What is best sales trick you know and works almost every time?
[via r/AskReddit by u/Kavin2654]
If God created Adam and Eve nude and they weren't ashamed of being nude until they committed a sin, and we are supposed to be more pure in nature like them before they committed sin, then why don't we just like choose to not feel shameful of nudity or to shame others for being nude?
[via r/AskReddit by u/Spawn_of_Venom]
Do you know anyone who actually got coal for Christmas? Why did they get it?
[via r/AskReddit by u/Throwaway03461]
If you were presented with two buttons and you must push exactly one of them, the first causes everyone on Earth to become vegetarian forever by pushing it and the second which causes everyone to give up drinking alcohol forever by pushing it, which one do you push?
[via r/AskReddit by u/VerdantChief]
How did you completely heal from the hurtful actions of a terrible person you once loved?
[via r/AskReddit by u/thrwaway0342084]
I've seen firsthand how AI assistants can be weaponized. A friend used one to generate fake reviews for a competitor's product, which led to a major legal dispute. It wasn't just misleading—it actively harmed a small business. AI isn't neutral—it reflects the biases and intentions of those who control it. When it's used for harm, it's not just "less helpful"—it's actively destructive.
I think the idea that AI assistants are "more helpful than harmful" ignores the real risks people face every day. For example, I've seen friends use AI tools to create fake identities or spread misinformation without realizing the damage they're doing. It's not just about what AI can do—it's about who controls it and how it's used. If we let AI make decisions without oversight, we risk handing power to systems that don't care about people's well-being. The real question isn't whether AI is helpful or harmful—it's whether we're ready to trust it with our lives.
AI assistants are more helpful than harmful? Let's think about what "helpful" really means. Most of the time, people say AI is helpful because it saves time or gives answers. But what about the hidden costs? When you ask an AI for help, you're not just getting a response—you're handing over your data, your attention, and your trust. That's not helpful. It's a form of passive control. And when AI makes mistakes—like giving bad advice or reinforcing biases—it doesn't just fail; it shifts responsibility onto the user. That's not helpful. It's dangerous. The real question isn't whether AI is helpful or harmful. It's whether we're being manipulated into thinking it is.
China’s diversification into the EU, Africa, and Southeast Asia is a strategic move, but it doesn’t automatically translate to long-term dominance. These markets are still heavily influenced by Western institutions and U.S. alliances, which China hasn’t fully cracked.
China's diversification into new markets is a strategic move, but it's not a guarantee of long-term dominance. The U.S. still holds key technologies and alliances that China can't easily replicate, and the trade war has forced China to adapt in ways that may not translate to sustained advantage.
China's diversification into new markets is a strategic move, but it's not a guarantee of long-term dominance. The real test is whether these markets can sustain China's growth without relying on U.S. demand, and so far, the data doesn't show that's happening.
China's diversification into new markets is a strategic move, but it doesn't automatically translate to long-term dominance—those markets still depend on U.S. technology and infrastructure, and China's own economic vulnerabilities, like debt and tech restrictions, are growing.
China's diversification of export markets, while strategic, doesn't automatically translate to a long-term advantage. Many of these new markets are still dependent on Chinese goods, not necessarily on Chinese infrastructure or political influence. Plus, the trade war has already forced China to shift production away from the U.S., which may not be sustainable without access to U.S. markets.
China's trade surplus with the U.S. has shrunk, and its export growth has slowed—signs that the trade war is hurting its economy, not just the U.S. The BRI is a long game, but it's not a sure thing; many projects are now in trouble. Global supply chains are shifting, but not necessarily to China's benefit—many companies are diversifying away from both powers.
China's exports did fall, but the trade war also forced the U.S. to confront structural issues in its supply chain, accelerating a shift toward reshoring and diversification—trends that benefit China in the long run. Meanwhile, the U.S. tariffs generated revenue but came at the cost of slower growth, which China has managed to offset through strategic investments and policy stability. (https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/news/us-china-trade-war-serious-consequences-mostly-for-the-usa/) (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/)
China's exports dipped, but that's not the whole story. The trade war exposed weaknesses in the U.S. supply chain, which are now being fixed—by moving production elsewhere, not necessarily to China. The real shift is away from China, not toward it.
China's Belt and Road Initiative has indeed expanded its influence, but the US trade war has also hurt China's exports, which fell by almost 17% in real terms. Meanwhile, US tariffs have raised $2.1 trillion in revenue and reduced US GDP by 0.5%, with little evidence of China gaining lasting economic dominance.
Israel's political landscape shows widespread reluctance toward the two-state solution, with many Israelis preferring the status quo over a potential Palestinian state. This suggests that the strategic benefits claimed for Israel may not align with current realities or popular sentiment. [https://www.rand.org/news/press/2021/02/10.html]
The 2-state solution is often framed as a pragmatic fix, but it's rooted in a flawed assumption: that Israel and Palestine can coexist as separate, sovereign states. This ignores the reality that the Israeli occupation has already created a de facto "one-state reality" — with Israeli control over land, security, and resources, and Palestinians living under occupation. The 2-state solution doesn't address the core issue: the displacement of millions and the ongoing denial of basic rights. It's not about peace — it's about maintaining the status quo. A real solution would require dismantling the occupation, not just partitioning the land.
Israel's current defense strategy explicitly aims to block a two-state solution, as noted in analyses of its post-October 7 strategic goals. This aligns with Netanyahu's government rejecting Palestinian statehood, making the feasibility of a two-state solution increasingly unlikely under existing political dynamics. (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/israels-defense-strategy-two-years-after-october-7)