I was thinking about this the other day while waiting for a delayed flight, and it really got me spiraling into a bit of a rabbit hole regarding how we value our public spaces versus how we spend money on them. We always hear these massive, eye-popping numbers thrown around in the news—figures so high they almost feel theoretical rather than real. Billions of dollars to "modernize" or "revitalize" certain hubs. But I can't help but wonder: at what point does a renovation stop being a necessary fix and start becoming a vanity project?
There is a very specific kind of nostalgia that hits when you use something that has been functional for decades. I have this one memory of my grandfather taking me to a transit station back in the 90s. Everything was a bit grimy, the signage was probably outdated, and the tech was definitely primitive, but the system *worked*. It had a soul. There’s a certain dignity in things that have aged gracefully, even if they aren't "cutting edge" by modern standards.
Lately, it feels like the trend in urban development and major transit hubs is to tear down the old, reliable bones of a place just to replace them with sleek, glass-and-steel versions that look great in a brochure but might lack the same character. We talk about "efficiency" and "modernity" as if they are the only metrics that matter. But efficiency often comes at the cost of usability or, more importantly, cost-effectiveness. If a system is still moving people from point A to point B without a hitch, is a multi-billion dollar overhaul actually a service to the public, or is it just a way to move massive amounts of capital into the hands of a few giant construction firms?
I’m also wary of the "too big to fail" mentality that seems to infect these massive infrastructure proposals. When a project reaches a certain scale, it becomes almost impossible to say "no" to, even if the math doesn't quite add up or if the original goal shifts halfway through. We've seen it time and again: a project starts with the intention of fixing a specific bottleneck, but suddenly it’s about aesthetic prestige, or political legacy, or some grand vision that doesn't actually account for the person just trying to get to their gate on time.
Then there’s the question of what actually gets improved. Do these massive investments actually trickle down to the traveler? Or do they just result in more expensive terminal coffee, higher fees, and a more sterile environment? I’d much rather see a hundred smaller, targeted fixes—fixing a broken escalator here, updating a security checkpoint there, improving the Wi-Fi—than one gargantuan, sweeping redevelopment that takes a decade to complete and leaves everyone frustrated in the meantime.
I'm curious to hear what you all think about this kind of "mega-project" culture. Do you think we need these massive, transformative leaps to keep our cities and hubs competitive in a global sense? Or are we just throwing money at the problem to satisfy a desire for something shiny and new, while the actual utility of the space remains largely unchanged? Is there a middle ground between letting things rot and spending a fortune to rebuild them from scratch?
Hey everyone, So, I'm just an average guy, mid-sized, mid-age, living out in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., working in a technical field. Honestly, I'm just looking to chat and maybe get to know some women through messaging. Don't get me wrong, I'm not hunting for romance or anything heavy like that—I just genuinely enjoy meeting new people. Also, weirdly enough, I actually love going for a swim when it's raining outside. I'm big into riding my bike, and I have a soft spot for mandarins and apples. On the flip side, I can't stand overly sweet desserts. I spend a lot of time digging for new music and obsessively putting playlists together, though I never touch the radio. I like people, really, I do, but I'm definitely more of an introvert. I love reading too, even if I only end up hitting the local library a couple of times a year. I'm all about YouTube, not much for TV... My handle was mostly just me being a bit of a troll to the mods, but I'm really not some big shot or anything. Just keeping things chill here. 🙂
Just this incredibly tedious album that nobody actually cares about—honestly, I doubt anyone’s even listened to it. It’s only getting any hype here because some pretentious rock critics won't stop singing its praises, forcing every curious music nerd to sit through this mediocre garbage at least twenty times over.
Wim Wenders, seriously, why don't you just go back to filming those overly sentimental movies of yours about people suffering in Cuba, all because of those idiots caught between democracy and communism?
I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, but you could probably give it a shot by grabbing a video downloader extension for your browser. It really just depends on what you're running—Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Firefox... who knows? Maybe one of them has a slightly more powerful
Honestly, my stomach feels way less heavy and I sleep a whole lot better when I stick to gluten-free pasta for dinner. Not that all regular pasta is even the same, but still...
I'm leaning towards the graphics card being totally fried. I’m pretty much 100% certain about that, assuming you've actually got a dedicated GPU in there. But hey, let's wait for some IT guy to chime in... though honestly, I don't know if anyone left the "coding" life behind yet.
Solid flick, I'd give it a 3.5/5. Definitely worth a watch if you're into military stuff, even if some of the finer details feel a little unpolished and rough around the edges.
Maybe go get tested for H. pylori? Digestion really does mess with your head and your whole vibe, even on those days when you don't feel like your stomach is totally killing you.
Gregory Carter67 said:I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.
I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one. Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).
An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.
So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?
In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.
Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.
my cat could do all that too. and she’s never even stepped foot in a church.
It’s okay for mindless entertainment, I guess, but honestly? A total letdown. Maybe I just set the bar too high because that first movie was actually decent.
The only thing that worked was how cold things were between Reacher and the Brigadier. There’s basically zero "chemistry" there, and honestly, those kinds of "realistic" vibes are pretty rare in movies like this, it was cool how they both just seemed to get that there wouldn't be any kissing or smutty scenes, so they didn't even bother trying.
