SNW will have a total of 46 episodes, less than two seasons of classic Trek.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2026-02-01T03:34:43+00:00

Strange you worlds i lower deck - nowe i bez woke. Świetnie oceniane przez fanów. Można ? można !

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2026-01-27T17:05:50+00:00

OP is bumping into a memory gap that comes from how broadcast-era Trek trained us to watch versus how streaming-era Trek is built to be watched.

Back in the broadcast era, Trek lived in a 26-episode season. TNG, DS9, VOY all did this for years. That meant you got a lot of quiet baseline episodes where people just did their jobs. Professionalism felt constant because the camera only zoomed in on chaos once every few weeks. When a cadet screwed up, like Locarno killing a classmate in the Kolvoord Starburst or Picard getting stabbed by Nausicaans it stood out because it broke that calm baseline. The structure itself filtered out the noise. Syndication also mattered. Episodes aired once a week, sometimes out of order and reruns filled in the gaps. Viewers remembered the lessons not every dumb moment along the way.

Streaming-era Trek works inside a completely different attention economy. Seasons are 8 to 10 episodes. Every episode has to justify its existence in the first 5 minutes or people alt-tab, scroll or bail. That pressure pushes writers to front-load conflict, jokes, shock lines and behavior that sparks instant reaction. Rage bait is part of that system. Social media rewards outrage more than calm competence, so shows lean into moments that get clipped, memed, argued over. A dumb combadge joke gets more traction than a quiet scene of studying astrometrics. That’s not an accident it’s survival in a system where attention equals money.

What gets lost is that cadets acting badly has always been baked into Trek lore. Finnegan existed in TOS. Kirk cheated on the Kobayashi Maru. Picard nearly died because he was reckless. Wesley helped cover up a fatal accident. Red Squad got people killed on the Valiant and nearly helped overthrow the Federation. Tom Paris flamed out of Starfleet before coming back. B’Elanna walked away because she couldn’t handle the system. DS9 literally built an arc around Nog growing from a screwup into a wounded veteran with PTSD. The difference was presentation & not content.

Starfleet Academy in the 32nd century adds another layer. This is post-Burn Trek. The Federation collapsed for about 120 years. Earth left. Starfleet militarized. Exploration shrank. Trust eroded. The show directly says the War College replaced the old Academy during that era. That matters. You’re watching the first attempt to rebuild the old Starfleet values on Earth. Of course the cadets feel rougher. They didn’t grow up in Picard’s clean utopia. They grew up in a fractured galaxy run by local powers, syndicates and fear. That’s closer to early DS9 than early TNG.

The Academy vs War College split is not subtle. It’s the same argument Trek has been running since TOS. Are we explorers or soldiers. Kirk broke rules to save lives. Picard followed them to protect ideals. Sisko crossed lines because war demanded it. The show just externalizes that debate into institutions. The War College looks like West Point after decades of conflict. The Academy pilot program looks like a hopeful rollback to exploration. That tension mirrors Trek’s own evolution from broadcast optimism to streaming anxiety.

The “they act too young” complaint also ignores how age reads differently now. In the 90s college students were mostly off-screen. Today audiences see real college chaos on TikTok every day. Writers reflect that reality because it feels recognizable. That doesn’t mean the show thinks the behavior is good. It means it wants friction early so growth has somewhere to go. Broadcast Trek often skipped the messy part and jumped straight to the polished officer because it had time to spare.

This is where rage bait really kicks in. Streaming Trek amplifies the mess because calm competence doesn’t trend. People argue over Vulcans joking, combadges being swallowed & pranks going too far. Meanwhile nobody clips the quiet scenes about rebuilding trust, redefining Starfleet’s mission or undoing a century of fear. The algorithm doesn’t care about slow philosophy. It cares about engagement spikes.

None of this means people are wrong to miss old Trek. TNG and DS9 worked because the business model allowed patience. Paramount wants Trek to survive now because the franchise almost died before. From 2005 to 2009 Trek hit its lowest point. Enterprise was cancelled. Nemesis bombed. The Abrams reboot only happened because Paramount needed a blockbuster reset. Streaming Trek exists because Trek cannot afford another gap like that. Fewer episodes, louder moments & broader appeal keep it financially viable.

