u/Attlai

I guess this is more a question about the field of historiology itself.
It's my understanding that professional historians are heavily specialized in one region + era, and that their most of their research are heavily focused on this topic.
In that case, does the opinion of historian on a topic they're not specialized about weighs more than that of an amateur history enthusiast? Should I consider that a historian is naturally more informed about their history-related answers in topics not their speciality, or should I take it with the same grain of salt of a non historian in this case?

Asking the question, because I was once chatting with a guy who said he was a historian specialized in Modern Greece. But while talking about Ancient Greece, he had claims that seemed to be opposite to the historians' consensus on the topic (afaik). And thus I wondered how seriously I could take his claims, being aware that he also had political biases that could influence his view.

Salut à tous!

Banlieusard ici, et grand fan de thé. Après avoir testé deux salons de thé sur Paris au cours des derniers mois (le T'Xuan et Le Tê, que je recommande tous les deux vivement), j'aimerais agrandir mon carnet d'adresses de salons de thé à découvrir. J'ai une préférence pour les endroits calmes et confortables, avec une atmosphère plus intimiste, quitte à ce que ce soit pas forcément le thé le plus ouf du monde.
J'aimerais aussi normaliser pour moi-même le fait d'aller seul à un endroit de ce genre (parce que j'ai pas vraiment l'habitude d'aller seul à un endroit "social"). Donc si vous avez des recommandations de salons de thé qui sont particulièrement adaptés pour se poser seul et chill une heure ou deux, je suis doublement preneur :)

Ah, aussi, si vous connaissez un salon de thé à la turque, je suis preneur aussi. Le thé turc me manque!

EDIT: Merci beaucoup pour toutes vos recommendations en si peu de temps! Vous êtes des anges!

Context:

I was having a chill game with the idea of restoring Indo-scythian dominance into northern India (everyone has their own fantasy), starting from a pathetic Saka count in Yarkand. All was going good. And after surviving a ridiculous amount of turkic conquerors on steroids (seriously, the middle east and central asia are a mess), my dynasty was finally starting to establish itself in North-West India, having conquered the kingdoms of Punjab and Delhi, while still controlling Kashmir and Khotan.
I was planning to let go of Khotan, because it made for ugly borders, and because roleplaying-wise, it made sense that the dynasty would slowly lose control over their former core lands as they established themselves in India.

At some point, I received a request from some weak nomadic neighbor to become my tributary. And I was like, sure buddy, whatever. But then, it started a chain reaction of basically every neighboring nomad also wanting to become my tributary. And I followed along to see just how far this absurdity could go. And it went on until basically all the eastern half of the steppes had willingly become my tributaries.
But since all my new steppe-brothers keep migrating, I keep being spammed with new request to become tributary.

Is this normal or is it probably a bug?
My character at the moment had a pretty high diplomacy sure, but my realm was not necessarily the strongest, and I was neither of their faith nor their culture.
Can't send screenshot rn cuz I'm at work. But the more I think about it, the more I get confused.

Do you have any explanation on why half of the steppes decided to send me their money?

Growing up in France, when learning about the Roman empire, I got the idea that the Roman Empire/Republic was this massive entity who was very good at assimilating the peoples it conquered and converting them to Latin culture, like a big well-oiled assimilation machine. France itself being the prime example of a celtic region being entirely latinicized in just a few centuries.

However, the more I learn about the Roman Empire, the more I get the impression that this "mass assimilation" only happened in a few regions (namely, Italy, Iberia and Gaul), and that, throughout the rest of the empire, latinization was either limited to the main urban centers or straight up absent.

So how successful was the Roman Empire/Republic truly at latinizing the territories it conquered ?

I'm aware that the study of the origins of the various ancient nomadic people of the Eurasian Steppe is a very complex topic. But still, from my understanding, up until pretty late in antiquity, most of the Western and Central Steppes were dominated by various East Iranic peoples, most famous of which being the Scythian peoples.
Yet, from the end of the antiquity, the arrival of various Turkic peoples (not only Turkic, but they seem to have been majority) seem to have shattered this dominance. And over the next few centuries, the East Iranic people seem to have completely disappeared from the Steppes, as we don't hear ever again of new East Iranic nomadic groups.

