Stop trying to make fetch happen.

Not sure if they get much hate but they sure get a lot of shit

I used to feel the same as you. But the short answer here is because the law chooses to focus on the welfare of the child over either of the parents. It isn’t about being fair to the mother or the father. The mother and the father made the child. The child needs care. The mother and the father are the most reasonably responsible for its care.

Fair enough. Sounds like A is going to have to decide whether they talk to B directly, complain to the supervisor that B still isn’t meeting expectations, or drop it. But keeping you in the middle isn’t going to solve the problem and it needs to stop. You can say that firmly but nicely and with validation. (The validation is important to maintaining your relationship with A.)

At the end of the day, this sounds like a failure at the management level. If B is known to be underperforming, it’s on management to either find a way to help B improve or replace B. Management’s failure here is hurting all 3 of you. A has a right to be pissed. B needs guidance or the boot. And you need to be free of this mess.

I think you need to tell A that sharing this feedback with you won’t help B change, and that they need to address B directly or talk to their supervisor.

You can also say that sharing this feedback with you is putting you in an uncomfortable position, as you are friends with both of them, and you need it to stop. It’s perfectly okay to validate A’s complaints (“I understand why you feel the way you do”) so that A doesn’t feel like you are dismissing them. But that doesn’t mean you have to be in the middle.

Having spent many years in corporate life, I can tell you that one of the biggest blockers to people improving is that no one tells them there is a problem to begin with. Person B may have no idea they’re underperforming. And to be fair, I can’t tell from this whether their supervisor would even agree that B is underperforming; B may be doing just fine from management’s perspective, in which case A needs to let it go.

Good luck!

That demo struck me as a cherry-picked example. Can it work? Sure. Is it always that smooth? I highly highly doubt it.

I see you’re getting a lot of answers from both sides of the spectrum. But if you’re struggling, I want to help.

Being in a behavior health ward is good for when you can’t help yourself anymore, or need significant treatment that’s difficult to handle via outpatient (like electroconvulsive treatments). It’s not like a hospital stay where you walk out cured of some infection. It’s more like a stay in the hospital after a huge car accident. They’ll get you stable, they’ll set you up with a therapist for long-term recovery, and meds to manage the symptoms.

You’re right that talk doesn’t fix money problems and things like that. But what it does do is help you keep from suffering alone AND it teaches you how to manage the feelings in a healthier way. That can be the difference between falling apart in the face of money trouble and having the skills to focus on finding a solution–or even just a way to survive.

The thing about depression is that it makes everything feel worthless and hopeless. You have to trust that you can’t properly interpret whether a solution will work for you, and that the medical experts you align with are going to have a clearer view of what will help bring you out of the depression.

That doesn’t mean all therapists are good. Or that a good therapist for someone else will fit you. But those are problems you can start to manage once you’ve taken a few steps toward recovery (assuming they turn out to be problems at all).

I’ve been in therapy for over a decade, on meds for just as long, and once in a ward for a week. Does it suck to be “trapped” in the unit? Yep. It’s not a party in there. I don’t ever want to go back. But when I did go in, it was because I felt like I legitimately couldn’t take care of myself or see a way forward. In that regard, it saved me. So if my biggest complaint is that I felt stuck for a few days, well… so be it.

But there are many other options before being admitted. There are social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, intensive outpatient programs, ketamine therapy, and more. You may never need to be admitted at all if you can get to treatment before you’re completely overwhelmed. Sometimes the solution is incredibly simple, like getting more vitamin D and a proper sleep schedule. Sometimes it takes a little ongoing medicine with weekly talk sessions. Sometimes it’s more. But whatever it is, it’s worth it. You can be happy in tough situations, but if you’re depressed you can’t be happy even in good situations. And that’s no way to live.

Long story short: if you’re depressed you aren’t equipped to judge whether a solution will work without trying it, you have very little to lose by trying therapy, and the potential gains are the difference between misery and a fulfilling life. A mental institution is an extreme measure that’s only part of a longer-term solution, and you may never need it. But it can be the literal difference between life and death if you’re at the end of your rope.