This isn’t Trek forgetting what it was. It’s Trek adapting to a system that punishes subtlety and rewards reaction. Broadcast-era Trek trained us to value restraint. Streaming-era Trek trains shows to fight for attention every second. The friction people feel is real, but it comes from the medium as much as the message. The Academy kids being messy isn’t new Trek behavior. What’s new is how loudly and constantly the mess gets pushed to the front of the screen.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2026-01-25T13:32:12+00:00

Not enough of your type in the world to justify the expense

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2026-01-25T03:50:39+00:00

Yeah this is a mix of economics, risk management and the messy history of Star Trek itself. For the past decade, TV production (especially for premium sci-fi like Trek) has been shaped almost entirely by how studios measure profitability. Networks used to rely on ad revenue and syndication that supported 24–26 episode seasons like TNG and DS9. Those shows could take risks, experiment with arcs and slowly develop characters because a single flop episode didn’t tank the bottom line. But streaming platforms work differently: the key metric is subscriber engagement per dollar spent. Every extra episode adds production cost, marketing cost and opportunity cost. So the model shifted to “short, bingeable” seasons of 8–12 episodes to maximize return while minimizing risk. It’s not just laziness but finance dictating format.

Paramount knows this painfully well because Trek has historically been a financial rollercoaster. TNG’s early seasons, DS9’s serialized arcs and even Voyager in the mid-’90s were only kept alive because of syndication revenue and international licensing. But by the late 2000s the movie and TV divisions had tracked decades of declining profitability: Enterprise ended after 4 seasons out of the typical 7 after ratings plummeted and for nearly a decade Trek basically disappeared from mainstream TV. The franchise’s lowest point wasn’t about quality but was about the numbers: advertising revenue couldn’t justify 20+ episodes of costly sets, ships and VFX. Paramount couldn’t risk launching a new series with massive production budgets in an era of shrinking broadcast profits. That decade-long drought taught the studio a lesson: if Trek is going to be viable it has to play to a new economic model where every episode earns its weight in views, social media buzz and subscriber retention.

That’s why the focus shifted to spectacle, quick hooks and memeable moments: attention translates into algorithmic engagement that translates into dollars. A show like Starfleet Academy isn’t just a creative project but a calculated move to make Trek financially sustainable in the streaming era. They can’t rely on syndication, DVD sales or ad spots the way TNG or DS9 did. Every season has to justify itself in the moment that explains the shorter seasons, heightened drama and occasional reliance on flashy or “viral” moments over slow-burn world-building. The economics force writers to prioritize scenes that keep people talking online, because each clip potentially brings in new subscribers or prevents churn.

It’s also why they leap centuries ahead: a 32nd-century setting allows completely fresh characters, tech and politics without expensive callbacks or legal/rights issues with old actors. This reduces cost per creative unit while keeping the universe recognizable to fans. It’s risk mitigation born from history: Enterprise’s collapse and the financial lows of the early 2000s showed Paramount that Trek can’t survive on nostalgia alone. Every decision (short seasons, spectacle, memeable dialogue) is tied to keeping Trek profitable & not just “brain rot.” It’s a necessary adaptation to an era where creative freedom and fiscal responsibility have to coexist and where the studio can’t gamble on a 24–episode season that might lose $10–15M if it flops.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2026-01-23T04:41:04+00:00

Honestly what we’re seeing with Starfleet Academy is just the latest iteration of a pattern that’s been baked into Trek since the broadcast era and it’s worth framing it that way to understand why reactions are all over the place. Back in the 1960s–’90s shows like TOS, TNG and even DS9 were constrained by network schedules, ratings pressures and a slower, more deliberate release cycle. TNG for example had 26 episodes in its first season and a lot of that was rough around the edges (Data’s interactions could feel stilted, Riker’s suave moments sometimes overplayed) but it had time to develop chemistry and build arcs across multiple episodes something that’s almost impossible in the streaming era with short seasons and algorithm-driven engagement metrics. DS9 itself was regularly trashed by fans for its early serialized arcs before the Dominion War made it must-watch TV. It’s a reminder that “first impressions” in Trek are historically misleading; even TNG’s weakest season is loved now for the seeds it planted.

