I'm sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but I'll give my perspective anyway.

Why do you care about getting "back in your industry/career"? Yeah you did it previously, but is it really what makes you happy?

When you have goals, you always think "once I reach this, everything will be better". In my experience and with everyone I ever talked with, this was never the lasting case. Reaching some nice goal gave satisfaction for days or sometimes even weeks or months, but never longer. Then it was back to dissatisfaction and another goal.

The common path frequently described out of depression is getting back into the groove of setting goals, following them, not being satisfied, setting another goal, repeat. This is not how I got out of my depression and also not a good life.

I don't think it's important that you reach your goal of getting back in your industry or whatever. I think it's important that you're fine with not reaching it. I think it's important to recognize that you can be happy and satisfied right where you are, exactly with what you have.

This is a very broad topic, because imo it goes to the very core of our psyche.

There are obviously some very simple considerations, like availability. If one person is available earlier, then it's very logical that the activity will be done first with the person that's available earlier.

Of course, that's not always the case, and there's still the question of "who do you ask first".

The main question is, what is "better"? I like gaming with a specific person more than another person. Is it better or worse that I ask that person first? I definitely apply a value judgement in this process. The one person has funny reactions to the games, which I like. The other person is more calm but very thoughtful and also very fun to game with. But if I was given a choice that I could only play with the one or the other, then I would choose the first person for gaming. This is a direct comparison for one quality in a person that one person "wins".

Is the other person now a worse person that I like less? Of course not. People have different qualities and it's completely normal that these qualities make them more suited for particular things. As a result, everyone is treated slightly differently. This is happening with everyone in every relationship in every situation in different degrees. Sometimes there is no preference, sometimes the preference is greater.

Now, for the "choosing" person there isn't that big of a dilemma. It's more impactful for the one that is asked first/later, the one "being chosen", because they implicitly recognize the value judgement that the first person made.

It's important to recognize that there is a possibility this value judgement is happening. Of course, sometimes it's based on randomness or availability, but it's more often simple reality that you like to do certain things more with certain people.

But many people deny this, or want to not think about it, to not "hurt other's feelings". But it is possible to talk about this openly (like anything lol). Being cognizant and open and honest about it is the first step.

So, what is your specific situation? Is a thing being done first with someone because there's actually a preference? Because if not, this can just be communicated and theoretically there shouldn't be a problem, since everyone will get to be "first" eventually, through sheer randomness.

If there is a preference, the "problem" is the involved person's egos. Humans are possessive and jealous by nature. It makes sense, because we live in a reality with limited resources. Everyone has a limited amount of time to spend. In an ancestral (and even today's) environment, survival depends on raising children. Theoretically, the more children/people you divide your resources (including attention/care) towards, the less likely the survival/flourishing of individual children gets. Even if we rationally decide to not have children or similar, the traits governing this behavior don't suddenly deactivate. Thus these traits also affect situations like "doing something first with someone".

I know what community this is in, and I recognize most people here already understand this. But the fact of this being a "separate" topic made me think it's worth repeating some of these thoughts.

In the end, the solution is the same. Relationships are naturally some kind of competition and do have differences, but we chose to disregard these, or rather, embrace them. We understand that it's possible to be with multiple people. But we must also understand that there are whims, preferences, inclinations.

So, I think "first" is "special" in some way, sometimes. But this doesn't destroy anything. It doesn't need to be a problem. It is possible to accept not being the "first", even when it's based on preference.

First, we have to understand all this rationally. Then we must talk about it like this so everyone has the same understanding.

Then, when the toxic/problematic thing starts, we need to recognize it. It's hard to do it personally, but we can try, and also, we can help each other recognize it. It's easier to recognize the problematic behavior in another person, an outside perspective makes it easier. The outside person can kindly remind/point out the problematic behavior, making sure to remember that this is a cooperative, beneficial thing for everyone.

