I had one job and quit, because I hated it. Now, I have another job and I kinda hate it, too. The people there are fine and the work isn't that bad, but I'm at that point where I feel like I'm in robot mode all day.

I graduated high school, signed up for college, and now I'm sure I don't even want to go. I know I'll be better off getting a degree, but with my track record so far, I'll probably flunk out within my first year. I love my major, and my school is pretty cool, but there's something in my head that doesn't allow me to do meaningful work. I can start 100 different things, and push them to a point, then I just get burnt out and quit.

I tried to stream on Twitch, and loved it for a week or so. I did it last year, so I started this go with 59 followers. Over the course of 10 days, I got to 75, which is some pretty good growth. However, I realized that there's really no game I want to stream, and I was tired of the games I was streaming, so I haven't streamed in almost a week.

I've gotten to the point where I really can't commit to anything. I've started probably 100 things in my life, and I've only seen a handful of them to completion. It's not even me dropping when things get hard, I've been kinda decent at a lot of things, but have just given up on them when I got tired of it. If I could do at least one thing in my life without quitting it, I feel like I'd be so much happier.

Maybe I'm not cut out for this life thing.

I have a cycling trip lined up for the afternoon, so I can hopefully get some Pokemans and some exercise.

The problem with holding a company criminally liable for anything is finding exactly who was the cause of the issue.

According to this wiki page for Comigel, the contaminations were a result of meat from suppliers. Did they know that they were being supplied with horse meat? If not, is the supplier in trouble for fraud, or is the processor guilty due to their inability to screen their meats?

Also, from how high of a position was this decision made? Was it not a "contamination" and did the CEO know about it, or was it due to the laziness or cheapness of someone under him? Who was really at fault for the issue?

In other cases, it can be even more hazy. If a faulty product kills someone, whose fault is it? Is it the person making it, because they did a bad job? Is it their supervisor for their failure in properly training employees? Is it QA, because they didn't catch the fault? Is it the plant manager for having incompetent staff? Is it the CEO of the contractor for having incompetent plant managers? Is it the CEO of the main company for hiring lazy contractors? Even then, is it the CEO that's the problem?

When someone goes out and deliberately frauds or harms another person, it's easy to throw the guilty party in jail, because it's one or a few people whose guilt can be determined. When a company does it, finding the individual at fault is finding a needle in a haystack, because it involves figuring out who, in a sea of hundreds of people, are responsible for a single decision.

Cities is probably one of the best games I've ever bought.

I really don't play it a lot (or anything outside Rocksmith, really), but I've enjoyed every minute I've spent in that game. While the traffic mechanics that can cause growing pains can be annoying, it's still fun watching your tiny city grow into a booming metropolis. I'd love to go play some more and knock out some of the monuments.

If Reddit implemented tagging and tag filtering, the quality of the place would improve immediately. It's possible to blacklist subreddits, and maybe users, but I would love to have an easy way to remove entire topics from my front page.

I can't stand GG nonsense and its derivatives, but I have to put up with it, because it shows up every now and then on gaming subs. I could filter keywords, but I'd have to find what words are used in titles I don't want to see, but not words that I want to never see in a title. People throw fits when characters boobs get smaller, but I don't want to never see "boobs" in a title.

That's nice to hear. I was going to join the dark side with a 1080, but I might just go ahead and get the 480x (Maybe 2, if I'm feeling cheeky).

I'm just trying to max out 1080p, with ideas of moving to 1440p or 1080p/120hz, and I think these might do it. I have an i5 3570k, which I have been told would not really bottleneck the new line of GPUs, so I might have a cheap way of getting good frame rates for really cheap.

Yeah, I'm not really into VR at all.

I really don't want to spend another $400 - $800 to upgrade my computer to use an $800 pair of glasses without wanting to throw up. Plus, I'm lazy when it comes to peripherals, so I'd probably use them once, go "Wow, that's a major hassle to play like 2 games," and never really touch them again.

I haven't seen a VR game I'm interested in, nor do I think any game I currently play would be helped by wearing a giant pair of glasses to make it my whole vision. Yet, it's supposed to be the next awesome thing that's going to revolutionize gaming.