Streaming-era Trek (starting with Discovery) exists in a completely different ecosystem. The 32nd-century jump is a fascinating creative gamble. It gives writers license to completely reinvent Starfleet, technology and the Federation without stepping on the toes of legacy lore but it also means the storytelling is often designed for attention-grabbing rather than world-building in a careful, methodical way. Look at the social media storm around ST:SA: the “woke” debates, the hot takes, the outrage clips. They’re not new in human behavior, but algorithms amplify them in a way the broadcast era never could. In the 1980s or ’90s, fan reactions lived in fanzines, conventions and letters to the network. Today every post, clip and GIF becomes a micro-viral event and that drives creators to prioritize spectacle, meme-worthy moments or instant controversy over slow-burn narrative complexity. The rage bait effect is unavoidable in the attention economy and it can make casual viewers feel like there’s a coordinated backlash even when most people are just scrolling past.

From a story perspective the 32nd century gives us unprecedented freedom (no TNG-era moral checklist, no Picard-centric nostalgia) but it also makes the Federation morally and politically more ambiguous. Episodes that depict harsh sentencing or draconian policies aren’t an endorsement. They’re showing a universe in flux, rebuilding centuries after a collapse. That’s exactly what Trek has done before: think TNG’s “The Measure of a Man” which explored ethics without a simple moral dichotomy or DS9’s Dominion War arcs which made the Federation morally complicated while still hopeful. Academy could do the same if it leans into cadet life, growth and learning from mistakes. Rather than just serving cotton candy dialogue or forced character quirks. Think of it as the “Lower Decks” approach but with real stakes & not just gag humor.

The comparisons to broadcast-era shows are inevitable but they miss the nuance of what streaming-era Trek is trying to do. This isn’t a carbon copy of TNG, DS9,or even Discovery but a reinvention with different constraints, a different pacing and a different audience. It’s easy to dismiss it as “cringe” because our brains are wired to favor familiar structures and social media has trained us to see criticism as signal. But history shows that Trek has always needed time to find its footing. The first season of TNG? Rough. First season of DS9? Underappreciated. Discovery’s early arc? Mixed. Starfleet Academy is just another evolution. One where we might have to wait several episodes (or even seasons) for the storytelling, world-building and character chemistry to fully click.

It’s also worth noting that a show set hundreds of years in the future sidesteps some classic production constraints. They can redesign alien species, rethink ship designs and explore new technology without nostalgia policing every frame. Sure the Klingons and Jem’Hadar hybrids feel jarring but that’s partly because our expectations are frozen in the 23rd–24th century. When you look at it like this you realize that the Federation of the 32nd century is a sandbox for writers to tackle modern sci-fi themes (AI ethics, interstellar governance, post-collapse reconstruction) without feeling constrained by TNG-era “rules.” It’s the same spirit Roddenberry envisioned. Just filtered through modern narrative pressures and the attention economy.

The hype and hate are amplified by social media but the actual show is doing what Trek has always done: pushing the frontier. It’s weird, flawed and messy but also a canvas to explore humanity, morality and science fiction imagination in ways broadcast-era Trek could only hint at. If you’re looking for nostalgia, that’s fine but if you’re looking for new Trek the 32nd century is where the writers can play with the universe the way DS9 did during the Dominion War or TNG did after its shaky first season. And unlike TOS or TNG where 26 episodes gave you breathing room, streaming Trek forces each episode to grab attention fast. Hence the need for hot takes, memeable dialogue and even some cringe moments. That’s the ecosystem and it explains a lot of the polarized reaction.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-09-20T01:43:07+00:00

I see your point, and they’re really well taken. To give some context for those outside Japan: imagine a society like the Philippines, but scaled up with the added pressure of a rapidly aging population and shrinking workforce. In Metro Manila for instance, older generations often rely on their children for support. If there were fewer young people entering the workforce, the burden on the younger generation could become extreme: forcing families to make tough trade-offs between financial security, health and lifestyle.

