flaminm

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.

in 1925, a tennessee teacher named john t. scopes was arrested for teaching charles darwin's theory of evolution, which said that "higher" forms of life, such as humans, olved from "lower" life forms, such as apes. many rural americans felt this theory was at odds with the creationism they believed in and their traditional christian values.

william jennings bryan, the great populist hero, spoke for the prosecution. scopes was defended by famous defense attorney clarence darrow. in his questioning, darrow made bryan seem foolish and ignorant. the trial settled nothing, though. scopes was fined $100, and the ruling was later reversed on a technicality.

a country where there is no culture of resignation.

everything gets less complicated if you think love is just "a hormonal reaction".*

let's see what notable people said about love:

theodor seuss geisel:
you know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams.

taylor swift:
when you are missing someone, time seems to move slower, and when i'm falling in love with someone, time seems to be moving faster.

kim kardashian:
i think you have different soul-mates throughout your life, that your soul needs different things at different times. i do believe in love. i will always believe in love, but my idea has changed from what i've always thought.

oprah winfrey:
lots of people want to ride with you in the limo. but you want someone who'll help you catch the bus.

william watson purkey:
you've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
love like you'll never be hurt,
sing like there's nobody listening,
and live like it's heaven on earth.

elie wiesel:
the opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. the opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. the opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. and the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.

william shakespeare:
love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.

neil gaiman:
have you ever been in love? horrible isn't it? it makes you so vulnerable. it opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up.

lao tzu:
being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.

chuck palahniuk:
the one you love and the one who loves you are never, ever the same person.*

paulo coelho:
when we love, we always strive to become better than we are. when we strive to become better than we are, everything around us becomes better too.

one is loved because one is loved. no reason is needed for loving.

mahatma gandhi:
when i despair, i remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. think of it, always.

where there is love there is life.

sarah dessen:
love is needing someone. love is putting up with someone's bad qualities because they somehow complete you.

oscar wilde:
never love anyone who treats you like you're ordinary.*

plato:
every heart sings a song, incomplete, until another heart whispers back. those who wish to sing always find a song. at the touch of a lover, everyone becomes a poet.

john krasinski:
when you're lucky enough to meet your one person, then life takes a turn for the best. it can't get better than that.

katy perry:
first and foremost, self-love, and then give love away.

fyodor dostoevsky:
above all, don't lie to yourself. the man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. and having no respect he ceases to love.

edgar allen poe:
we loved with a love that was more than love.

sigmund freud:
psychoanalysis is in essence a cure through love.

what upset the colonists about a tax such as the 1765 stamp act was that it was imposed on them without their consent. their assemblies could not vote on the tax, and they had no representatives in parliament "no taxation without representation" became their rallying cry.

a large minority, known as patriots, formed the sons of liberty and the daughters of liberty. these organizations asked colonial merchants not to trade with the british, and the daughters of liberty boycotted british goods.

a stamp act congress with delegates from nine colonies met in new york in october 1765. it sent a petition urging parliament to repeal the tax. one delegate stated what many were feeling: "there ought to be no new englanders, no new yorkers ... but all of us americans." parliament repealed the stamp tax but immediately passed a declaratory act, which said that only parliament had the authority to make laws for the colonies.

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

buying the louisiana territory raised a constitutional issue for president jefferson, since the document said nothing about purchasing new lands. jefferson decided that keeping france from controlling the mississippi river was too important, though, to turn down the opportunity. so the purchase was judged necessary and the senate readily approved it in 1803. congress paid france about $15 million for the land.

the louisiana purchase doubled the land area of the nation, adding 800,000 square miles and more than 200,000 people-primarily american indians, spanish, and french.

world war 3 on the internet.

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

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.