How did this happen? What made it so that the Turkic nomadic peoples were able to consistently dominate the East Iranic nomadic peoples ?
And, how did that "replacement" happen? Were the Iranic nomads chased away (like in the Caucasus for the Alans) ? Were they assimilated ? Did they keep living within various turkic-dominated confederations, but without political leadership ? Had the various turkic peoples already been living in these regions for much longer than it seems today ?

Greetings fellow Civ fans,

Let's put this out of the way first: I'm not talking here about the outrageous pricing of the DLC, there's already atleast one post that adresses the issue.

My concern is about the "continuous paths" of civilizations.
With the coming of Brush and Blade, which adds Joseon, Goryeo, Heian and Sengoku, both Korea and Japan gain access to a "perfect continuity path" through all 3 ages. Thus adding them to a very private club that was so far only consisting of China and Mexico (through the spanish path).
And while this is great for Korea and Japan, I do also think that it opens up a pandora box of expectations. Because, since a DLC was released to specifically "fill" the paths of Korea and Japan, on top of giving them each a civ-appropriate leader, it would be fair from players to expect the same for most of the other civs, who don't have this luxury as of now.

However, it was always my understanding that one advantage of separating civs per age was to be able to explore more niche and/or local civs that might not have seen the light of day otherwise in a "classical" civ formula.
And I'm not sure how they can reconcile these 2 visions (unless they're willing to have a huge roster of civs for each age, which brings its own set of problems).

Unless, of course, the message is: We will keep adding civs/leaders without thinking too much about continuity, for our main expansions. But you can have continuous paths for the civ you like too, with an appropriate leader, if you're willing to pay 30 bucks of additional content designed for this civ and another.

Greetings everyone,

I have never been to Japan yet, but these days it feels like every single person around is going there, from friends to colleagues. And I definitely DO want to go to Japan one day, it being my long teenagehood dream. But precisely due to it being my teenagehood dream, I have always wanted this trip to be special, and I was imagining taking a whole month to travel all across Japan.

But by now, I have realized three things:
- Taking enough days off for a whole month worth of holidays is kinda inconvenient.
- Now that I've started looking at guides, I realize there is much more that I might want to see in each region that I initially thought.
- When I go on 2-3 weeks trips, I do end up getting mentally exhausted from the constant moving

So it brings me to this question: Is it really a good idea to take a whole month to travel across all Japan, from Kyushu to Hokkaido? Would that really give me enough time to enjoy properly each region, taking into account that I'm not the type of traveler who would enjoy staying that long in Tokyo ? Or is it better to cut it into 2 trips of 3-4 weeks each, one focusing on Central Japan (including Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka ofc) and then Tohoku and Hokkaido, and one focusing on Chugoku, Kyushu, Shikoku and Okinawa ? Or would even this be too ambitious?

If you have any personal experience to share to give me hindsight, that would be lovely 😄

Greetings everyone!

I'm not yet making a concrete travel plan for Greece, but it is definitely on my list as my next big vacation destination, and somewhere I've been wanting to go for a long time.
One particularity though is that I'm really into Greek traditional music, from Laiko to even more traditional genres. I know myself a few trad songs, that I love to sing.

And, if possible, I would like to experience this side of Greek culture when I go there, aka, go to places where I can experiences the vibe of traditional greek music. That would make me happier than seeing any touristic landmark.
I know that in Portugal, Fado bars/cafés are a thing, but what about Greece? Are there some places, or types of places, where, as a tourist, I can get to experience the vibe of traditional greek music in an authentic way?

If any of you have tips, or even experiences that you can share, I'd very happy to hear 😄

Je pense que tout le monde peut se rendre compte que, de facto, la campagne pour les présidentielles de 2027 (et les legislatives qui suivront, et seront au moins aussi importantes) a démarré.
Et alors, il peut encore se passer beaucoup de choses d'ici aux élections, beaucoup de retournements de situations. Alors, il est sans doute trop tôt encore pour désespérer. Mais, à l'heure actuelle, la situation à gauche est tragique: l'espoir d'une union de la gauche est pratiquement effondrée, tandis que Mélenchon et Glucksmann (dont le statut de candidat est un secret de polichinelle) font tout pour prendre de vitesse le reste de la gauche et s'imposer comme les deux seuls candidats.