Really, I'm upgrading in hopes of either getting a 1440p monitor, or a 1080p 120hz display.

I think my high school graduation is going to be my saddest and proudest moment of my life.

I grew up kinda smart (always did well on standardized tests and in reading programs), so school wasn't that much of a challenge for me for the longest time. I thought that would carry on throughout my life, but around middle school, I started to stumble. I started getting Cs and Ds around that time, which was pretty uncommon for me, and it marked a time of downward spiral.

There were many times in my high school life where I thought I wasn't going to graduate. I was at a point where I was trying to scrape by in advanced classes, which began to hurt more than help. I had many teachers sit me down and just basically ask, "What are you doing, man?" I really didn't know. I started falling deeper into my depression, where I thought about killing myself literally every single day. I didn't care about school at all, because I thought that it didn't matter since I was going to die anyway. I went from doing things to just kinda lounging around and sleeping all day. I had the time to do my work, but I just never did.

I hate being one of those "smart but lazy" people, but I feel like my current trajectory doesn't match the one I had laid out for me years ago. I thought I was going to actually amount to something. I thought I was going to accomplish a goal. Now, I'm just sitting here with my 3.444 GPA (3.0 unweighted), my acceptance to a halfway decent university close by, and complete lack of any interesting skills.

I feel like if things transpired differently, I would be in a better place. I don't point blame at some specific person or thing - only myself. If I could have only just dealt with my issues, instead of becoming enslaved by them, maybe I could have done something more with my life. Maybe if I wasn't so stupid, and valued sitting around on the internet or sleeping all day less than I did homework and studying, maybe I wouldn't basically be the benchmark of my classes. I just want to go back in time, find my freshmen or 8th grade self, smack him in the face and just say, "Do something. Just fucking do something. Don't be so fucking lazy."

My high school graduation is going to be the closing of a chapter. I can't sit there and say "Maybe tomorrow," or "Maybe next quarter," or "Maybe next year," because it's over. I don't have another chance to really fix all of my fuck ups, or at least try to rectify them with positive things; I just have to deal with it. I'm not going to be the kid in my class that's really smart and did something with his life; I'm going to be the kid that never turned in his work, barely passed the class, and barely graduated. Every time I hear someone say how few days we have left, I get reminded that I'm at the end.

Basically, I'm going to be proud of what I accomplished, but ashamed of how I barely got there.

I think the illusion to Orwell was really strange. We're not being forbidden to walk, it's just not viable for many people. There's no authoritarian ruling against it, there's just no sidewalks.

I'd love to live in a place where everything was within walking distance, but I live in the suburbs.

The closest grocery store to me is about 4 miles, but completely sidewalked. My school is about 3 miles away, but there's no sidewalk and requires walking along one of the worst roads in my area (windy road with multiple housing developments attached to it). If I want to catch a bus, the nearest stop, I'm pretty sure the nearest stop is at my grocery store.

Like the article said - much of the country doesn't have the infrastructure, or planning, to really rely on walking. If I want fast food, or need something from the store, that's over an hour of walking each way - often in the heat or rain. However, doing any of those in a car would take maybe 20 minutes total. If I had to walk for everything, most simple tasks would become all day things. I couldn't even get a job, because the nearest business is 20-30 minutes away, and up a huge hill.

Bicycles aren't preferable, either. I live in a valley, so any place I want to go requires riding up a decently steep hill for about a mile. Then, I have to decide to either put others at risk by riding down the sidewalk (the number of times I've come across people walking and not paying attention to anything around them is high), or put my life at risk and hold up traffic by riding on the congested neighborhood roads that go everywhere. Still, the store is half an hour away, and many places are still dangerous to even think about going to. On top of that, the abundance of hills in my area are going to make me arrive hot and sweaty.

