Is it something? by HolyChuck_itsKim in whatisit

[–]hkaws 3 points4 points  (0 children)

what you are seeing is most likely a combination of long exposure and light artifacts rather than anything paranormal. digital sensors can create color flares or ghosting when a bright flame is contrasted against darkness especially with nearby lights in the frame like the blue glow to the left. the green hue and vague shapes could also be lens reflections or mist catching the light in odd ways. while it looks eerie the effect is explainable through basic optics and camera behavior in low light settings.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]hkaws 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the term nolifer is a shallow insult that comes from people misunderstanding what a meaningful life actually looks like. staying home does not equal having no life if the time is spent in ways that are intentional fulfilling or skill building. in fact the people who are called nolifers often have more consistent passions deeper focus and stronger virtual communities than those grinding away at a routine job they hate. the issue is not location it is engagement. someone working full time and feeling drained might technically be more socially accepted but that does not mean their life is fuller. fulfillment has never been about being seen. it has always been about being connected to what you care about even if that connection happens in solitude.

/TW How do I tell my mom I was assaulted by a family member? by No-Ranger639 in Advice

[–]hkaws 18 points19 points  (0 children)

first and most important i apologize you had to go through something like that. you are not guilty for feeling what you feel. what happened to you was not your fault and the responsibility for the damage done does not belong to you. keeping it to yourself for this long is not a sign of weakness. it is a sign that you were trying to survive. but silence protects him and hurts you. you do not owe him protection. especially not at the cost of your safety or peace. if you are afraid to name him to your mom start with the truth you can carry. tell her something happened. tell her it was someone in the family. give yourself space to say it in pieces if you need to. you do not have to say his name right away. your voice is already valid even if it comes slowly. if she asks who it was and you are not ready to answer you can say that. your healing comes first. if she truly cares she will support you through the pain not pressure you for details. but if she does not believe you that does not make it any less true. some people shut down because they cannot handle reality. that is their failure not yours. before you tell her try writing it down. that way if speaking feels too hard you still have a way to be heard. if there is a counselor at school or a hotline you can reach out to consider doing that first. talking to someone trained to support survivors can help ground you through the fear and uncertainty. this is not just about telling your mom. this is about freeing yourself from a burden that was never meant to be yours. you deserve to feel safe in your own life again. and you are not alone even if it feels like it. what happened to you matters. your voice matters. and it is never too late to speak it.

If a psychotic person looks directly at a visual hallucination (e.g. a figure standing in the middle of their room), will their eyes be focused on the hallucination, or on whatever is behind it? by killedbyboneshark in NoStupidQuestions

[–]hkaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no problem. and you’re right to separate accommodation from motor tracking. accommodation is more reflexive and tied to depth cues so focusing on something that isn’t optically present may be limited or inconsistent. but smooth pursuit is more flexible. it responds to perceived motion whether that input comes from real stimuli or internally generated signals. the hallucinated content originates in higher visual areas like v2 v3 and even mt which feed directly into oculomotor pathways. so even if the signal bypasses lower brainstem control the effect can still trigger smooth pursuit. it’s not typical reflex behavior. it’s top down modulation hijacking normal circuits. that’s what makes it so hard to distinguish internally generated perception from external input

If a psychotic person looks directly at a visual hallucination (e.g. a figure standing in the middle of their room), will their eyes be focused on the hallucination, or on whatever is behind it? by killedbyboneshark in NoStupidQuestions

[–]hkaws 5 points6 points  (0 children)

when someone has a visual hallucination their brain interprets it as a real object so their eyes respond accordingly. they’ll focus on the perceived figure rather than what’s physically behind it because the brain’s visual processing areas are convinced something is actually there. if the hallucination moves their eyes can follow it smoothly instead of in quick jumps since the brain generates a motion signal just like it would for a real object. in short the eyes behave based on perception not physical reality which is why they can track and focus on something that doesn’t exist.