Et je dis "tragique", parce que l'électorat de gauche dans son ensemble s'est encore fait avoir par ses leaders politiques.
Ce n'est pas un secret que l'écrasante majorité de l'électorat de gauche, dans son ensemble, désire une union de la gauche, c'est un fait. Il y a un an encore, la proportion d'électeurs de gauche désirant une seule candidature commune à la gauche s'élevait à 79% (come le témoigne l'étude jointe à cet article).
Et l'on aurait pu être en mesure d'attendre que nos leaders politiques de gauche, dans un contexte où l'extrême droite n'a jamais été aussi proche du pouvoir, se responsabilisent et écoutent leur électorat. Mais pourtant, aux deux extrêmes de la grande gauche, Mélenchon et Glucksmann, ont été incapables de mettre leur égo politique et leurs ambitions personnelles de côté, et ont préféré tous deux, d'abord torpiller toute initiative d'union de la gauche, puis maintenant se torpiller entre eux.
Et derrière l'excuse que "l'union n'aurait aucune chance de fonctionner ou de gagner" se cache la réalité que, dans le cas d'une union, ni Mélenchon ni Glucksmann n'auraient la moindre chance d'être désignés comme candidat, car trop peu consensuels. C'est donc dans le but de sécuriser leur propre ambition présidentielle qu'ils ont tous les deux oeuvré à rendre impossible une union.

Et que reste-t-il alors pour nous, la majorité des électeurs de gauche, qui ne peuvent calculter ni Glucskmann ni Mélenchon? Encore une fois, l'on veut nous forcer à voter par vote utile dès le premier tour, pour des candidats qui prétendent être capables de rassembler les électeurs non gauchistes derrière eux au second tour, alors qu'ils sont déjà incapables de faire voter l'électorat de gauche par conviction au premier tour. Des leaders politiques enfermés dans une fuite en avant, et qui continuent de se comporter comme si la gauche était dominante en France, alors que le risque d'être humiliés dès le premier tour, pour la 3e fois de suite, est très concret, et alors aussi que l'assemblée est divisée en 3 blocs incapables de s'entendre et va vraisemblablement rester ainsi pendant un moment.

J'accuse Glucksmann, et toute l'aile de droite du PS qui le soutient, d'avoir l'arrogance de penser que la gauche a le moindre espoir de gagner sans la force de mobilisation et de militantisme de LFI, et sans le soutien de l'électorat populaire des quartiers urbains.
Je les accuse de jouer le rôle des bouffons utiles de la droite, en se joignant par moments au festival de diabolisation de LFI lancé par la droite, et qui, via l'intermédiaire de LFI, sert en réalité à décrédibiliser l'ensemble de la gauche.
Je les accuse, eux qui veulent se donner l'image de camp de la raison, d'être sourds aux revendications et aux inquiétudes de leur électorat, et de favoriser une union du centre plutôt qu'une union de la gauche.

J'accuse Mélenchon d'être incapable de lâcher le pouvoir, et d'être complètement dans le déni de la réalité vis à vis de son obsession de vaincre l'extrême droite au second tour d'une présidentielle.
Je les accuse, lui et tout son fanclub qui l'érige comme homme providentiel, d'avoir l'irresponsabilité de mentir à leur électorat en prétendant que "le programme, tout le programme, rien que le programme" a la moindre chance d'avoir lieu dans le paysage politique actuel, et que la gauche peut gagner aujourd'hui sans faire le moindre compromis sur ses idées.
Je les accuse de se complaire dans une posture de perdants magnifiques plutôt que d'oser se "salir" politiquement pour véritablement faire le nécessaire pour gagner.

Je les accuse, tous les deux et leurs soutiens respectifs, de dépenser plus d'énergie à saborder toute initiative d'union de la gauche et à se tapper dessus mutuellement que contre la droite et l'extrême droite.
Je les accuse d'être incapables de mettre leur égo de côté dans un contexte qui demande de la responsabilisation à gauche.
Je les accuse d'alimenter le mythe que les différents électorats de gauche sont irréconciliables alors que nous partageons la grande majorité de nos valeurs et que nous partageons en majorité le souhait d'une union de la gauche.
Je les accuse d'être aujourd'hui les plus grands obstacles à la victoire des idées de la gauche en 2027.