I might be a special case, but there's many Americans that are in the same situation. For us to rely on our own biological transportation, even with the assistance of mass transit, is still time consuming, and often dangerous. The bad part is - it's not going to change for us. Like the article said, it's hard to build walking paths after roads have been put down and buildings and infrastructure have been built around them. On top of that, the paving of the paths would be expensive, and the cost would rise in places where the terrain is difficult to build (There's roads around here that would require a lot of work to have a surface next to them viable for a sidewalk). The expansion of public transportation would be very costly, and there probably wouldn't be that much of a demand for it in places where it didn't exist before. People have already bought cars to get around, and aren't going to give them up in favor of a bus that they have to wait for and share with people.

If everything checks out, then OP is an idiot.

Responds to an ad on Craigslist and tells them to meet him where he's staying

Was getting caught part of your plan? Seriously, if the guy recognized him and called the cops, then there would be no place to go, because his hideout is already found. Also, another guy in the thread could post something, then just tell the cops where he's staying.

Gives out Skype to the internet

If he moved and logged on without keeping his proxy on - he's done for. There's a bunch of sites that will resolve an IP from a Skype username. If he has Skype on his phone, and no proxy, then he's done for. Also, now the cops can just call up Skype and say "Hey, we need the past IPs of this username." After a bit of work, they could find out where he lived and who he is. It's how a lot of people get swatted. If some script kiddies on the internet can do it, then I'm pretty sure a federal organization that's trained in this kind of stuff can do a lot more.

Posts everything, including plans and ideas, on the internet

If the FBI is watching those threads, they now know exactly what his plans are. It's impossible to stay two steps ahead of your enemy if you're telling the audience what your next trick is. Telling the internet what he's about to do is enough for the FBI, or whomever deals with this stuff, ample knowledge and time to set up a trap, or nudge him into one. On top of that, each unique thing that he does is enough to give them another lead. He buys a bike and posts a picture of it? Now they know which Craigslist user to question, so they can get even more information about him.

The guy on Reddit made this look so easy

He also didn't post his plans on the internet and then came back to brag about it. The fingerprints and pieces of hair that you leave at the scene aren't the evidence that's going to get you caught; it's what you willingly divulge to people on a whim.

It's kind of weird that an app where people make decisions based on just pictures of people (well, there are profiles, but they're a click away), would be considered a "dating" app. The "dating" label is the equivalent to the "for tobacco use only" sign on the pipe display at the hippy store in the mall. Saying that you go on Tinder to date is like saying you go to Hooters for the food.

> A broken ankle gets you a cast and crutches. It might even give you a temp tag in your car for closer parking. Hell, your boss might accommodate your workspace or schedule. But you can't usually see depression.

It's kind of a weird dichotomy, being since that depression is considered a mental illness. If you're hurt or have the flu, people tell you to take time off and get better. They tell you to take your time and are really accepting. However, if you have depression, you just get a "We all feel bad, just suck it up." Hell, I don't even think therapists and stuff are covered under a lot of insurance plans (not exactly sure). The thing that sucks is that a lot of types of depression are more debilitating, over an extended period of time, than breaking an ankle or an arm. A broken wrist makes part of your body unusable for a couple months, but clinical depression can make a person miserable for years to decades. Some die depressed. Yet, most sufferers don't get treatment.

In reality, a depressed person is treated as whiny or lazy, but if suicide is the 10^th leading cause of death in America, then there's got to be something more than sucking it up to it - right?

It would be great if we could get treatment, without getting stigmatized.

Not an expert on the story, or Julian Assange, but if he's innocent - why did he leave the country?

He says that the allegations are false, so why did he feel the need to leave? If he was innocent (I don't really have a leaning either way), then it seems like it would have been a better idea to face the music, go through some discomfort, have the charges dropped, then get on with life. If someone gets accused of a crime, and they flee the country, that doesn't make them look exactly innocent. Did he flee so he could continue WikiLeaks? Even then, there's likely other people that could have picked up the slack if he had to go away for a while. Was it going to be an unfair trial? At that point, if there was no way of challenging that in court, leaving the country would be understandable.

Lenovo hasn't been having a good streak lately.

First there was superfish, and now there's this. It's a shame that the company is constantly trying to exploit some bug to make an extra bit of money. If these two events never happened, I would probably own a Lenovo. From what I've seen, they've made some excellent pieces of hardware in the past. The Thinkpads have been regarded as some of the best laptops in the market. I have a family member with a Yoga (the ones that are a tablet and flip completely around), and the build quality on it is great. It might be a bit slow, but the thing is super light and feels generally durable.