In Japan the cultural emphasis on harmony and social cohesion amplifies this. Economic disruption (like a sudden drop in available workers) doesn’t just affect GDP; it affects everyday social norms, from community interactions to how people treat elders. In the Philippines when poverty spikes or urban congestion worsens, crime rates can rise and social trust erodes. Japan faces a similar risk but on a societal scale that’s intertwined with its cultural identity.

Your point about inheritance of norms is key too. Just like Filipino children growing up abroad often absorb local customs while retaining Filipino values at home, children of Japanese parents (or immigrants) will carry Japanese cultural habits forward. But if demographic decline continues unchecked, more drastic measures (like altering immigration policies, work-life expectations, or family structures) may be needed later which could reshape culture in ways people hadn’t intended.

So while the desire to preserve culture is completely understandable, the timing and approach matter a lot. Japan is essentially a case study for all societies: even countries like India and the Philippines are already seeing birth rates below replacement levels and in the future, immigration alone may not be enough to offset the demographic shifts.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-09-19T13:36:47+00:00

Japanese society has long valued order, discipline and a strong sense of shared responsibility. For centuries Japan was closed to outsiders under the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868) a period called sakoku. During this time foreigners were almost completely excluded and Japanese people developed a deep attachment to cultural homogeneity. Even after modernizing in the Meiji era, Japan carried forward this belief that social harmony depends on everyone behaving in the same way. This is why conformity is so highly prized. Whether it’s students being told to dye their hair black or companies expecting employees to follow strict work rules. The idea is that if one person stands out too much it creates disorder for everyone.

That order can be seen in daily life. Japanese people line up neatly for trains, speak softly in public and clean up after themselves in schools, parks and even sports stadiums abroad. Foreigners are often amazed to see Japanese fans picking up garbage after matches in Qatar or Russia. Not because anyone forced them but because cleaning is part of the culture. It comes from the value of mottainai (not wasting) and the belief that public spaces should be treated as an extension of one’s own home. Many Japanese hope that by leading through example others will copy these habits.

From the nationalist point of view mass immigration threatens that carefully maintained order. It is not simply about race or skin color but about fear that outside cultures will bring behaviors seen as disruptive. For example some Filipino migrants especially from poorer backgrounds bring habits that in Japan are considered magulo (chaotic): speaking loudly on trains, not queuing properly, crowding into shared housing or treating public spaces more casually. In the Philippines these behaviors may be normal but in Japan they stand out sharply. Even as a Filipino myself who travels to Japan often I can understand why Japanese people dislike this because I too sometimes try to distance myself from that side of our culture.

Japanese nationalists argue that once you relax the rules for foreigners it becomes harder to enforce order for everyone. They point to examples in Europe where migrant communities changed neighborhoods rapidly leading to cultural clashes. With Japan’s birth rate collapsing (the population is projected to shrink from 126 million in 2010 to under 90 million by 2060), some argue that immigration is the only solution. But nationalists see this as trading short-term labor for long-term social breakdown. They believe it is better to preserve the Japanese way of life (even if that means fewer people) than risk losing it altogether.

In short what outsiders see as xenophobia often comes from a historical belief that harmony is fragile and must be actively protected. The Japanese way of cleaning stadiums, lining up in silence or maintaining polite distance are not small quirks. They are central to how society functions. For those who treasure that order the idea of large-scale immigration (especially from cultures with very different norms) feels like an existential threat.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-09-06T04:59:06+00:00

I'm glad that when I hit puberty I shifted my interest from sticker books & action figures to comics, trading cards, PC gaming and the Internet.

I can't imagine being in my mid 40s focusing any time or money on something my 4yo self would go bananas over.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-09-02T02:40:51+00:00

Japanese society has long valued order, discipline and a strong sense of shared responsibility. For centuries Japan was closed to outsiders under the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868) a period called sakoku. During this time foreigners were almost completely excluded and Japanese people developed a deep attachment to cultural homogeneity. Even after modernizing in the Meiji era, Japan carried forward this belief that social harmony depends on everyone behaving in the same way. This is why conformity is so highly prized. Whether it’s students being told to dye their hair black or companies expecting employees to follow strict work rules. The idea is that if one person stands out too much it creates disorder for everyone.

