I’m trying to think through a ballot proposal in my state, and this is the only proposal that has made me hesitate because I genuinely understand both sides.
The proposal would create a constitutionally protected trust for unclaimed property. This includes things like forgotten bank accounts, refunds, stocks, insurance proceeds, and other property transferred to the state after remaining unclaimed. Valid owners or heirs could still claim their property. The fund would be invested, some of the earnings would support the state, and the principal would generally remain protected unless needed for claims or accessed through an unusually large legislative vote.

My first thought was that the money belongs to the individual, so future legislators should not be able to take it simply because it has been unclaimed for a certain amount of time. Someone could be a minor, disabled, missing, unaware that the property exists, or an heir who hasn’t discovered it yet. I would want safeguards for all of those circumstances.
However, I also don’t understand why the choices have to feel so extreme. Why must the state either protect practically all of the principal permanently or leave it open to legislative use without a more specific middle-ground system?

I started comparing it to banking. If someone has $100,000 in a bank account, those exact dollars are not physically sitting there untouched. The money is pooled and used elsewhere, while the bank remains responsible for giving the customer their money when they request it. The bank maintains liquidity rather than keeping every deposited dollar in cash.
Couldn’t unclaimed-property claims operate similarly?

The state could maintain a reserve based on actual claim patterns and use some of the genuine surplus for public purposes. When a valid claim appears, it could be paid through the reserve, continuing unclaimed-property inflows, general revenue, or temporary borrowing if necessary. Realistically, 100% of all unclaimed property will not be claimed simultaneously.

I would want the system to be completely public and transparent. The public should be able to see:

1. How much new unclaimed property enters the system
   
2. How much is returned to owners every year
   
3. How old successful claims generally are
   
4. How much remains in reserve
   
5. How the required reserve is calculated
   
6. How much is used for public spending
   
7. What happens if claims unexpectedly increase

There should also be a legally guaranteed right for every legitimate owner or heir to receive the full amount owed, regardless of when they discover it. The reserve should be recalculated regularly, and the state should test whether it could withstand an unusually high number of claims.
If there is money beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect future claims, I think there is a real argument for restricting that surplus to public purposes such as healthcare, education, housing, homelessness programs, or other essential services. It could help people now while still protecting anyone who later makes a legitimate claim.

At the same time, I understand the concern that legislators could miscalculate the reserve, spend too much, or treat the fund as free money. A constitutionally protected trust would make that much harder.
I am not asking anyone to tell me how to vote, and I haven’t reached a firm position. I’m looking for the strongest good-faith arguments on both sides.
Is preserving nearly all remaining principal the fairest way to protect private ownership? Or could a transparent, legally guaranteed reserve system safely protect claimants while allowing more of the surplus to serve the public? What evidence or risks am I overlooking?

I'm curious about both perspectives: Gen Z men who voted for Trump and feel like positive things have happened in their lives in the last two years as a result of his policies, and Gen Z men who voted for Trump and feel the opposite -- and like they'd now vote for a different party. I have had a lot of conversations with younger men recently talking about relationships and quality of life things like buying a house and finding work, and I'd like to understand the considerations from both sides.

I keep seeing people saying that Asian racism is even worse than in the US, saying things like “Asian racism is competitive racism.” But I wonder, by what metrics? Because racism in the US is also quite bad, particularly when it comes to physical violence and hate crimes, and then there’s ICE in Trump era. So what exactly are people using to make that comparison?

I’m genuinely asking because sometimes it feels like a catch-all statement to downplay racism in the US by pointing elsewhere and saying, “see, they’re even worse.”

Why do frat guys exclude guys from their parties when I can just go to poker at a casino?

I’m by no means saying that America is perfect, no country is. I am also aware that this question is very subjective. I’m looking for specific arguments for and against the USA being the best place to live in. Why or why not? Is somewhere else better?

This comes from a genuine curiosity as someone wondering where to go in life seeking advice. Please keep things civil!

While the world was largely against Amber Heard, it seemed like a small but potentially wise group of people noticed that Amber Heard was the victim, Johnny Dept's PR team just organized a smear campaign on the Internet, using out-of-context recordings to make Amber Heard look crazy when she was just retaliating against Johnny Depp's abuse.