A lot of the revelations that have came out about Lenovo are sad. It's a shame to see a company build great products, but shoot themselves in the foot with bad software decisions.

I don't think I've ever backed up my data, but I really want to. I got a lot of stuff, and 2 family members in my house, so I thought about taking an old PC and turning it into a backup server. I would choose an off-site solution, but I have a 2Mb upload connection, and probably hundreds of Gigabytes of data to back up. Actually, now that I think about it, I think I have a 1TB external HDD that can plug into my router in order to do the same thing. I might set that up today.

Seriously, he was the first person I ever blocked (most are spammers, and I always forget which one I should do), and it made the front page so much better. He's like the embodiment of the FPH-Redpill-Reactionary movement on Reddit. He'll post a couple normal things, then make a post like "Why women/minorities suck." I spotted him from a mile away, because I spend a lot (way too much) time on meta subs, and they all have the same song and dance.

After a couple of days, it's like he doesn't exist.

The situation has two sides that are sometimes hard to balance. On one hand, in order to grow as a human being, they need to have their views challenged. On the other, a person shouldn't be antagonized for being in the wrong.

There's a lot of comedy out there's that cheap and vapid. It's easy to find a comic that just spews hateful and irrational rants without there being a meaning or message within their piece. However, there's a lot of comedy out there that takes the uncouth route in order to explain why something is wrong. Many forms of comedy were created for the sole purpose of arguing the most absurd form of an opinion in order to explain why it's wrong. Take a look at a lot of the satirical pieces written during the Enlightenment. They used a veil of humor in order to attack the practices of the church and government, in a way that didn't directly flag the authors as traitors or heathens. They extended arguments ad Absurdum in order to point out "hey, this is kind of stupid." Look at the modern political comics. Stephen Colbert created an ultra-conservative news reporter caricature in order to point out the flaws of right wing news programs. John Stewart took the same group's serious content and mocked it to show how idiotic their thinking was. For some people, their shows were cheap entertainment, but the programs made some people think. One don't have to be as illusive as an enlightenment satirist (I remember one king really liked the work of some writer, despite him making fun of his value. I don't remember his name, however.) or as blatant as a modern comic in order to get people thinking. In the end, though, getting people to think is a good motive to have - and comedy is a way of doing that.

However, that doesn't mean open the doors and let in everyone who hides behind the argument of "it's just comedy," like many YouTubers hide behind the exclaimation of "It's just a prank," before they get a beat down for pointing a fake gun in someone's face. A "comedian" like Jeff Dunham, that uses puppets to make fun of Mexicans and Middle Easterners isn't making people think; he's just being a racist. "Silence, I keel you!" isn't a deep narrative on the differentiation between terrorists and Muslims. The Jalapeno on a stick isn't a character designed to show the idiocy of some argument that Mexican immigrants have. They're just insensitive and idiotic. However, all shock comedy isn't useless. A comic named Jim Jefferies spent half of his show making light of homosexuals and Muslims, then turned the show around to start making fun of Christians. He noted, that, when he was making fun of them, everyone laughed. However, as soon as he flipped the table to make fun of a demographic, white Christians, who made up a large portion of audience, people got quiet and tension started growing. He then went on to explain how stupid it is to make fun of another group of people, then get upset when someone set their target on you. Even if much of his humor could be considered thoughtless and offensive, that show did a great job of explaining how hypocritical it is to be bigoted against others and get mad when they throw it back into your face. Sometimes, in order to get a point across effectively, one needs to step on a few toes and say some thing that, when taken to heart, could be considered offensive.