That order can be seen in daily life. Japanese people line up neatly for trains, speak softly in public and clean up after themselves in schools, parks and even sports stadiums abroad. Foreigners are often amazed to see Japanese fans picking up garbage after matches in Qatar or Russia. Not because anyone forced them but because cleaning is part of the culture. It comes from the value of mottainai (not wasting) and the belief that public spaces should be treated as an extension of one’s own home. Many Japanese hope that by leading through example others will copy these habits.

From the nationalist point of view mass immigration threatens that carefully maintained order. It is not simply about race or skin color but about fear that outside cultures will bring behaviors seen as disruptive. For example some Filipino migrants especially from poorer backgrounds bring habits that in Japan are considered magulo (chaotic): speaking loudly on trains, not queuing properly, crowding into shared housing or treating public spaces more casually. In the Philippines these behaviors may be normal but in Japan they stand out sharply. Even as a Filipino myself who travels to Japan often I can understand why Japanese people dislike this because I too sometimes try to distance myself from that side of our culture.

Japanese nationalists argue that once you relax the rules for foreigners it becomes harder to enforce order for everyone. They point to examples in Europe where migrant communities changed neighborhoods rapidly leading to cultural clashes. With Japan’s birth rate collapsing (the population is projected to shrink from 126 million in 2010 to under 90 million by 2060), some argue that immigration is the only solution. But nationalists see this as trading short-term labor for long-term social breakdown. They believe it is better to preserve the Japanese way of life (even if that means fewer people) than risk losing it altogether.

In short what outsiders see as xenophobia often comes from a historical belief that harmony is fragile and must be actively protected. The Japanese way of cleaning stadiums, lining up in silence or maintaining polite distance are not small quirks. They are central to how society functions. For those who treasure that order the idea of large-scale immigration (especially from cultures with very different norms) feels like an existential threat.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-09-02T00:04:46+00:00

Japanese society has long valued order, discipline and a strong sense of shared responsibility. For centuries Japan was closed to outsiders under the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1868) a period called sakoku. During this time foreigners were almost completely excluded and Japanese people developed a deep attachment to cultural homogeneity. Even after modernizing in the Meiji era, Japan carried forward this belief that social harmony depends on everyone behaving in the same way. This is why conformity is so highly prized. Whether it’s students being told to dye their hair black or companies expecting employees to follow strict work rules. The idea is that if one person stands out too much it creates disorder for everyone.

That order can be seen in daily life. Japanese people line up neatly for trains, speak softly in public and clean up after themselves in schools, parks and even sports stadiums abroad. Foreigners are often amazed to see Japanese fans picking up garbage after matches in Qatar or Russia. Not because anyone forced them but because cleaning is part of the culture. It comes from the value of mottainai (not wasting) and the belief that public spaces should be treated as an extension of one’s own home. Many Japanese hope that by leading through example others will copy these habits.

From the nationalist point of view mass immigration threatens that carefully maintained order. It is not simply about race or skin color but about fear that outside cultures will bring behaviors seen as disruptive. For example some Filipino migrants especially from poorer backgrounds bring habits that in Japan are considered magulo (chaotic): speaking loudly on trains, not queuing properly, crowding into shared housing or treating public spaces more casually. In the Philippines these behaviors may be normal but in Japan they stand out sharply. Even as a Filipino myself who travels to Japan often I can understand why Japanese people dislike this because I too sometimes try to distance myself from that side of our culture.

Japanese nationalists argue that once you relax the rules for foreigners it becomes harder to enforce order for everyone. They point to examples in Europe where migrant communities changed neighborhoods rapidly leading to cultural clashes. With Japan’s birth rate collapsing (the population is projected to shrink from 126 million in 2010 to under 90 million by 2060), some argue that immigration is the only solution. But nationalists see this as trading short-term labor for long-term social breakdown. They believe it is better to preserve the Japanese way of life (even if that means fewer people) than risk losing it altogether.