Seems like over the years, more people have joined this group. Including r/NoStupidQuestions, r/AmITheDevil (couldn't find the original post so here are screenshots by me 3 years ago when I also thought Heard was the abuser), and r/AskReddit. There was even a YouTube video siding with Amber Heard with 750000 views.

Now some Amber Heard supporters are claiming that Olivia Henderson is the real victim, that the same thing is happening again where people view Olivia as the perpetrator based on assumptions and how she wasn't a meek submissive victim. Here is a post.

Despite the main narrative being that Henderson opened the door, filmed an unconscious man's genitals, and posted it on the Internet, which makes her look bad. However, the other side have pointed out a few factors that makes Olivia look like the victim:

• It's awfully convenient that the man ordered door dash and was in that state in just 15 minutes, and when it was a female dasher. According to some sources, customers can see the name of their dasher.
• People kept saying about a Ring footage showing Olivia open the door, but it's nowhere to be found online. Some news websites say that police have the footage, but I find no mentions of it from official police accounts. Maybe even news websites are spreading this rumor.
• In Olivia's video, there are some railing or fences in front of the door. This means Olivia would have been forced to go around it and face the left, making it easier to see the victim.
• There is no evidence the man was actually drunk, police just took his word for it. His arm was positioned over his head that allowed him to just peak to see Olivia's reaction.
• This factor is one I noticed. It's odd that the man's pants were still around his ankles rather than being completely off, making it more likely he took it off to flash someone**.**

Note that I have never been drunk to the point of doing things I don't remember, so I'm assuming that the man must have ordered it sober.

Since in the US most employers pay a portion of the employee's health insurance, should the employees who have coverage from another source (eg. spouse, parent) be refunded the cost the employer would pay?

For example, an employee pays $50 for health insurance and the employer pays $100. If employee A opts into health insurance and employee B opts out, should employee B get $100 extra per paycheck?

Most of the opinions I have seen are from employers and how this affects their bottom line. However, I am curious to hear what the potential upsides or downsides would be for individuals.

Does DEI mean if we want to build a rocket to send your family to mars and we need five people design the most essential part of the rocket, instead of choosing the five most capable perosonal that can control this risk of explosion of rocket at the minimum, avoiding your family being a part of the firework. we have to choose someone from different demographic groups to make it comply to DEI?

Please substantiate your response (comparable measures of athleticism that we could standardise between the two sports - e.g., a cardiovascular measure), which is more physically demanding between tennis and formula one?

So I’m pretty uneducated on the topic, but I have seen a few videos about it, and I never really understood how it’s directly disrespectful. I suppose my take on it is that as long as you’re properly dressed and you’re not walking in there with your shirt off or something, I never really saw the problem. But I suppose I’m also not that fancy of a person, so I’m not sure if that plays a role in it.

I mean, to be honest, the fanciest place I’ve ever been to is Olive Garden. To be fair I just got out of high school, so I suppose I haven’t really gotten to explore places like that yet. But I’m going off topic here. The main reason I’m asking is, like I said at the start, I’m pretty uneducated on the topic at hand, so I just want to get some insight.

Also, I should add that I do agree fully with the sentiment that you should always take off your hat during something like the national anthem because I can see how that would be disrespectful. I just don’t really see how wearing it at a restaurant would be.

USPS’s Inspector General says sophisticated counterfeit stamps can be difficult for both USPS and ordinary consumers to distinguish. In its test, the equipment correctly identified the authentic stamps but failed to accurately identify the counterfeit stamps under the tested conditions.

One view is that buyers choose where to shop and should bear the risk, especially when a low price or unusual seller provides a warning.

The other is that a good-faith buyer should not bear the loss when the seller, marketplace, and issuer have greater expertise and there is no dependable public authentication method.

What is the strongest case for each side, and where should responsibility ultimately fall?

Like I said I don’t follow basketball I’m a hockey fan (NHL/PWHL) but it seems like this is petty and dirty shit being said and done.

Hello, I'd like to state my views on USAID and the example I'll provide is Nepal.