So imagine a society dominated by men.

This society knows that sex is what leads to children. What it doesn’t know is how to verify if a child belongs to a particular man.

As this society is patriarchal in nature, it’s very important to the leaders/men that their lineage is protected. So they need a way to ensure that children’s bloodline can be properly guaranteed. The only way to control that is to make sure that women are bound to a specific man, and that sex with any other man is forbidden/disgusting. This is why bastard children and unwed mothers have historically been treated with such disdain. But men were often given a pass. The women were screwing up lineage tracking.

Tracking is less an issue these days, but the social conditioning is still there. We’ve forgotten why we prioritized it in the first place (right or wrong). Now it’s the way many people think because it’s been the way we’ve behaved for so long, much of society is geared around it being a basic truth.

I have a similar thing, but I got over it by committing to robbing every vendor of everything they have. Then there’s no one to buy the stupid fork.

deleted by creator

So could any restaurant chain. Are they not allowed to eat out? Or shop at stores? Or have a favorite sports team?

There’s a point where it becomes unreasonable to ask them to stay neutral and detached. Especially as they can always recuse themselves.

Edit:typo

Edit 2: there’s also a major difference between political decisions and any other matter that comes before the court. The Supreme Court is tasked with overseeing a number of government cases. That’s a primary responsibility. They need to be apolitical in order to handle that aspect of their work–or they would need to recuse themselves constantly.

But they are still people. They can still have preferences. They can still do good in the world beyond their jobs.

Recusing from the rare overlap of a particular cause is reasonable. Recusing for political bias is not.

Apolitical fundraising is fine.

Edit 3: I’d appreciate hearing an actual argument here instead of just down voting. Without that it seems like people just don’t like a different point of view

Cancer research? Subsidized childcare in poor neighborhoods? Alma mater scholarship funding?

There’s a lot of apolitical fundraising.

It blows my mind that so many questions in this community could be instantly answered by Google. Just typing “whinging” gives its definition and identifies it as British.

The question wasn’t stupid. But OP was too lazy to even try and do their own research. Which ironically resulted in more work for them.

This isn’t wrong, but it’s misleading. A huge portion of that statement is based on newborns dying. There were also early advances in medicine that helped by the time around the birth of America. (Which is where this judge serves/gained a lifetime appointment.)

In 1850 (in Wales, which is a good representation of a Western civilization), 20 year olds could expect to live into their 60s. And 50 year olds into their 70s. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

While the 90+ crowd is an exception, that’s true even in our time. But living into your 70s was not unusual when the laws were written.

It’s not necessarily lazy. If I want to go back to a particular post I saw on page 1 when I’m on page 2, but it was knocked off the front page, how would I find it? It’s no longer on page 1, so back would miss it. I’d have to go to 1 and then back again to 2 to find a post that moved.

It gets even more complicated when the algorithm also changes post order.

Sometimes simple with minor inconvenience is the best option.

Yeah, but to be fair, that defeats the point OP is making by stating their sex frequency. If it’s all relative, then his activity is irrelevant when discussing someone else’s.

Excellent point. My apologies.

“Those aren’t two pillows!”

“Nobody leaves this place without singin’ the blues.”

“It’s showtime!”

“That’s not a motorcycle, baby. It’s a chopper.”

"You’re a daisy if you do.’

“Mr. Blutarsky. Zero-point-zero.”"

“I want my two dollars!”

“So THAT’S how it is in their family.”

I dunno. We can manipulate entangled electrons to look like a yin yang symbol and that’s not cool?

Edit; photons. My bad.

Hi! Googling this question reveals the answer is yes, it does result in fusion.

As far as the output, according to this top result paper, that depends heavily on the size of the black hole, the size and speed of the accretion disk, and the medium from which the black hole is drawing (like a white dwarf vs interstellar gas).

From what I can make out–and I have no background–the author maps out results as high in weight as nickel.

Edit: grammar