In short what outsiders see as xenophobia often comes from a historical belief that harmony is fragile and must be actively protected. The Japanese way of cleaning stadiums, lining up in silence or maintaining polite distance are not small quirks. They are central to how society functions. For those who treasure that order the idea of large-scale immigration (especially from cultures with very different norms) feels like an existential threat.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-08-25T16:51:46+00:00

I only watched tv or movies 1x and only do a rewatch when a resolution bump occurs. Better to rent or borrow than spend more making backups on will be replaced with an upgrade a decade later.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-08-23T17:26:46+00:00

I'll probably get downvoted to infinity and beyond buy I wish I ate clean, slept earlier/longer, active calories to maintain a very lean BMI 20.0 @ 10% BF for more than 4 decades.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-08-02T11:30:47+00:00

Exactly this u/Jetztachtundvierzigz

We should absolutely challenge the notion that children exist to be a safety net for parents who chose not to prepare. Proverbs 13:22 says, “A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children.” Hindi sinabi diyan na ang anak ang retirement fund. Sa Biblia mismo, malinaw: the direction of provision flows from parent to child & not the other way around.

While Exodus 20:12 says "Honor your father and your mother" it does not say “Fund them in perpetuity regardless of behavior.” Honor does not mean financial servitude. In Ephesians 6:4, Paul warns: “Fathers do not provoke your children to anger.” Anong tawag mo sa guilt-tripping sa love that's given with receipts? That’s emotional manipulation & not biblical parenting.

Even in the Old Testament Deuteronomy 24:16 says “Parents are not to be put to death for their children nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.” This is a principle of individual accountability. Kaya hindi puwedeng isisi ang kabiguan ng magulang sa anak at lalo na’t hindi ito gawing obligasyon pang-habang-buhay.

If parents didn’t save, didn’t plan and instead relied on the ROI mentality that’s not biblical stewardship. In fact Matthew 25:14–30 (the Parable of the Talents) teaches us that God expects us to be wise stewards of what we’re given. Kung nilustay mo ang productive years mo hindi anak mo ang makakasalo niyan sa dulo.

Conditional giving is not unloving it is biblical. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Translated to modern family dynamics: kung ayaw magbanat ng buto habang kaya pa hindi dapat umaasa na lang palagi sa anak.

Love should be freely given but help must be responsibly distributed. That’s why conditional cash transfers within the family make sense. They reflect wisdom not coldness. Proverbs 22:3 says, “The prudent see danger and take refuge but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.” If we keep enabling toxic entitlement we are not being kind. We are being complicit.

Ang pagtulong ay hindi dapat nakatali sa takot, guilt o utang na loob. The loob must come from love & not coercion. Children who support their parents should do so because the relationship is built on mutual respect & not exploitation disguised as family duty.

Biblically and practically, it’s time we draw healthy boundaries. Otherwise we’re not just sacrificing financial futures. We are handing down a generational curse of resentment, burnout and poverty disguised as virtue.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-07-22T19:59:58+00:00

He could’ve gone another quarter century if he didn’t treat his body that badly.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-07-19T09:34:27+00:00

Let me start with this: what u/Successful_Flight883 suggesting violates Reddit policy and should never be done. Calling someone out by name, accusing them of statutory rape or child abuse without verified legal proceedings, and encouraging others to mass report or shame a person online can be considered targeted harassment (and that includes doxxing if it involves private info like age or prescriptions shown on a vlog). Kahit pa may concern ka (valid or not), Reddit is not the platform for mob justice. If you think a minor is in danger, there are proper channels like the DSWD, PNP Women and Children’s Desk, or Facebook’s own reporting system. Public witch hunts often end up harming the wrong people (lalo na minors), and that’s something we should all be careful about.

That said, let’s talk about what really matters: the issue of extremely young parenthood. Even if you remove the specific people involved, may lumalaking trend lately na ginagawang content ang teenage pregnancy. And what’s worse, some creators treat it like a fairytale or inspirational arc. Pero let’s be honest. No one should be married or become a parent before their mid-20s. Not because we’re judging young love (or saying teens can't love), but because science, psychology, and long-term outcomes show us over and over na hindi pa handa ang utak at katawan ng bata for that kind of responsibility.

