u/Wide-Bat-6760

Parents that give their kids screens that are not even teenagers yet, need to monitor their kids' screen times better. That would prevent a lot of kids from finding out the dangerous trends and searching bad things on social media.
Not giving them phones and limiting their computer access is more on the parents than the CEOs.
I understand legally CEOs have some blame. But a most of the accountability (not legally, morally) is on the parents giving their kids excessive screens without supervision.

Western Europe are the powers that became big early on, Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain.

They became early world colonizers. What made that area so politically fragmented?

That is supposed to be a factor that led to Europeans being able to industrialize and not have their innovative ideas cut off.

Were other places not politically fragmented? Like in Asia, the Indian subcontinent would have been fragmented due to the diverse group of people. I would assume Africa was as well, being its the most diverse continent.

I am defining those continents and areas as we see them on a modern map.

Was it solely the easy access to coal in Britain? Or are there other theories?

I wouldn't think The Great Divergence suddenly occurred with the Industrial Revolution. I'm assuming there must have been other factors leading up to it that caused it to happen that way.

Because before that, were all 3 of those continents not already trading with each other? Would that not have spread technological knowledge somewhat evenly amongst all 3 continents?

I know we humans are not purely instinctive animals, we also have cultural norms. Culture is intertwined with our beliefs and our decisions.

There's the different types of monogamy and different types of polygamy mammals have.

There's the general characteristics, but there are always exceptions to these. Humans could easily be exceptions to the general rules we see, humans tend to be an exception to a lot of things that generally apply to mammals.

Polygamy where 1 male mates with multiple females, tend to have males larger than females with sexual dimorphism.

Monogamous animals tend to have males and females look similar and be similar sizes.

What factors could we look at to see what mating system humans naturally tend towards?

Like we know that humans have sexual dimorphism, like men being taller, women having larger breasts, men having facial hair. The shape of genitalia would be useful for getting a competitor's sperm out so their own sperm could go in.

Our closest primate cousins, bonobos and chimpanzees are not monogamous. Bonobos have everyone mating with everyone, chimpanzees are usually males competing for females. But that female chimps also mate with multiple males so no one knows who the father is.

Humans are social animals. Meaning in tribes, there would have been multiple males and multiple females. In animals with large family groups, there can be that males leave their group and join another or that females leave their group and join another.

Gibbons are monogamous primates but are not closely related to us.

But, we know there are significant differences between humans vs chimps and bonobos. A big one being humans give birth to helpless young, with long childhoods, and long maturity times compared to other animals of our size. Which, serial monogamy (lifelong of only 1 male and 1 female mating together) would be most helpful.

Do we also know if humans would have had males leave their birth family to start a new family or if females would leave to start a new family?

Humans I mean Homo sapiens.
Ancient, I mean hunter-gatherer tribes.
Modern, I mean agricultural and after.
I know the average age being 30 was due to high child mortality and plenty lived past 30 due to care from fellow tribe members but obviously not as long as today, with modern medicine, science, and sanitation.
With current human generation times being about 20 years and humans on average not reaching full mental maturity until their 20s, did they mature faster and our maturity has gotten slower over time due to living longer?
Like I know women due to better nourishment, start puberty earlier because it’s based on fat content.

I keep a handwritten journal and have kept one for years on end.

I'm curious what kind of narration your journal is in, 1st person, 3rd person, or even another narration?

Like are you referring to yourself in 1st person like, "Today I went walking. I was thinking about..."

Or the 3rd person, "Today 'insert your own name' went to the grocery store. She/he thought..."

Everyone makes fun of the teenage girl stereotype of keeping a diary. But, I genuinely like the idea that someone writes to their diary and discusses things with their diary! I think that idea is fun of you discussing things with your 'diary' but it's really you discussing with you.

The stereotypical:

"Dear Diary,

Diary can you believe 'Jane' likes 'John'? Here's why I think so Diary!"

I genuinely like that idea. You're having a discussion with yourself, but the diary makes it seem like an outside perspective.

Edit:
I write in my diary with the idea that one day, I may reread it, future family members may read it when I die, or random future humans or aliens may want to read it when I die to learn things about the past. Like how we read dead people’s diaries to figure out what happened in history.
So I do indeed write at least: “Dear future self, future humans, or family members,”
Referring to my Diary as a person or sentient being makes it easier if people want to read it when I’m dead. Instead of being like, “I can’t follow this guy’s inner monologue.

What tense/s do you use? Past, present, future? Combos of them?
I use combos depending on what’s going. If it’s an ongoing event, you have present. But most of the time it’s me reflecting and narrating what already happened and finished, so it’s usually past tense.

Like that whole “boneless pizzas” prank. It’s technically correct, it’s just weird to say that.
Another example is the riddle of the 2 coins totaling 15 cents.
I once had a colleague say, “It’s been over 1 year since mammoths went extinct!” The number wasn’t wrong. It was just weird to use a number that small.

It seems like it would be a good idea for an emergency contact or some type of emergency general service.

Ryan using it for fun, casual communication was just the wrong way to use it.

Not for school, got a dog recently and it's increased my interest in evolution of dogs.

I'm assuming it's not something humans did intentionally, it just happened during domestication and was advantageous.

Canines (gray wolves, coyotes, red foxes, etc.), for the most part, are usually serially monogamous. 1 male and 1 female in a lifelong bond. The male is actively involved raising his offspring.

Dogs are polygamous and have no paternal instincts that are known. Male dogs do not recognize their puppies and just interact with puppies like they're smaller dogs. Mother dogs will often not let the father near the puppies until the puppies are older.

What was the evolutionary advantage of this?

There are polygamous animals, that can recognize their offspring and will contribute to raising them in some way.