Petit besoin de râler mineur, pas de gros drama mais quand même

Hier matin, alors qu'il faisait pas encore aussi chaud que ce matin, mais ça commençait déjà à tapper, j'étais dans le bus pour faire mon trajet vers le taff. Le bus était plein à craquer à cause de soucis sur la ligne de train (malaise voyageur). Sauf que sur cette ligne de bus, il n'y a pas de clim. Donc l'air à l'intérieur devient rapidement irrespirable quand il fait chaud et que le bus est complètement plein comme il l'était à ce moment.
Et là, à une station, alors qu'il y a peine de la place pour monter, une vieille dame, très visiblement autour de 80 ans, décide de monter malgré tout, sachant qu'il aurait été impossible pour les gens de s'écarter pour lui laisser un chemin vers un siège, le bus était trop plein pour ça. Cela veut donc dire qu'elle est montée en sachant qu'elle allait devoir rester debout, collée à des gens dans un bus qui ressemblait à un sauna.
Et j'ai trouvé ça complètement irresponsable de sa part. C'est de connaissance commune que pendant les périodes de chaleurs, les personnes âgées sont particulièrement vulnérables à faire des malaises. Mais se mettre volontairement dans une telle situation, c'est se mettre sciemment en danger. Alors qu'elle aurait pu au moins attendre 10 mins, le temps que 1 bus ou 2 passent et "vident" les passagers du train supprimé.

Coup de chance, il ne lui est rien arrivé au final.
Mais je ne comprends pas que des personnes âgées soient suffisamment irresponsables mettent volontairement dans des situations où il y a un fort risque de faire un malaise.

Voilà, c'est une râlerie mineure. Je me doute bien que si les gens sont irresponsables enfants, ados et adultes, ça ne s'arrête magiquement quand ils deviennent vieux. Mais j'avais besoin de râler un coup!

Before anything, I do want to precise my position that I have always been against the war, due to being convinced that it would only make things worse for the Iranian people. And this post is not an endorsement of the war that happened.

However, now that the war seems to be kind of heading toward the end (hard to say though, with the lunacy of both Trump and the IRGC), and that many of you are starting to despair, as the first version of the deal has been made public, I want to offer some sort of silver lining.
Yes, if this deal actually goes through, it would be a big diplomatic humiliation for the US. But more importantly, it would essentially give free hands for the IR to carry out a violent repression against any opposition, atleast in the short term. It's important to keep this in mind.

However, while I'm still not supporting what happened, the fact remains that it has happened and that we gotta look at things as how they are now, and not with what-ifs.
And as such, we must acknowledge the fact that the war has essentially completely shattered the narrative that the IRGC has based their whole legitimacy on. The legitimacy of IRGC power relies on the idea of an existential conflict against the USA and Israel, and the idea that only them are able to lead the country to victory against them. They have justified taking control of every layer of Iranian society and draining it of its source by explaining that they're the only ones who can protect Iran against the "existential ennemies".
But the IR may cut internet off, censor information, and spread lies as much as they want, they can't do anything about the fact that dozens of millions of Iranians were able to see clear as day how the regime was completely unable to protect the country, as bombs kept falling, and as IR leaders kept dying. Without any consequential loss inflicted upon their ennemies in return.
It is very much a complete military humiliation, for a military dictatorship.

And this matters for the supporters of the regime.
Those who still support the regime are, for the most part, people who do so on an ideological level. And to them, the shattering of the IRGC legitimacy narrative is probably more important than we realize.
Even with a deal that's ridiculously advantageous to the IR, the military humiliation it has suffered may cause many supporters of the regime to denounce it as too weak, and unable to fullfill its promises. It may lead the supporters of the regime to question the legitimacy of the IRGC holding so much power since they're unable to protect the country.
And if the right strings are pulled, it could cause the IR to be trapped between 2 fires: the fear of an uprising from those who want it completely gone, and the fear of losing the support of their supporters and seeing them turn on them (for different reasons).
And from this point, it would be the beginning of the end. Because either they double down by going even more radical and antagonizing even more people in the process. Or they try to keep things as they are and eventually implode from internal tensions.
Maybe my assumptions about supporters of the regime are completely wrong, and this is all wishful thinking for trying to find some good in the bad. But that's my observation of the situation now.

TL;DR: The regime can't hold on without any support. And while the war has been pretty shitty so far for what it brought to the Iranian people, we must not underestimate the long term impact it has had by shattering the narrative on which the IRGC was basing their legitimacy.

