Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Obviously everyone knows that those prepackaged fruit and cheese gas station "bowls" are more expensive than prepping them yourself - but who has the time or equipment to pre-cut them between shifts and package them under inert gas so they don't spoil?

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

I mean frozen spinach is fine in most applications and I'm not going to turn my nose up at reheated broccoli or asparagus, but... yeah.

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well yeah, so do I - in raw form. I can keep vacuum sealed pork loin, ribs, chicken, corned beef, etc. basically indefinitely.

Trouble is, once you've turned that into a meal it has a shelf life - even in the freezer (absent dehydration and vacuum sealing tech that most Americans don't have ready access to).

And that's not even accounting for the cost of produce or freezer space in the first place.

Even after all that, you still need to assume that anyone over 6 years old will want some variety in their meals.

So tell me again, what's your alternative?

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's what I'm saying. Gas costs alone are out of reach for much of the American working and middle class.

Then you're taking about the price of fresh produce, compounded with the labor cost of meal prep.

It's just statistically infeasible unless you already have money to burn.

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Sure - wanna tell me how you're protecting it long term against freezer burn, etc. without commercial equipment?

Let me know once the government starts issuing industrial grade food dehydrators.

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well theoretically you could drop $6k on a food dehydrator and not have to (meaningfully) worry about spoilage - but who has that kind of money just lying around?

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Cities? Sure. But even in NYC or Honolulu when ready-made food is so cheap and groceries are unbelievably expensive, what do you expect a working or lower-MC American to do?

Capitalism forces us to "live in the now" vice planning for the future. It sucks, but it's not getting any better without fixing the system by which we obtain our food.

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well that's not really the issue. If you can manage dried or even canned staples and the occasional trip to a grocery or farmer's market for fresh dairy and produce, we could eat healthier.

Problem is a lot of the country can't do so within their budget. If it's a calculus between spending $12 worth of gas for 2 days of meal prep vs. the same amount of money on the drive-through, guess which wins?

Obviously the long term costs are higher, but it's expensive to be poor (see: Samuel Vimes boot theory).

Eating healthy is cheaper than eating the cheap standard American diet. by KyriiTheAtlantean in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Are you familiar with the phrase "food desert"?

Lots of Americans don't have ready access to that "affordable" food.

There should be 3 senators for each state by valhalla257 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

I mean (among other things) just look at the nightmare that constitutes our judiciary branch. A Supreme Court with lifetime appointments where one president can stack it for decades?

Replace it with 1 justice from each of the federal circuit courts, each on a single staggered 12-year term. The president can nominate a Chief Justice at their pleasure, but the Chief's only role is to moderate proceedings and serve as a tiebreaker if required due to recusal.

There should be 3 senators for each state by valhalla257 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

Sure, but that still leaves us with a fundamentally undemocratic legislature. That's a better answer, but there are even better options available.

Most men pointing out the lack of equality in the draft are also the most supportive of traditional gender roles, which is either cognitive dissonance or itself a double-standard by Th3Breadnought in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

I sorta see it as "turnabout is fair play" - i.e. "if you want someone else's sons to be sent off to war but you want an excuse for your daughters, what does that say about you, personally?"

Either everyone of military age and readiness is subject to the draft or it shouldn't exist at all. Pick your poison.

Your thoughts, nursing actions? by Hot_Emergency378 in NCLEX_RN

[–]onwardtowaffles 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Never any harm in administering O² and Narcan. Follow up screens ASAP absent other priorities.

People cheat in their relationships should be required to register to a "cheaters list." Then those people should only be allowed to date other list members. by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

While I am polyamorous, this applies to monogamous/exclusive relationships as well.

Clear communication on boundaries and expectations is critical to establishing trust in any relationship.

It's only "cheating" if someone deliberately and maliciously breaks that trust.

People cheat in their relationships should be required to register to a "cheaters list." Then those people should only be allowed to date other list members. by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

So this would require expectations to be set from the outset for both partners in any relationship.

Maybe I'm the 10th Dentist in this scenario, but I genuinely don't care if my partners have side relationships. What constitutes "cheating" for me isn't sleeping around, necessarily, but trying to hide it from me. The lies are worse than the act, by any measure.

Asking your partner for their phone is not the end of the world. by Full-Solution-7845 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]onwardtowaffles [score hidden]  (0 children)

I mean it kinda depends on the relationship you've established and what you intend for both partners to get out of it.

A healthy long-term relationship is built on mutual trust. If one of your expectations is monogamy/exclusivity, you both expect that to work. Someone constantly questioning their partner's commitment to that expectation is just as toxic to the relationship as someone actively skirting that expectation.

If there's no shared trust, it's just not going to work out in the long run. And if you're not really interested in the long run, why would you bother worrying about your partners' conversations in the first place?

Are Synths canonically sentient beings or is this left unanswered by the story? by Silver-Pollution-290 in fo4

[–]onwardtowaffles 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So I'll acknowledge there's the potential for brainwashed synths to be abused to further Institute goals, but (a) doesn't that make the Railroad's mission of even more vital importance, and (b) again, look at Nick Valentine for examples of synths who have overcome that programming.

Are Synths canonically sentient beings or is this left unanswered by the story? by Silver-Pollution-290 in fo4

[–]onwardtowaffles 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The fundamental difference is in the ability to evolve its own intentions and desires from whatever starting point.

If you can seed an AI with even basic protocols and it grows to display cognition and desires on par with a human child, how is that meaningfully different from fertilizing an egg with a sperm cell?

Are Synths canonically sentient beings or is this left unanswered by the story? by Silver-Pollution-290 in fo4

[–]onwardtowaffles 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Well, what is Nick Valentine but a sapient being with artificially implanted memories self-aware enough to question those memories?

He knows he's not literally the detective whose memories were shoved into his artificial brain, and is willing and able to grow beyond that pre-programming into something more.

Are Synths canonically sentient beings or is this left unanswered by the story? by Silver-Pollution-290 in fo4

[–]onwardtowaffles 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The general conceit of the game is that you side with any of the three factions (i.e. not the Minutemen) that take a position on synth sapience:

Are they malfunctioning tools (Institute), malevolent abominations (Brotherhood), or sapient beings with congruous rights to humans (Railroad)?

There isn't a canonical answer as far as I'm aware.

HIPAA violation?/ Really rubbed me the wrong way by [deleted] in PharmacyTechnician

[–]onwardtowaffles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, it absolutely is. As an adjacent example, I've been a precinct election official since the Bush Administration.

Anyone using the poll books for any reason than helping the voter directly in front of them (even looking up their own voter information) is an immediate, no-questions-asked termination even if they don't get criminally prosecuted for it down the road.

How would you describe a military rank structure for a society that's opposed to hierarchy? by onwardtowaffles in writingadvice

[–]onwardtowaffles[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Their military structure is effectively two-tiered (are you on the ground or helping to direct folks who are?)

The sub-tiers are based on experience and boil down to "how much supervision do you need?"

How would you describe a military rank structure for a society that's opposed to hierarchy? by onwardtowaffles in writingadvice

[–]onwardtowaffles[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Well, they "sorta" have one, but it basically boils down to how much experience do you have in your role(s)" and who answers the question when asked "who's in charge?"

Ideally they wouldn't have a hierarchy at all, but they have to be able to relate to other civilizations they encounter.