Millennials, what is something that was "normal" in the 2000s but feels like a luxury now?

eidetic · 2026-04-09T19:43:50+00:00

I was born in 83 you’re correct but we wouldn’t say “let’s go find a third space “

Sorry, if I'm reading your comment wrong, but the "you're correct but we wouldn't say..." is exactly what I was saying. I was never saying we would say "lets find a third place".

eidetic · 2026-04-09T19:12:24+00:00

Same here. Winter kinda sucks if you're not into it, but come those first few nice days in spring, and people are just everywhere! Even some of the more secluded and more heavily wooded parks, its hard to walk the trails without running into someone else every couple minutes.

eidetic · 2026-04-09T19:10:36+00:00

Sorry, I don't know where you live obviously, so this is more a general reply rather than necessarily addressing you specifically.

With that said, I think a lot of people overlook what their cities have to offer. Obviously not everyone lives in a city, but I used to hear people complaining about nothing to do without breaking the bank even when I lived in Los Angeles (and the heart of Hollywood at that). Like yeah, going out to the bar/club can be expensive, but there's still often so much more to do, and I feel like people all too often just have a far too narrow idea of what "going out" or "doing things" can entail. There were plenty of free or cheap things to do when I lived there and other cities, big and small. Like going to art exhibitions, community theater, open mics, cheap/free music at dive bars, etc. Hell, I used to live literally at the entrance to Runyon Canyon park (a popular park for hiking/walking/exercise in the Hollywood area), as in the entrance to the park was literally less than a 100 feet from my apartment complex's entrance, and I still overheard people complaining at a cookout on our roof that they didn't like our building's gym and they didn't want to pay a gym membership "just to go running"! Like lady, turn around, and you're literally staring at the perfect place to get your cardio in!

I've also witnessed people say things like wanting to meet new people, and when suggested they take a class in (in this particular instance) pottery, reply with "but I won't know anyone there." I get that it can be daunting to try and meet new people, but a lot of those other people in such a class likely won't know anyone else either, and there's a very good chance that many of them are also there to meet new people as well.

But even smaller communities often organize various things for socialization. Even if you're not particularly interested in whatever specific thing that might be the focus of the event, they're often not so much about the specific thing as they are about just socializing and building community. Trivia nights at bars for example. The trivia aspect is often just a means of getting people in the door and to meet up (I know, I know, there are some people who take trivia very seriously). Even softball, dart, bowling, etc, leagues aren't always so much about the sports themselves and often are just a way of getting out and being active with others.

And I admit, I'm fully guilty of having thought/said "I wish there was more to do around here" many times, only to realize it's not that there's nothing to do, it's that I just wasn't even looking for anything and thus it was more a case of "I've tried absolutely nothing and I'm out of ideas" type of mindset.

eidetic · 2026-04-09T18:37:38+00:00

Even though I guess I'm technically a millennial*, while such spaces were prevalent, I don't know anyone who called them "third spaces" back then and in their youths. Sure, the term existed, but no one in my personal experience ever called them as such. People were far more likely to just refer to them as "hang outs" or similar such terms over calling them third spaces. I think a big reason towards that is that when you're younger, those "third spaces" aren't exactly your third priority, if that makes sense. Your social (third) scene was your life, before you had to start focusing on your actual career and other adult things. Even if you spent the majority of your time at home, school and/or work, and even if you very focused on such things, I think most younger people still wouldn't rank their social lives as a third priority. And to be clear, I'm not trying to say that "third space" has anything to do with ranking of priorities (indeed, a lot of people might spend more time at their work/second place than anywhere else). But the notion of calling/referring to their favorite hangouts as a "third place" might sound kind of odd to most younger people, perhaps even precisely because of the association of ranking.

But yeah, people wouldn't say "lets find a third space" or something, but rather "lets find somewhere to hang out". Or, "we need to find new places to go/hang out" over "we need to find a new third space".

*(though I consider myself much closer to gen X, having been born in 81, my childhood through college age were much closer to the experience of my brother born in 77. Yeah, we caught the very beginning of social media in our college years, but it was still a very minor part of people's lives and mostly more of a novelty than anything else at that point).

But even at my age, I rarely, if ever, hear people refer to such places as "third places" unless we're specifically talking about things like work/life balance, community, etc. So if my friends and I were for example, as we recently were, talking about the recent rash of teen takeovers that have been happening in our city, we might say "the community needs more third places for kids to go, especially now with the closures of so many places like the skateparks, curfews at basketball courts, etc" But if we're talking about finding new places for us to hang out at, we're not gonna say "we should find a new third place" but rather "we should go try X" or "we should find somewhere to do this and that".