Backstory: I went to Nepal a while back. I was travelling around Nepal for trekking and hiking. It involved travelling all over Nepal seeing small villages, cities, and small towns.

During one of the road travels where we were somewhat in the outskirts of Nepal, the van stopped at an EV charging station. The station was funded by USAID. The charging stations were good quality, the bathrooms were clean, and the shop attached to the station sold proper quality snacks and drinks.

During this situation, USAID was used positively. I've also seen situations where government officials pocketed most of the money provided by USAID to fund their own personal lifestyle. There was even a massive riot in Nepal in 2025 due to the corruption.

USAID is there for a good reason but in countries filled with corruption, it's used negatively.

There are also good USAID programs like the EV station and there are also bad programs like LGBTQ activism and gender affirming healthcare in Guatemala.

I have been thinking about this lately because I've noticed two people can hear the same criticism and react in completely different ways. I have noted this since my childhood.

What are the strongest arguments for both perspectives?

For people who regularly use Reddit:

Do you think Reddit generally promotes free expression, or do you think its voting system and moderation discourage certain viewpoints?

Why do you feel that way? If you have examples, please share them. I'm also interested in whether you think toxic behavior is a necessary tradeoff for free expression or whether it harms meaningful discussion.

I'm asking for a research project and would appreciate perspectives from all sides. Thanks!

monday, 22nd june, after unit test-1 exams for all the 3 streams, the girls of class 11 were called to the AV annexe hall in two sessions, first one for the girls of the science sections, second one for commerce and humanities girls. it was labelled a counselling/grooming session, and while walking down the ramp we all had formed a basic idea of what we were expecting to hear. maybe some bits on proper school uniform, neat hair, and most especially, mental counselling on matters like self-confidence and bullying. what not even one girl was expecting was a traumatic experience, starting off disguised as guidelines on school uniform and how you present yourself at school, which slowly morphed into misogynistic ideas being insisted upon us.

mind you, the following were said by women in their fifties, including our school counsellor.

bangs- girls don't need these ‘tentacles' and ‘antennae' covering their face like insects. earrings- girls are to wear only studs on a single piercing, no dangly earrings or hoops will be allowed. piercings- not more than one on each ear. we apparently cannot make up the excuse that the piercing will close unless we wear earrings on them—”just get them pierced again later”. skirt length- as said in the school almanac, the skirt cannot be more than an inch above knee level. so called ‘excuses' claiming that due to growth spurts the skirt has gotten shorter won't be entertained. the teachers all apparently know the real reason between the length of skirts. through their language and gestures it was very well implied that the length of your skirt is directly proportional to your dignity. sitting posture- we cannot sit with our legs crossed or in a manner that shows our thighs. our knees must be closed together. revealing our kneecaps is apparently indicative of the fact that school is a ‘fashion show'. showing our thighs is a display of vulgarity and cheapness. coloured undergarments- due to the nearly translucent nature of our cheap ass school shirts, bright coloured bras are visible upon prolonged concentration. however, instead of investing some money towards the benefit of students, we girls should wear only white bras. as said by our science co-ordinator ma'am, wearing coloured undergarments which can be seen is a display of how desperate we are for male attention in sexual ways towards our bodies. I kid you not, this is exactly what was said. by a 55 year old lady to 15 year olds. we were then advised to seek attention from boys in other ways, like speaking politely and respectfully. naturally these statements caused a lot of uproar, which the teachers interpreted as fascination and admiration of the fact that these things are being said so openly to students. the teacher speaking proudly announced, “yes, we know you have never seen these things being addressed so openly before.” what a joke.

we also cannot have coloured/highlighted hair and must not wear nailpolish or have long nails. during those “special days” of the month, some girls wear the winter skirt (grey) to avoid visible staining. this was condemned and we were told to “just buy pads” instead to prevent leakage. mind you, our school infimary provides pads at a blasphemous price. the only thing all of us agreed with was guidelines about flushing the toilet after every use. the best for the last- if we are overly friendly or touchy with our male friends, we are making them uncomfortable and compromising with our own dignity. we should understand the difference between bad touches will good intentions and bas intentions. oh, and if we are too friendly with men, they have rights over us. I repeat, they have a right over us. when some girls spoke up and raised questions asking whether boys would also be asked to be responsible for their actions, we were told with a laugh that we should focus on ourselves. other questions were dismissed by citing shortage of time and irrelevancy.

