self. that's why "brave new world" is a dystopia. replacing tyranny with happiness does not change the fact that it annihilates the human self.

as stated in the adaptation of the host, which also has a utopic dystopia like "brave new world," "our world had never been so perfect, but it was no longer our world."

it will completely erase shared culture.

in the '80s and '90s, people more or less watched and listened to the same things. the next day, they would discuss and critique these in the office or at school, sharing their thoughts with friends. with the widespread adoption of social media, instead of a collective culture, a niche culture that only followers are aware of has started to emerge. someone might become famous somewhere, but you don't know who they are, right? yet, they have hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of followers.

with the advent of artificial intelligence, this niche culture will be replaced by a completely "personalized culture." for example, think about spotify. you have marked the songs you like one by one. with the development of ais that produce good music, songs created specifically for you based on your preferences will start to play. no one else will know about them. you can extend this to films, series, and other types of content. thus, everyone will be exposed to what they like. in a way, it's good, but in another, it's bad. in the end, everything will become more individualized. there will be no common ground for sharing.

if i live long enough, i would love to see a high-quality ai that allows me to choose the actors in a film made just for me.

imagine this guy named chad who thinks he knows everything. he's got this unshakeable confidence, and he just can't resist explaining things, especially to women, even when they already know it—or worse, when they're experts. that's mansplaining in a nutshell.

picture tech savvy tammy, a software engineer with a decade of experience. chad, who just read a beginner's guide to coding, starts telling her how to write a basic program. tammy's internal monologue is probably something like, "thanks, chad. i only do this for a living."

then there's fitness fiona, a personal trainer. she's at the gym, working out, and chad strolls over to show her the 'correct' way to do a squat. fiona's response is a polite smile, but inside, she's imagining hitting chad with a kettlebell.

or take history buff hannah, who has a ph.d. in history. at a party, chad starts explaining world war ii to her as if she's never heard of it. hannah nods along, all the while thinking, "is this guy for real?"

and don't forget guitar goddess gwen, who's been playing guitar for fifteen years and is in a band. chad, who just picked up a guitar last week, starts showing her how to play a chord. gwen's like, "oh really, chad? tell me more about this g chord."

the best part about mansplaining is chad's unshakeable belief that he's bestowing valuable knowledge upon the unenlightened. meanwhile, the women on the receiving end are caught between wanting to laugh and wanting to sigh deeply.

so, mansplaining is when a guy explains something in a condescending way to a woman, assuming she doesn't know it, even if she's an expert. it's like chad believes it's his duty to educate everyone, even when they don't need—or want—his 'wisdom.'

mclean v. arkansas was a landmark legal case in 1981 where u.s. district court judge william r. overton ruled against the state of arkansas regarding its law mandating the teaching of "creation science" as an alternative to evolution in public schools. the case, officially known as mclean v. arkansas board of education, represented a significant confrontation between science and religion in the educational sphere.

the arkansas law required that public schools give equal time to creation science and evolution whenever evolutionary theory was taught. plaintiffs, including teachers, parents, and religious leaders, challenged the law's constitutionality, arguing that it violated the establishment clause of the first amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or unduly favoring one religion over another.

judge overton's decision was pivotal for several reasons:

scientific scrutiny and definition: the trial provided a forum to scrutinize and define what constitutes science. overton concluded that creation science failed to meet the essential characteristics of science, such as relying on testable hypotheses, and was therefore inherently religious.

legal precedents: the ruling reinforced the application of the "lemon test" from the supreme court's decision in lemon v. kurtzman (1971), which assesses the constitutionality of state laws in light of the establishment clause. overton determined that the arkansas law had a clear religious intent, advanced a particular religious belief, and entangled the state with religion, failing all three prongs of the lemon test.

impact on education: this decision had a profound impact on how science and theories of origin are taught in schools across the united states. it helped affirm the importance of maintaining a secular approach in science education, focusing on scientific facts, theories, and methodologies rather than religious doctrines.

cultural and religious debate: mclean v. arkansas also highlighted the ongoing cultural and religious debates regarding the teaching of evolution, sparking discussions about academic freedom, the role of religion in public spaces, and the nature of science and education.