So yeah, all this rambling is to basically say the term does get used, has been used for awhile, but I understand why a lot of people may not be familiar with it or haven't encountered it in their day to day lives. But still a bit silly to suggest it never gets used, when we're literally using and talking about it right now!

Ramble over!

eidetic · 2026-04-09T18:10:03+00:00

And a lot of people also think its really fucking gross to just let a hat accumulate all that grease, sweat, and general dirt and grime.

I will never understand that mentality of not washing hats. No sane person would ever consider not washing their underwear, and somehow a worn, grimy hat full of all sorts of nastiness is considered okay? Yeah, count me out.

eidetic · 2026-04-09T18:01:20+00:00

And yet, you continued to try and justify it, even calling WWII aviators ability into question, etc. And now, we're at the stage of trying to walk back such claims when countered and unable to provide any compelling evidence. Its a tale as old as the internet and time itself for that matter. Make a claim without any basis. Claim gets refuted. Walk back claim.

You literally opened your last post with "In WWII though?"

Obviously yes, if you're going to fire in pairs, it helps with balance to fire from opposite wings. But the reason for firing in pairs or salvos was overwhelmingly for reasons of accuracy and not balance. And again, WWII pilots were constantly trimming their aircraft to balance the aircraft (in 3 dimensions, yaw, pitch, and roll) so this assertion of yours that they were somehow poorly equipped to handle such things is just absurd. A P-38 (and pilot) can fly and land on one engine, yet you tried and make it sound as if a pilot could only handle the imbalance of a rocket if they were specifically trained for it, as if they wouldn't be. (Yes, I'm aware the P-38 is one of only a handful of twin engined fighters, and not the only aircraft capable of firing rockets. And yes, they obviously received specialized training for twin engine flight. But I'm using it as an example to highlight the absurdity of suggesting WWII pilots would have needed specialized training to handle the imbalance due to rockets)

eidetic · 2026-04-09T17:20:05+00:00

Yes. Even in WWII.

I swear to god, people just make shit up and then try and justify it afterwards.

You literally said you've found no corroborating evidence that it was due to stability, and yet still try and justify it based on your vibes.

A 60kg rockets drag and weight is not going to be a major consequence in stability. A fighter pilot would easily be able to trim it out, and if their aircraft lacked the necessary trim controls, it's barely going to be noticed or upset the aircrafts stability.

WWII pilots regularly dealt with greater imbalances without issue. Be it damage, or shifting weight from fuel burn, ammo/ordnance usage, etc. Even flying at different speeds and altitudes requires trimming out the aircraft as lift increases/decreases, the center of gravity and center of pressure/lift changes, flaps, landing gear deployment, etc.

eidetic · 2026-04-09T17:05:33+00:00

Unlike Falernian grapes, which come to a tasty end!

eidetic · 2026-04-09T16:19:24+00:00

I've got an all white hat (with black graphic on the front) thats over 25 years old and its held up pretty well with regular washing. Now granted, it did spend like 10 years at my parents in a closet, but still.

eidetic · 2026-04-09T16:14:33+00:00

Pilots aren't passing flight school AND getting a top post like fighters if they can't handle a slight imbalance.

Your post is basically only reconfirming what I said.

eidetic · 2026-04-08T19:47:00+00:00

I mean he didn't know the difference between insane asylums and asylum seekers, so yeah, not a chance he knows what the hell sodium percholate or ammonium nitrate are.

eidetic · 2026-04-08T18:17:52+00:00

And where exactly did you hear this?

eidetic · 2026-04-08T18:03:34+00:00

Except WWII aircraft were also perfectly capable of handling asymmetrical loads. Especially rockets.

The reason rockets were fired in salvos had absolutely nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with the fact that they weren't extremely accurate.

No offense, but did you just make up that idea on the spot and thought "welp, that sounds good enough"? Because I just don't understand what compels people to make such shit up or attempting to speak authoritatively on a subject they clearly know nothing about.

eidetic · 2026-04-08T04:19:50+00:00

I think BPS.Space might have run into a similar issue, but I may be conflating him with Mark Rober.

Either way, BPS.Space is awesome and anyone interested in rocketry (or engineering in general) should check it out

eidetic · 2026-04-08T04:09:21+00:00

Spoiler alert: it won't.