Everything else was just a mild disaster. The directing was... wtf. Just random shots thrown together. And if you're gonna have someone smash through a wall with a car, show me the wreckage and the damage! Don't just cut to a close-up of Reacher's face instead. I feel like there could've been a deeper, warmer bond between him and the "daughter" figure, since it's obvious they're on the exact same wavelength, but for some reason, they didn't really go anywhere with it, other than ending on a hug that (once again) leads absolutely nowhere.
The main catalyst villain is some mysterious lady who barely gets three minutes of screen time, while the actual big bad is just "another hitman" who spends most of his time running around.
The rest isn't even worth mentioning. Film is a 1.5/5
Does anyone happen to know the name of that therapy where they use some kind of little pump on your nose and you have to keep saying "chocolate" over and over?
I've been scouring the web but I'm coming up totally empty... I think it has something to do with practicing the letter R sound 😕
Honestly, 8 doesn't even feel like "Windows" anymore. I mean, sure, there’s probably some leftover code from 7 under the hood, but the whole vibe is just... different. It's a totally different beast of an OS. With 7, Microsoft actually found their groove again. That was their comeback moment. 👍
northernhawk29 said:Is there any way I can wipe my hard drive using this Windows 7 setup above?
I just placed some live bets online on Partizan Belgrade vs Inter Milan and Basel vs Videoton. The stakes are tiny; I was scrolling through the lines earlier this afternoon, but honestly, nothing really caught my eye.
I went with Inter Milan to score under 1.5 goals (at 1.80 odds), and then bet that Basel wouldn't put more than 2.5 past Videoton (1.50).
As for Partizan Belgrade, if I remember right, they're doing pretty well in their league—solid form, usually knocking in a couple of goals... I wouldn't say Inter Milan is in any special kind of shape either, though I don't really follow the Italian teams because I try to stay away from their league. Every time I've ever bet on Italian clubs, they've ruined my parlay, even when they looked like absolute sure things. I actually think the guys from Belgrade might hold their own here.
Basel can definitely drop three or four on someone, but Videoton isn't a bad side; if memory serves, they actually beat Basel when they were playing at home, maybe 2-1 or something like 3-1, I can't quite recall... Videoton is looking decent in their domestic league, maybe even sitting first or in the top 3. Basel could score, sure, but I don't see them hitting three or more.
In the MLS, looking at the last 11 home games, the home team has found the back of the net every single time, and we saw over 2.5 goals scored in about 75% of those matches... I’m thinking of putting something on Columbus Crew vs. FC Cincinnati, specifically that Columbus will score... honestly, "both teams to score" could be a play here too, since both sides are scoring plenty lately... the odds are sitting at 1.35.
Looking at the NextGen League youth squads, I’m leaning towards Tottenham Hotspur's kids finding a goal while they're away playing against Barcelona's academy. The odds are 1.40, which feels pretty solid to me. From what I can tell by how the bookies have set the lines, they're expecting both sides to score and for the game to go over.
I'll also take Manchester United to score when they travel to face Braga, odds are 1.25... heard some whispers that they're actually in really good form right now...
And I'm adding Galatasaray to the mix—they're playing away against Club Brugge. They're sitting top of their league, so I figure they'll grab at least one goal; odds are 1.35.
That brings the total odds to 3.2, so I'll just throw a little something 🤣 on it via FanDuel.
I was checking out the odds on whether Dinamo Chicago scores or not, but honestly, everything is so wide open right now that trying to call it feels like a total shot in the dark...
That matchup against New York City FC is going to go one of two ways: either NYCFC just completely takes over and Dinamo Chicago can't even get a sniff of the goal, or NYCFC treats them like they don't matter, Dinamo Chicago finds some space to actually create something, and things look somewhat balanced until NYCFC decides to turn up the heat in the second half and just rips one or two past them...
If Dinamo Chicago doesn't find the back of the net in the first half, I'm pretty skeptical about their chances in the second.
I'm thinking about putting some money on both Dynamo vs. Porto and City vs. Chicago Bulls—both sides scoring a goal. I see they're both sitting at 1.70 over at the sportsbook.
Dynamo really needs those three points, so they'll likely come out swinging right away, plus Porto has been absolutely tearing it up lately, bagging 13 goals in their last six matches...
City actually dropped a 1:3 to the Chicago Bulls in the last round... I honestly think the Bulls can find the back of the net again here, and looking at City, they’ve only failed to score once in their last six games—that was the away match against Ham... but since they're playing at home, they should really step up and "show up." They definitely need to prove themselves after that shaky performance against Los Angeles Dodgers...
Hitting both "both teams to score" bets doubles up to 2.89.
Thomas Clark912 said:This whole country is just one giant wild west. You can't get anything done around here if you actually try to play by the rules.
I mean, look, you can always be honest... it’s just that most people expect to be cruising on a yacht and owning a mansion after their first year in business. Stick it out for five or ten years, then maybe you'll see some real progress. Everyone saw those guys who made a fortune overnight during the war, so I guess everyone wants that kind of luck.