For an establishment created to shape young adults into mature individuals that can carry their own weight, it seems counter-intuitive to try to find an entertainer that will absolutely never say anything that could be taken out of context, or construed to an extreme level, that could be considered in any way, shape, or form as offensive. Colleges shouldn't be hiring people that would fit right in at a Klan rally or a Neo-Nazi march, but they should be tolerable to people that funny and not completely straight edge. If the comic isn't funny, but just offensive and bigoted, then they should definitely refuse to pick them up. However, one shouldn't be barred for simply having an unpopular opinion. At the same time, that balance between challenging and safe should be paid attention to. To large of a dose of either side has negative effects, but the right exposure to both is a good thing. At the end of the day, people shouldn't be told what to believe, but also why. At the same time, they should be taught to constantly question the why, because if they don't, then blind followers start to be created.

(Also, that doesn't mean that everything should necessarily be challenged. The right for groups of people shouldn't have to be questioned, for example.)

It's kind of strange how weird people get about kids' genders.

If someone has a girl, "THE ROOM HAS TO BE PINK AND ALL OF THEIR STUFF HAS TO BE PINK AND THEY HAVE TO LIKE THESE THINGS." If it's a boy, "EVERYTHING HAS TO BE BLUE AND THEY HAVE TO LIKE THIS, THIS, AND THIS." My brother had a boy and my mom keeps saying things like, "Now you guys have to go do boy things together like camp and fish." It's, like, camping's cool; why can't the girl go too?

Then people start getting all defensive if a boy picks something pink or "girly" and start playing with it. They go over there and say, "Oh that's a girl's toy. Go play with some boy stuff," and try to take the toy away. If a girl starts playing in the dirt or wants to build something, they kind of insinuate that she should be playing with dolls or something.

If I had a girl, and she wanted to build a deck with me, then I'd be sitting there teaching her how to hammer in nails and use a drill. If I had a boy and they wanted to learn how to sew or cook, then I'd try my hardest to find someone to help them (not because I'm not allowed to do those things, just because I don't know how to do them). If someone stopped my kid from doing something, because "That's mean for x gender," I'd give them hell and they'd never be around my kid again.

When it comes to hobbies and stuff, gender really doesn't matter. If a kid wants to do or like something, they should be able to; it doesn't matter what gender that things is "supposed" to be reserved for. That's why there's a lack of male teachers. That's why there's a lack of female programmers. Society spends too much time on segregating everything for absolutely no benefit. Just mind your own business and don't intervene unless someone's harming other people or themselves.

I've been trying to get better at photo editing/taking. I've been playing around with HDR, as well as a lot of the manual settings on my camera. It's really starting to feel like I have control on how the pictures turn out, rather than relying on the Auto settings to take the photos for me. I've been taking them into Photoshop and composing them, to help bring out the best parts in each photo. A lot of that is done for me, but I still have a lot of settings to toy around with to get the feeling that I desire from the image. It's a lot of fun, but I still got a lot of things to learn.

It's really simple, but really hard. I like it!

I'm more talking about an .exe that you run in Windows, then restart your computer and choose "Ubuntu/Fedora/Whatever". The scariest thing, according to the people I'm around, is having to touch the BIOS (even just to choose a different boot device), or do anything that would seem "advanced", like using the terminal. If it was like installing any other Windows program, it would be easier to get people to move over.

I think Ubuntu has Wubi, but I've heard that it sucks for some reason.

Looks a lot like Mint, but a lot easier on the eyes. Plus, it's got a lot more features to boot. If it had a way of installing itself (or even Mint), it would be perfect for people on Windows that want to try Linux without doing any work.

I feel ya. I hope things get better for you, because emotional pain can sometimes hurt a lot more than physical pain. Like, there's pills that are pretty good at getting rid of physical pain, but the drugs built for emotions are always a "maybe". On top of that, it feels like normal pain doesn't warp your mind like being an emotional wreck does.

Books. Books help.

Really, anything that helps you "get away", without affecting your health, is good. The best thing to do is find something that dulls the pain, because you can turn to it when things go bad and sometimes it's enough to start pulling yourself out of your pit. If books help you, then start reading.

There's that one campaign. "It Gets Better."

I never really cared much for that argument. Like, I don't want thing to get better, I want them to be better. However, I always favored the "Well, things will either get better or they won't; but there's a good enough chance of them getting better that it's worth sticking around for." I only heard that one once, and I like the outlook on it a lot better.