Greetings everyone!

I have been interested in the topic of celtic folk music for a while. As an amateur, I sing and play a bunch of irish and breton songs, and sometimes scottish ballads. And recently I've started getting into Galician music. I wouldn't dare calling myself an expert at celtic music, but I do believe that I have some solid understanding of the melodies and patterns of celtic music across various "celtic regions".
When one talks about "celtic music", unless they use it as a replacement for irish music, they typically mean music from the "celtic nations" (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, Mann) + that of Galicia. The inclusion of Galicia is due to the celtic past of Galicia and the presence in some of its traditional music of "celtic patterns".

But as someone who also listens to a lot of traditional music from other parts of Europe, I've been increasingly wondering if the concept of "Celtic music" actually has any "musicological" basis.
I see 3 main problems with it:
- There aren't always a lot of similar patterns/melodies between music from different celtic regions. If you compare Breton and Irish traditional music for exemple, the similarities are not exactly very obvious.
- Other non-celtic regions in Western Europe sometimes show similar types of melodies and instruments than that of other celtic regions. I have been listening to Gascon bands whose traditional dances are sometimes almost irish sounding.
- The presence of "irish-sounding" melodies in regions like Brittany and Galicia often has more to do with a recent introduction due to a wider "celtic revival" movement taking inspiration from Irish culture.

I sometimes have this idea that rather than a real "celtic music", what we consider as celtic music is actually the remnants of a Western European or Atlantic European musical tradition, that has disappeared except in a few regions where the modern Western musical tradition hasn't wiped out the traditional music. But I don't have anything to back this idea, being myself not a musicologist.

TL;DR: Hence my question: Is what we consider today as celtic music truly the product of a specifically celtic musical tradition, or is it the product of a wider Atlantic European musical tradition, or even Western European musical tradition?

Greetings everyone! I hope it's okay to just share my experience as a tourist on this sub

I just finished this Sunday a roughly 2 weeks trip in Uzbekistan (with a small detour in Tajikistan), with a friend. And this trip has truly captured my heart, and I will forever keep a very fond memory of it. And I felt the need to express it.

Our itinerary was fairly classical. We went through Toshkent, Boxoro and Samarqand, with also a little stay in the Nuratau mountains, and also in the Ugam-Chatkal Mountains. We didn't even have time (without rushing) to go to Xiva and the desert, and in the Farg'ona valley. But even then, I was amazed by what I saw, be it the ridiculously beautiful cities of Samarqand and Buxoro, the gorgeous and diverse nature, and the very pleasant capital of Toshkent with all its really nice parks.
And mind you, the trip was not all walk in the park. I caught the traveller's diarrhea pretty early, and got a pretty bad episode at some point which got me stuck to bed for like a day and half. And my weak north-western european ass had a hard time handling the constant heat. But even this was not enough to take away all the enjoyment I felt while visiting ! And my memory of the trip is overwhelmingly positive !

You guys have a really beautiful country, and I can only wish for Uzbekistan to keep having growing tourism, so that more and more people start knowing and caring about this country.
I hope to come back one day, to visit the places I haven't seen yet, and make someone else discover the beauty of Uzbekistan.

Special credits to:
That wholesome vendor assistant in that beautiful miniature paiting gallery in Buxoro; this nice Suzani maker in Buxoro, who took time to explain me the meaning behind all patterns and figures while I was being indecisive af; that guy in this small rooftop café in Buxoro who was making his own tea recipes which were so delicious (I'm so sad that I didn't think to ask his number, to know his recipes); the kids in this Nuratau village who wanted to play football with us and completely exhausted me; this hilarious family hotel owner who couldn't speak a word in english yet kept trying to chat with us, offer us tea, and eagerly joked around with us about our diarrhea problems with outrageously funny mimics; this waiter in Samarqand who had this hobby of drawing the flags of the home country of every foreigner he served; this awkward taxi driver at the Tajik border whose first words after I mentioned that my friend was german were "Germaniya, heil H*tler" (yeah that was uncomfortable af, but also weirdly funny); this old 4x4 driver in the Ugam-Chatkal mountains who kept stopping every 15 mins to put water on this engine; this Tajik taxi driver who was very eager to teach us the Tajik/Farsi etymology of Uzbek words and places; this girl we crossed during a hike and who wanted to tag along but who then gave up after she realized this hike might be too hard for her; and all the locals who gave me a warm smile when I tried to speak my clumsy Uzbek that I learned before the trip !