When the behavior is recognized, then mindfulness can be established. You can try to observe your thoughts/behaviors and remember your preferred thoughts/behaviors. It is then possible to let the problematic behavior go. And replace it with the desired thoughts/behaviors. Meditation practice helps with this.

When you start with all this, it is hard to do all this, but with practice, it gets easier. And if you do it a lot, this aligns your subconscious with your conscious behavior.

I got answers and engagement from communities that seemed dead on Lemmy due to lack of users. You should just try to ask your questions... One answer that truly helps is already enough usually, you don't actually need 100 users upvoting the same answer or 12 different answers where only 1 is good. For many things, low engagement is already sufficient.

One thing that people didn't mention yet: this is the behavior that made him (stay) a billionaire. You don't get to be one by being nice and non-exploitative.

But I haven't been trying hard at all...

There's definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.

For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn't need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.

A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn't work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn't be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.

If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it'll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.

So no, you aren't necessarily "not fun" if you don't allow this as a DM. You're just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.

I'm pretty sure the trials of death in super mario maker wins.

Over 4000 hours over 7 years just to beat one level.

No, you need to conform to the majority, differences only cause unpredictability and thus unsafetyness.

This is sarcasm, but it's what many people actually think.

In case of OP, it's self-loathing

Are you sure men are not subjected to something similar? Granted, no random women came to me on the street, but I received all kinds of weird "advice" by distantly acquainted women as a young man, which in all honesty also felt like "pressuring me to conform to female desire"

It has been my experience. Google Play has no way to communicate back that a rating has been made, so all apps I know just assume you rated and never bother you again.

Maybe you're just using really sketchy apps, but for me it worked every time.

Most "far right" people are exactly the kind that made the comment you reply to. I have a "friend" that became exactly like this.

Defense lawyers are supposed to try everything they can to defend their client, no matter how little sense it makes. It is theoretically possible for an admission of guilt to be false.

It's up to the judge to understand their arguments are worthless and rule accordingly.

That's how this is supposed to work.

It depends entirely on the maturity of the parties involved, it's not really an "older/younger" thing.

But generally, the less mature you are, the more a relationship is selfish, i.e. you want to be in a relationship for your personal advantage, i.e. "i get sex when I have a girlfriend". The more mature you get, the more relationships go into the direction of "I want to make the other person happy". You still get your sex or whatever other advantage of course, but it's much more fulfilling if you can actually give the other person what they need, and temporarily losing your personal benefit of the relationship doesn't cause immediate breakups.

They don't really. They are often learned the hard way, because no one attempts to explain them or just acts like they know but doesn't really.

No one said at all that AI used "reason" to talk people out of a conspiracy theory. In fact I would assume it's incredibly unlikely since AI in general is not reasonable.

Almost all celebrities get to where they are specifically not because they are amazing people. It requires a special kind of mindset to pursue fame and status to such an extent.

It's relatively reasonable to expect a person to lie, it's a bit less reasonable to expect two people to lie, it's even less reasonable to expect someone to lie in a professional context where their livelihood depends on them not being discovered to be lying.

It makes a certain sense when you look at it that way from an employer's perspective.

Of course, like you probably understand, it doesn't make any sense after all, because in the end if you go to a doctor and lie about being sick (symptoms), the doctor is neither lying nor professionally liable and the whole thing is just an additional hurdle to go through.

But that hurdle is also part of the point to reduce the convenience of lying. And I'm absolutely sure that this additional hurdle has prevented someone somewhere from calling in sick while they aren't.

Again of course, that likely hasn't resulted in more work being done, because obviously the employee had a reason to lie about being sick. But whatever, I'll stop now.

What to do with it is to act understanding and empathetic with people like that instead of standoffish and hostile. You still insist on the better way of doing things, but there's no actual need to attack anyone that doesn't support the better way of doing things, even if their reasons aren't rational or even morally questionable/bad. It only serves to further entrench them in their positions, while the opposite might have a chance to happen in a more cooperative approach.

Funny how you made exactly the comment the article predicted within itself xD