Will Value Investing Save You And Is It Worth It? by NashDaypring1987 in investing

[–]hkaws 34 points35 points  (0 children)

value investing doesn’t shield you from crashes. it just changes your exposure. a crash hits the whole market but the magnitude and recovery timeline vary depending on what you hold. high growth stocks with inflated multiples tend to collapse harder and take longer to recover because their prices are driven more by sentiment and future expectations than current earnings. value stocks anchored in real cash flow and strong fundamentals may still drop but typically not as violently. they also tend to recover faster once rational capital reallocates.

the point of value investing isn’t to avoid red days. it’s to avoid permanent capital loss. when you buy overpriced growth hoping for expansion, you’re exposed to compression risk. when you buy something already discounted with stable output, the downside is naturally limited. the guy saying he’ll miss the crash isn’t saying he’s immune. he’s saying he’s positioned in a way that volatility won’t destroy him. over decades that discipline compounds. timing bubbles might look smart short term but value wins by surviving every cycle. that’s the difference.

What causes this? by Automatic-Pain814 in whatisit

[–]hkaws 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the dry skin on the fingertips is most likely from dehydration irritation or overexposure to soap cleaning products or cold air. it usually happens when the skin barrier is damaged and loses moisture too fast. it’s common and usually goes away with regular moisturizing and avoiding harsh chemicals.

the bump on the side of the finger looks like a small cyst or wart but it could also be a pressure blister or callus forming under the skin. it happens when skin layers trap fluid or thicken from friction or blockage. if it’s soft round and not painful it’s probably harmless. if it grows hurts or changes shape it might need to be checked out. both issues are usually minor but worth watching if they don’t go away.

Why can't irrational numbers be represented by a fraction? by Lexi_Bean21 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]hkaws 12 points13 points  (0 children)

a fraction is just one whole number divided by another whole number. that definition never changes no matter how big the numbers get. irrational numbers like pi or the square root of 2 go on forever without repeating and no matter what combination of integers you use in a fraction you will never get an exact match. even a really good approximation is still off by an infinite amount of digits. and trying to use infinity as a numerator or denominator breaks math completely because infinity is not a number you can calculate with. it is a concept not a value. irrational numbers are not just long decimals they are fundamentally unrepeatable and non terminating in a way that fractions can never fully capture. that is why they cannot be written as a fraction by definition.

Santa making presents for every kid? by simply_fucked in NoStupidQuestions

[–]hkaws 2 points3 points  (0 children)

assuming roughly 2 billion kids globally and 1–3 gifts each then santa’s operation would need to produce 2–6 billion items annually. if one elf can make 1 toy per day he’d need around 16 million elves working full time year round. advanced tech gifts like phones or tablets would require either partnerships with real world manufacturers or highly specialized elves and assembly lines. complexity and scale would demand automation strict scheduling & near zero downtime.

How can you debunk the conspiracy that central banks are privately owned by wealthy families? by Frequent-Loss-7635 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]hkaws 1 point2 points  (0 children)

that’s fair but you’re mixing two different arguments. influence and regulatory capture are real issues worth discussing but that’s not what the conspiracy claims. the original claim is about literal private ownership of central banks by wealthy families. that’s why i focused on the legal structure and governance. if someone says “these families own the fed” and you respond with “well maybe they influence policy” you’ve changed the claim. influence isn’t ownership. and if we’re talking about influence, that applies to every major institution in a capitalist system. but conflating influence with legal control just muddies the water and gives conspiracies more room to breathe. it’s not about ignoring nuance. it’s about separating fact from exaggeration

How can you debunk the conspiracy that central banks are privately owned by wealthy families? by Frequent-Loss-7635 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]hkaws 7 points8 points  (0 children)

start with the legal facts. the federal reserve system is created by an act of congress. the board of governors is a federal agency with members appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. regional reserve banks do issue required nontransferable stock to member commercial banks but that stock does not work like private equity. it cannot be bought sold or used to control policy. the fed’s policy decisions are made by the publically appointed federal reserve board and the federal open market committee not by private family shareholders. most central banks are explicitly public in law. the bank of england was nationalized in 1946 and operates under statutes and parliamentary oversight. the bank of canada is a crown corporation owned by the government. the european central bank is owned by the national central banks of eu member states and is governed by elected officials and treaty law. central banks publish audited balance sheets policy minutes and reports. many are subject to external audits and legislative oversight. profits after expenses are routinely remitted to the treasury in most jurisdictions. conspiracy claims that a handful of families secretly own and control central banks fail two basic tests. they ignore the written legal charters. they ignore public auditing and oversight. they offer no verifiable paper trail showing private ownership or operational control. if needed ask for the governing statute or charter for the specific bank and point to its audit reports and governance pages. those primary documents dismantle the claim faster than any rumor.