With kindness,

A tourist

Greetings fellow civ enjoyers!

I'm part of the big crowd of "classic civ" players who didn't manage to fall in love with the civ swapping design of Civ 7 and who had given up on the game as a result. When the ToT update was announced, I was skeptic, but the positive comments from early access content creators slowly made me warm up with the idea and look forward to it.
So I decided to give it another chance, and I reinstalled the game yesterday with the ToT update. And well...it was definitely a more enjoyable Civ experience for me, and it might even reconcile me with the game.
Now, you can tell that the game was not designed for this, and that it will never feel like a full "classic civ" experience (once again, from the point of view of someone who doesn't like civ switching). But, I feel like it is a good compromise between a "classic civ" vision and the core design of Civ 7. A compromise that's honestly better than I was expecting.

There are still some hiccups, of course.
Like, with the civ now being continuous, I thought I would be fine with dissociating completely the leaders from the civ. And after trying the random leader-civ association, I realized that no, it still feels too off-putting (to me atleast), so I'll stick with default setting. Though it comes at the price of seeing a less varied pool of civs each game.
And also, now, when everyone is sticking to their civ, the age "transitions" feel completely artificial and arbitrary.
It's on the edges that you see the limits of the compromise. But I'm talking in good faith, and I do honestly believe that it's good enough for most "classic civ" players to enjoy the game now, and with it, enjoy the new nice mechanics of Civ 7 and its beautiful art style, without the frustration of the civ switching.

So, to any player who is like me, is still feeling on the fence, and already bought the game before, I do encourage you to give it a second chance like I did :)

With all that said, with the frustration of the civ switching gone, what were previously secondary gripes with the game has now become my new main criticism. Namely, there are 2 main points for me.

The first thing is the map readability.
The UI is definitely better, so it's not a matter of UI, but of pure visual reading. Because, while the art style is beautiful and very pleasant to look at zoomed-in, it comes at the price of being very hard to read at first glance. When I look at my city, unless I remember where I built each district (which never happens), I can't tell where is what based purely on looking.
It's fine when you have 1 or 2 small city. But once you get into exploration age, that you go past 2-3 cities, and each starts having many urban districts, it becomes unreadable. I have to open the city information, and hover on each district to know what is built there. And don't get me started on the Modern Age, where everything looks like undistiguishable urban blob until you zoom in.
It's one of those cases where aesthetic enjoyment comes at the price of gameplay readability.

And my second point is that we're really missing the "transition" part of Age Transitions.
As of now, Age Transitions are just an arbitrary big time jump to a few centuries later. But there is no transition whatsoever.
Instead, by the time you reach the last quarter or even last third of your age, so, arguably, when you reach the climax of your age, everything you research and build feel a bit pointless, because you'll barely have time to make use of it before it's rendered obsolete by the Time Jump.
The Age ends and the subsequent time jump still feel arbitrary and push you into a feeling of rush when you're supposed to be at your peak. I don't want to feel rushed when I'm finally getting to the best stuff of the age.
What's missing is an actual transition. Systems and mechanics that cover the transition between 2 ages, and make it so that you're not just time jumping, but actually living through the end of one of the peak of your civilization, and the rise of a new age. Such systems would also support better, imho, the narrative for civ switching players. And I hope future expansions (if they do come) will take a look at this part of the game, rather than adding a 4th age.

Thank you for reading me, and sorry for the text wall

Salom to all!

I'm coming for a 2 weeks rip in your beautiful country with a friend at the end of the week. We will do the "classic" Toshkent-Samarqand-Buxoro trio, but also with a bit of traveling in Nuratau region, and we wanna do some hiking in the Ugam Chatkal area.
The thing is, while we're both fluent in English, none of us speaks any Russian. And I've been taking a few private online classes of Uzbek to get the basics of the language, but I don't believe this will be nearly enough to make us get by, so I don't think I can rely on this very basic knowledge.