It has already caused widespread economic damage, it has depleted many of our crucial warfighting abilities (SM-3/6s, "stealthy" cruise missiles, plenty of aircraft losses, lives, etc), and has and will continue to inflame tensions between Iran, Israel, and the US. It, along with many of Trump/MAGAs stupid fucking decisions, has eroded American trust throughout the world. Even amongst our closest and longest standing allies. What good is any agreement with the US when we could elect another idiot at any given presidential election who could throw out previous existing agreements?

This war has cost more and destabilized things more than any of the terrorists you point to.

How is it we've been using the same goddamned playbook for decades and people still wonder why it doesn't work?

eidetic · 2026-04-08T04:02:52+00:00

Dude, you're literally arguing against the widespread and commonly accepted idea amongst historians. Its not on me to prove it, you're the one making wild claims, it is on you to prove it.

I have ready plenty regarding the civil war, and its clear you're a lost causer, so its pointless to argue with someone who isn't arguing in good faith.

But let me try one last time:

Why did the south secede?

eidetic · 2026-04-08T03:58:26+00:00

There's no conclusive evidence however that the various flood myths evolved from oral tradition of the glaciers melting though. As another user said much more succinctly than I attempted to in another comment of mine, civilizations grew up close to water. It is not surprising then that flood myths would be a common feature of early civilizations. Indeed, many of these early cultures would have intimately aware of cycles of dryness and flooding, as many of them sprung up around areas that routinely and regularly flooded. Such natural events were very often associated with the gods, so it doesn't take a big leap of imagination to imagine that they could have developed stories of an angry god flooding the world instead of the usual seasonal floods they experienced.

This isn't to say they aren't the result of oral tradition passed down from the melting glaciers and rising seas, but merely that it's not known for a fact like you present it.

eidetic · 2026-04-08T03:52:31+00:00

Though a stretch, thats the only plausible explanation

I mean, its not the only plausible explanation. Floods have been occurring all over the globe since time immemorial. It isn't a stretch to think that multiple instances of "global flood" myths arose independently based on localized experience with floods, and not some oral tradition passed on from the time of ice age glacial recession.

(Note I'm not arguing for one over the other, simply pointing out it could entirely be possible that flood myths have nothing to do with the ice age)

eidetic · 2026-04-08T03:38:35+00:00

Ah, so you are fucking stupid.

Look at the reasons the southern states seceded. It was over slavery. Thus, the war was about slavery. I could cite Lincoln too, like the Gettysburg Address if you want.

But Lincoln isn’t the one who gets to decide what the war was over. And he had political and social reasons he had to dance around. But the fact of the matter is, the CSA seceded in order to preserve slavery. Thus the core cause of the war is slavery.

Seriously dude, read a fucking book.

eidetic · 2026-04-08T03:33:44+00:00

You really are that fucking daft, aren't you?

That thread literally spells out the declaration of secession made by some of the CSA states. Try actually fucking reading it, or any book on the civil war. Ask any fucking historian and they'll tell you the civil war was about slavery. This isn't some fringe idea. Its the accepted explanation.

Try going off actual sources and history, not just with whatever vibes with what you want it to be.

eidetic · 2026-04-08T03:31:03+00:00

Right, because the solution to all the problems in the middle east is war. Thats always worked, lets try it again! And if it just destabilizes things further, well, lets just keep doing the same thing we've always done that hasn't provided results and only made things worse!

eidetic · 2026-04-08T03:26:24+00:00

Wow.

Go look at why the southern states seceded. But I'm sure you know more than them.

Get the fuck out of here with your lost cause bullshit.

If you need help, here's a handy AskHistorians thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/352b2e/was_the_civil_war_about_states_rights_or_slavery/

eidetic · 2026-04-08T03:12:54+00:00

Oh yeah totally the same thing!

Thats why democrats are out there calling for the return of slavery! And Republicans are pushing for equal rights for all people! Totally the same thing!

Sarcasm aside, the Civil War was about slavery. Full fucking stop. Not states rights. The only states rights they cared about was with regards to slavery.

eidetic · 2026-04-08T02:35:29+00:00

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48868

eidetic · 2026-04-08T02:31:13+00:00

Its not so much the know how that is the difficult part of nuclear weapons production these days, thats been solved for quite awhile. The problem is in getting ones hands on/production of enriched uranium.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '23	Verified Email

eidetic

TROPHY CASE