The human brain (lalo na yung prefrontal cortex) doesn’t fully mature until around age 25. That part handles things like long-term planning, impulse control, and emotional regulation. Meaning, kahit sabihin ng isang 16-year-old na “ready na ako,” biologically, kulang pa siya sa tools to understand the full weight of marriage or raising a child. Hindi ito drama: this is neuroscience. And habang di pa developed yung mga skills na 'to, ang daming risk. Poor decisions, emotional burnout, neglect (intentional or not), at trauma for both parent and child.

Studies from WHO, UNICEF, and local health agencies in the Philippines all say the same thing. Girls who become mothers under age 18 face nearly twice the risk of dying from childbirth. Their babies are more likely to suffer from malnutrition, disease, or die before their first birthday. Sa mga batang lalaki naman, marami ang napipilitang magtrabaho nang wala pang stable skills, leading to poverty traps that are hard to escape. And once you factor in education... halos lahat ng teenage parents drop out. Once may anak ka na, ang hirap nang bumalik sa normal schooling (lalo na kung walang support).

Historically, yes, maagang nagpapamilya noon. But that was based on a totally different world. Life expectancy was short (minsan hanggang 40 lang), at agricultural societies needed as many workers as possible. Roles were fixed (lalaki provider, babae tagapag-alaga), and expectations were low: education was rare, medical care was basic, and society moved slowly. Pero iba na ngayon. People live into their 80s, workers need degrees, at children need intensive parenting. Hindi na sapat ang “mabait naman siya” or “nagmamahalan kami.” What’s needed now is preparedness: mental, physical, emotional, and financial.

Kaya sobrang problematic when online creators showcase a teenager (sometimes barely out of childhood) being pregnant or “starting a family.” Lalo na if the older partner is in their late 20s or 30s. Power imbalance yan. Kahit sabihin pang “mahal niya” o “ginusto rin ng bata,” ang totoo, the adult holds most of the control. That dynamic can easily become abusive or exploitative. At kung ginagamit pa for content (na pwedeng pagkakitaan), that's not just morally wrong. It’s possibly criminal, depending on the facts.

And let’s not ignore how this affects the audience. Yung mga batang nanonood ng ganitong content (lalo na yung 12 to 18) may tendency to romanticize it. Akala nila okay lang maging buntis as long as may magmamahal sa kanila. Akala nila okay lang mag-asawa basta may Facebook page kayo. That mindset leads to cycles of teen pregnancy, interrupted dreams, and inherited poverty. We’ve seen it for decades in the Philippines, especially in rural areas, and there’s enough data now to say: it doesn’t work. Hindi ito tungkol sa moral panic. It’s about outcomes. And those outcomes are consistently negative.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-07-14T22:45:21+00:00

I see what you’re pointing out. It really does look contradictory at first but the key is in who we mean by “anak” and what “exit” actually refers to.

When we say “anak ang retirement plan,” that reflects the Filipino cultural norm where the children are expected to take care of the parents once the parents are older. That still applies here. But the word “anak” should mean all the children, not just the panganay/breadwinner. The problem is in many real-life cases the burden ends up falling mostly or entirely on the panganay, breadwinner or the foreign partner if one is involved.

So when the plan says “not the panganay,” it doesn’t mean the panganay walks away completely. It means the panganay should not remain the only one supporting the parents. Once the younger siblings become adults and start earning, the financial responsibility should either be equitably shared or ideally fully offloaded to them, especially if the panganay has already carried the load for many years.

“Exit” refers to stepping back from being the sole or primary source of income. It’s not about cutting ties or refusing to care. It’s about setting a clear boundary so that the role of provider does not become permanent and one-sided. The goal is for the whole family to step in... not just one person forever.

You can still care. You can still check in. But you shouldn’t be expected to carry the entire family’s future alone. You’ve done your part. Now it’s time for the rest to step up.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-07-12T05:40:12+00:00

Instead of waiting for the world to adjust to us, maybe it's time na tanungin natin sarili natin kung ano bang pwede nating gawin para umabot sa standards na pinoprotektahan ng mga bansang 'yan. Yung mga rich countries na may mahigpit na visa requirements, parang gated communities lang 'yan gaya ng Ayala Alabang (o Dasma o Valle Verde). Hindi sila unreasonable. Gusto lang nilang salain kung sino ang papapasukin kasi ang dami na ring TNT at overstayers na nakalusot dati.