Which makes me wonder: are we gonna struggle as tourists with only english in the country? When we go off the main cities, like for hiking in Ugam Chatkal, is it gonna be hard to find information?
I'm also a bit worried about getting overcharged for everything due to people taking advantage of language barrier and lack of knowledge of how much things actually cost.

So, in short: with only english fluency (and a very basic Uzbek level), how much can we expect to struggle to get around ?

Katta rahmat in advance for all advice :)

Greetings my dear wholesome fellow ENFPs and other lurkers!

Wanna share a bit of misfortune of my personal life, to get some external hindsight.

I'm a 27 ENFP guy, and let's say my dating life in my 20s has been plagued by me trapping myself into toxic situations. But one pattern in particular I have observed is getting ghosted suddenly by someone who was dear to me, without any explanation.
It has happened so far 4 times during the course of my 20s.

Two of those were girls I had been talking with for several weeks, and with whom a very obvious mutual crush was developping. And in both case, the girl suddenly disappeared with no explanation, and no signs that things were dying down, and never ever reappeared.

Another was the one who was my best friend for 5~6 years. We did have a complicated relationship due to us being strongly romantically attracted to each other, but not wanting to get into a relationship due to distance. This complicated relationship did have bumps along the way. And throughout the last 2 years or so, she did develop a habit of suddenly disappearing for several weeks, or sometimes even months, without explanation.
And it all culminated when she eventually ghosted me...permanently. Once again, without any explanation whatsoever. And I still, one year later, have no clue about the reason why she ended our friendship in such a hurtful and insulting way.

And the last one was a close friend of mine from Ukraine. We had been friends for like 2 years, and she even came to visit for 1 week. Plus, she was a fellow ENFP. She really didn't have a nature of disappearing. But one day, she just stopped giving any sign of life.
And for a long time, I thought she had been killed by a Russian bombing. Until I saw her Telegram profile picture being new, which confirmed to me that she was alive. So this was a huge relief, but it also meant that she, also, had ghosted me without any explanation.

Now, I'm not gonna pretend that ghosting is something unusual in our connected society. We are all familiar with it, and I'm pretty sure we have all been guilty of it atleast once.
And ghosting someone you don't really vibe with anymore is one thing. But ghosting someone you're close to suddenly without ever giving any sign of explanation is another.
And if it happened once, even twice, I could have put it on the fault of bad luck. But the fact that it happened to me 4 times in less than 7 years is weird enough for me to start really asking myself questions.
And of course, it forces me to wonder if I am the problem. But the thing is, I'm honestly pretty self aware, I was seeing a therapist until not that long ago. If I had a toxic behavior that would cause people close to me to cut me from their life like that, I would genuinely know it.
But 4 times is a lot for it to be simply coincidence. And the only common point with these 4 people is that I had an online connection with them. So I guess you could argue that the relationship was less solid than with someone I'd know from real life. But I'm not fully convinced by this.

Which leads me to ask you my fellow ENFPs: Is this something you have also been confronted to in your life? And do you think it's just bad luck with choice of people, or do you think the pattern must imply a deeper cause?
And if there is a cause, I need to know. Because each of those did really hurt (to various degrees ofc), and I would like to not have to go through this ever again.

TL;DR: Throughout my 20s, I have been suddenly ghosted with no explanation by 4 people close to me: 2 mutual crushes, one close friend, and one best friend/romantic interest. Has this ever happened to you to? Can this be truly be just very bad luck, or must there be a deeper cause?

Spanish culture is disappearing in front of our eyes, and the world is remaining silent. An old and proud culture that has brought so much to the world, vanishing in complete indifference. It's not even funny anymore.

And I experienced it first-hand very recently.

I organized some kind of small meetup at a bar, with people from various countries, among which was one spaniard.
And, I kid you not: he showed up on time. The actual time we had agreed on.
This mf had the audacity to arrive right at the planned time, and acted as if nothing. What kind of shit is that???

I don't care what they tell you in school, this is not spanish culture.
Back when things were more proper, whenever you'd invite a spaniard to any kind of event, they would systematically show up at least 2 hours late like it's the most normal things. Then everyone would throw a little comment on how they're always so late, and we would all have a laugh at this.

To think that now, they come on time... This is what it's got replaced with. It is truly the collapse of spanish culture.
In a few years, it will have completely disappeared, mark my words. And no one will remember the good old times when spanish people were constantly late.

Rant over.