u/makespy

In my experience, meditation often doesn't have immediate benifits. Sometimes I meditate and feel like my head is clearer and I'm better fit to make good decisions, but often I just stop and go back to how I was.

The benefits are longterm and definitely not as extreme as you may have heard.

Maybe some of what you described is somewhat possible, but meditating for the goal of enlightenment, to me, is comparable to training football on an amateur level with the goal of winning the world championship.

Is this only a theory or are we sure they did it this way? Just because it works doesn't mean it must have been this method. Look at how people still theorize about the details of the construction of the pyramids.

That's a movie thing. In the books both Durmstrang and Beauxbatons have male and female students.

Hey, I know there's a lot you're allowed to say on this sub, but I really think this one is going too far. You should seek professional help.

I don't think so. It says that she ran down the stairs before the dad is mentioned. Only "she" is mentioned moving, not the dad. Thats enough indication that only she is moving imo.

It might also not really make a difference, unless of course them being down stairs is important later on.

Urine for some serious health issues if you continue down this path.

Because he's absolutely insane.

Can we have other positions than:

• I never want to see my SO without a snapchat filter
• If you don't bathe in your feces together, you're not a couple

It's a tetrahedron

There should be a "sort of" option...

I don't question the ring camera. The thing about placing a camera is concerned with OP's hypothetical additional footage, not the video we have.

Sorry, if I wasn't clear on that.

I think Destinys stance on "wait for more evidence" is the way to go here.

Do you videotape every social interaction? I get that it might be a good idea to do so, if the interaction is abusive, but I wouldn't make a judgement on somebody's claims only based on whether they thought about filming their abusive interactions.

Also, Hilary Crowder would either have to place a camera and hope for the best or intentionally trigger him for the video, or pull out the phone in the moment, where Steven Crowder would surely switch up his behaviour for the camera, if he really is abusive. And remember that Steven Crowder is a traditionalist. I don't think he's too keen on the idea of publicizing his relationship.

Also, I'd assume that their values somewhat match and, given she is good faithed, doesn't want too much attention either and just wants to get out of the marriage. I'd even argue that if she had more footage I'd question whether this is for publicity or not.

If we belive her story, it's entirely reasonable that she tried to make it work and then at some point said: This is enough, I'll get divorced. If we even believe the claim that Steven Crowder wanted the divorce first, there is no reason entirely for her to film anything.

So on one hand I argued above under the assumption that we belive her, on the other hand if we belive him: Anything that comes from her side is edited and framed to make him look bad.

TL;DR: I can imagine hardly any scenario, apart from the existing security cam footage, where we'd get authentic footage of their private life. Not to mention that it's not unreasonable for her not to have the intention of filming anything.

Also: There is so much speculation in your and also in my post.

WAIT FOR MORE EVIDENCE, WE DON'T KNOW SHIT.

Edit: Also, given the way the Crowders, and Destiny and Melina differ in their online presence, I don't think it's a very good comparison.

🙅‍♂️French fries

👉American fries

Sure, but by that logic we could theoretically already be living in the matrix.

Not really. The AI that's taking over the media is mainly imitative in nature and doesn't think the way a human does, when talking/ painting/ generating whatever it generates.

I'd say if your picking varying aspects and influences from different cultures around the world and make sure the names are unique the result should look unique enough, such that it should be quite hard to see it as some caricature of a specific real culture.

I also belive that for fictional cultures that aren't created with any underlying racist/ stereotyping thoughts, it's generally hard to make a good faith argument for cultural appropriation, but there will always be bad faith arguments one could make. So I think you should be aware, but not afraid of this.

There's this blender guru tutorial:

https://youtu.be/-VgtSL5ZpYc

USA finally enforcing 150+ years in prison.

The single reason why

I prefer "Nachtruhe" night rest

It is mate in one though, with Qd8

It probably depends on who you ask and it's also a very american frame of view.

I'd say, both outsiders and the turks themselves generally see islam as a strong part of turkish identity and, therefore, wouldn't categorize turks as european or white.

How it's handled in the US I have no idea. As a european I am often a bit confused about their understanding of ethnicity.

About turks being geographilcally central asian, there are turkic people in central asia, like turkmenistan, but I'd say that's more of a technicallity, given most peoples association of the word turk is with the country and people of turkey.

Turkey itself is not in central Asia, although I'm not sure if this statement is about your question where turkey is, or rather about which countries central asia encompasses.

It's almost never bad to reach out to someone.

I'm basing these points on my observations of the Swiss system, as I am Swiss and know of no other direct democracy.

Pros: - Direct involvement of citizens in politics - Voting on issues rather than people/parties (less needed trust in some guy to do what you want) - Topics, that don't hace big party support, have a chancr of reaching public discourse

Cons: - Decisions made might not be feasible - People tend not to put too much research into their vote - As votes are always yes/no, on any issue there is a significant number of people argueing that the issue is a good cause, but has bad execution, so they vote no, (among other reasons) making it so: - Most votes are between 51/49 and 55/45 no, meaning most votes fail and the direct democracy rarely has a direct impact

I'd argue that the system in switzerland often acts more as a way of opening, stimulating or assessing public discourse rather than a full substitution of parliamental government, as most propositions are rejected. Only in few cases the proposition is accepted, at which point the exact implementation of such a proposition is up to the parliament.

Edit: I'm also not sure if such a system is scalable. The swiss democracy might only work because the country isn't too big.