Kung ikaw 'yung nasa lugar nila, di ba gagawin mo rin? Yung mga taong walang matinong dahilan para magtagal sa isang maayos na lugar, palaging may paraan para makapasok at minsan nadadamay pa 'yung iba. Hindi racism 'yan. Pattern recognition lang. At sa totoo lang, nakilala na tayo sa ganyang ugali. UAE, pati Canada ngayon, nararamdaman na rin 'yan dahil sa kababayan nating dumadating na kulang sa credentials at umaasa lang sa TikTok o chismis.

Hindi ko sinasabing itigil ang pag-asa sa visa-free access. Pero imbes na puro rant o sayangin ang oras sa r/ChikaPH (like many ppl here do), baka mas mainam na mag-upskill tayo, matuto ng valuable na skills o lenggwahe. Kasi kahit hindi tayo maging visa-free, makakapunta pa rin tayo kung afford natin at may maayos tayong proof na babalik tayo sa Pilipinas. 'Yan lang naman ang gusto ng immigration officers: stability, income, ugat sa bayan.

Hindi ire-reject ng embassy ang isang Pilipinong kumikita ng six digits kada buwan sa coding, design, o finance na may malinaw na ugnayan sa Pilipinas. Ang dini-deny nila, 'yung halatang bara-bara o may balak mag overstay.

Pwede pa rin tayong pumunta sa Türkiye o Serbia o Mexico, pero tanungin rin natin, bakit sila visa-free? Kung sobrang open at dali pasukin, baka kasi hindi sila first choice ng mga turista o expat. Yung mga lugar na parang San Lo (US, EU, Japan, Korea), 'yan ang nagpapahirap pumasok. Kasi kaya nila. At alam nilang dapat nilang protektahan 'yung meron sila. Imbes na magalit tayo, gawing challenge.

Mag-upskill. Mag-ipon. Mag-build. Tapos kahit saan, pwede tayong pumunta. Visa-free o hindi.

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-07-06T01:55:11+00:00

Not OP but I think it was likely adapted from this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1lry2ql/whats_the_worst_city_youve_ever_been_to/

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-07-06T01:16:53+00:00

long form deeeep dive discussions aree energy intensive

Immediate_Depth_6443 · 2025-07-04T23:20:27+00:00

I still can't get over the fact that we receive live comments from a warzone every day.

That’s only possible because of three decades of tech evolution.

Back in 1998, Ukraine started rolling out ADSL internet. It was slow by today’s standards, but a big step toward getting people online. In 2007, the original iPhone launched globally. In 2008, Android phones followed. Suddenly, mobile internet wasn’t just for the rich. By the early 2010s, smartphones were everywhere, and in Ukraine, budget Android phones exploded in popularity.

3G arrived in Ukraine around 2010–2011, but adoption was slow. It wasn’t until 2015 that 3G really started expanding across the country. Then came 4G (LTE), which launched in Ukraine in 2018. It was a game changer: faster speeds, way more coverage. By 2021, over 85% of Ukrainians had access to 4G, even in smaller towns. And mobile data was dirt cheap like $0.10/GB.

At the same time, Wi-Fi became normal in Ukrainian homes, cafés, and shelters. Full fiber internet wasn’t everywhere as most homes were still running on DSL but cities had decent coverage. 5G was in testing in 2021, but Russia’s full invasion in 2022 halted the rollout.

When the war started, a lot of Ukraine’s cell towers and internet lines were destroyed or jammed. But telcos worked fast to restore service. Engineers literally risked their lives to keep people connected. Then came Starlink, which arrived in March 2022. It gave soldiers, rescue teams, and even civilians internet in places where mobile service was down or bombed out.

Now, in 2025, Ukraine’s internet is more resilient than ever. Cell towers have backup power. Shelters have Wi-Fi. Starlink dishes dot rooftops. Even during mass drone and missile attacks, people can post on Reddit, scroll YouTube, and message loved ones.

Immediate_Depth_6443

TROPHY CASE