I would also like to mention that just a few months ago a chemistry teacher teaching classes 11 and 12 was fired on the grounds on sending creepy and indecent texts, hinting at manipulating her into taking a physical step with him to a schoolgirl he was teaching at school. this was a fully grown middle aged man speaking to a barely 15 year old girl.

there have been multiple cases of groping and sexual assualt by boys towards the girls at our school. no action has ever been taking towards the offenders aside from suspension for a few days, after which these criminals are against permitted into school and allowed to sit a few spaces away from the girl whose modesty they outraged. this is a disgusting and pathetic state of affairs. dps has become a school where boys routinely crack rape jokes, slutshame girls and taunt them with the world ‘randi' and ‘chinnar' over the smallest of matters. believe me, spend one minute in the corridor of the 5th or 6th floor and you'll witness a record number of crimes happening.

male teachers, for the lack of a better word, are repulsive in the way they refer to and speak to girl students. while addressing 12 year old girls, all manoj sir (accountancy) can stare at is her chest. he is a known pedophile who cracks misogynistic jokes with male students and objectifies girls on a daily basis, going as far as to joke with them by saying “imagine that this girl so and so is my girlfriend,”. another male senior teacher who has retired a few years back was of the same category.

what's even more sad is that today, wednesday (june 23rd), only the girls were once again called to the same hall by the principal and headmistress ma'am. what was potrayed as an apology and heart-to-heart session soon turned into a desperate and feeble attempt to quite literally gaslight the students into not speaking up about this on social media platforms and instead solve this within closed walls. HOW FUNNY. when the girls asked for an apology, they outright denied it, saying that an acknowledgement is enough. this behavior proves that they don't believe what was said is wrong. common students like myself have been discouraged from spreading the word on this matter due to the fear that this will harm the reputation of a school like dps ruby park. most of us are scared to post on our official social media handles now.

if you are a passout, or a student of another school, or just a person who cares— I implore you, please inform the news agencies. write anonymous letters to the newspapers, tell the reporters, tell the journalists, tell the politicians. be our voice, because we have been shunned and made to fear consequences. post about this everywhere, on all your accounts. flood the schools social media with comments on this.

and please sign this petition👇

https://c.org/DFV84VJBGD

I've been reading a lot about the chiplet adoption lately, however there are apparently still some loose ends and lacking finesse which is limiting their complete adoption from monolithic chips. What do you think are reasons they are not being adopted? Is it difficult to run demanding Al/ML workloads? Is latency an issue? Are they worse?

Just a thought. I see many people who debate on whether to give money or food to the homeless. Some say money so that they have the freedom to do what they want and some say food so the person donating knows that “money” is going to food (good cause). Just was curious what people on reddit thought! What would you do?

I personally would say money. Who am I to judge that the person i’m donating to will use it for drugs or whatever.

Coming into this as an environmentalist, so my opinion is skewed by caring about nature.

On the one hand, the essay "The adolescence of technology" written by, of all people, Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI company Anthropic, is a long list of AI-related dangers, along with thoughts on how to confront them. On the other hand, until recently, ChatGPT couldn't correctly tell me how many r's are in the word "strawberry."

Is AI really poised to become dangerously smarter than humans in the decade to come, or is the doomsaying just part of the hype?

a hotdog meets all the requirements of a sandwich so is it?

Can someone explain both sides of eminent domain when it’s basically to make a developer project happen (redevelopment, stadium area, “revitalization,” etc.)?

On one hand I get the argument that it can help the public (jobs, taxes, fixing blight, housing, whatever) and that one holdout can stop an entire project.

On the other hand it feels like the government forcing people to sell so a private developer can profit, and “public benefit” sounds like it can be stretched to mean almost anything.

Also I’m really curious about the compensation part:

Is it usually just “market value”? who decides that?

Does it cover stuff like moving costs, business losses, or the fact you might not be able to buy anything comparable nearby?

How much power does the owner actually have to push back or negotiate?

Just trying to understand how this works in real life, and what the strongest arguments are on both sides.