It seems to be a universal moral value that suicide is bad, but why?

Many religions condemn it as an idea of “self murder,” when only the higher power is allowed to take life. But, what about without a higher power or religion?

Some people genuinely have no will to go on and they didn’t choose to be born. Why force them?

Not everyone’s life turns around like a lot of survivors say. People’s lives go on and only become worse from there. So it caused them more harm.

I’ve heard “it’s selfish because it affects those around you.” But, that’s not putting their own needs first. They need to take care of #1 first. Plus, some people are alone and have no loved ones.

By forcing someone to continue living when they don’t want to, it’s causing them more harm because it’s giving them no peace. With suicide, they can achieve peace.

There’s not enough therapy and medication in the world for some people. Some people genuinely can’t manage life after doing all mental health interventions.

People hospitalized for suicide can get committed to a psych ward. And will lie to get out because the psych ward makes them feel worse.

It seems like it restricts bodily autonomy and freedom to not allow someone to take their own life. There are people that check all those boxes. I understand some people have mental health conditions. But people without mental health conditions can want to commit suicide. So what makes it morally wrong?

It seems to be a universal moral value that suicide is bad, but why?
Many religions condemn it as an idea of “self murder,” when only the higher power is allowed to take life. But, what about without a higher power or religion?
Some people genuinely have no will to go on and they didn’t choose to be born. Why force them?
Not everyone’s life turns around like a lot of survivors say. People’s lives go on and only become worse from there. So it caused them more harm.
I’ve heard “it’s selfish because it affects those around you.” But, that’s not putting their own needs first. They need to take care of #1 first. Plus, some people are alone and have no loved ones.
By forcing someone to continue living when they don’t want to, it’s causing them more harm because it’s giving them no peace. With suicide, they can achieve peace.
There’s not enough therapy and medication in the world for some people. Some people genuinely can’t manage life after doing all mental health interventions.
It seems like it restricts bodily autonomy and freedom to not allow someone to take their own life.
There are people that check all those boxes. I understand some people have mental health conditions. But people without mental health conditions can want to commit suicide. So what makes it morally wrong?

I’m rewatching a lot of things recently.
I’m seeing after entering my 30s my views on a lot of things in the shows and/or movies have changed.
Who are romances you now hate as an older person but liked as a younger person?
For me, in How I Met Your Mother, the rewatch made me see Ted and Robin were bad for each other. Now that I’m older and trying to get married (assuming I’m not already too old to find love) my opinion has shifted. I liked them as a teen. But being older made me realize when Robin said she didn’t want kids, that was a red flag and Ted should’ve stopped right there. Ted wanted kids and Robin didn’t, that’s a make or break value where there’s no compromise.

https://preview.redd.it/pngl5wqy841h1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=72b3ff4d54e9e656e18b7404f2a22cd13bc70eb1

On the skin chart, I'd be skin type 4 or 5.

My face, nose, and ears are way lighter than my neck, arms, and legs. I would assume your face is supposed to be the darkest, given it's the main part always exposed.

Everything but my face gets darker. My face just gets red cheeks in the sun that go away in a few minutes after I go inside. I'm mainly outside because I'm walking my dog, which is what I'm utilizing to be outside in UV index 1-2. I'm wearing sunscreen SPF 70 on my entire body and face (it's a face safe sunscreen). It's purely cosmetic, so it's not a big deal. It just ruins the aesthetic that there's a giant and visible tan line between my face and neck.

Aren't communism and capitalism opposites and incompatible?

Capitalism is about private ownership. But in communism, there is no private ownership, the people own everything.

How can China have both?

Everyone asks if people are good or bad. But, it's possible there's more than those 2 choices.

Morality is a spectrum, so there's not just 2 choices.

It's also possible different are born on different places of the morality spectrum.

Which one do you believe and why?

There's the old cliche of how the books are better than the movies that are made from them.

What is a movie that was better than the book?

While I hate The Notebook now (as a person in my 30s), I loved it as a teen and young adult. I read the book and thought the movie was better. Especially because in the book, he says he wrote her a few times. But, in the movie, it's the signature thing everyone knows, he writes her 365 times. That's way better!

I know communism and socialism are not the same, it's just most humans I know don't know this. So the majority of people I know that say they're the same are in the wrong. I'm an American, if that helps.

Communism is everyone is 1 class, wealth is redistributed equally to everyone, and the people publicly own everything. It's what Karl Marx talks about.

Socialism is there are private things owned but also things that get distributed publicly. Like people call it "free healthcare." But it's paid for. People just pay a higher tax and that is where the money comes from. People call it "free," but it actually isn't because taxes pay for it, like public roads.

I know socialism and capitalism are compatible because things like public schools exist in America. I know that things in socialism are not "free." They are paid for, but most people I know don't know this.

Everyone that's anti-socialism either calls it a transition step towards communism or they straight think it's communism.

Is it not its own standalone ideology that goes with capitalism?

I know there's many theories as to what caused it. I've read about the ideas of: geography, luck, and culture.

Like there's explanations of coal access being the big factor, Europe's geography encouraging political fragmentation, the idea of mercantilism, etc.

Purely for curiosity.

There's the famous line by Hans Landa, people like squirrels but hate rats and mice.

Rodents are one of my go to examples. Lots of people think gerbils, guinea pigs, hamsters, capybaras, or beavers are cute. But, lots of those same people probably hate rats and mice. Gerbils and mice look very similar.

Is there a reason for this?

I personally have nothing against any of our fellow animals. I know when I get into conflicts with mice, rats, or mosquitoes, I don't like it. But, I know their survival goals just happen to conflict with mine and they're also just trying to make a living.