Good point. My other guesses would be, in decreasing order of likelyhood:

-Drugs

-Sleepwalking or some psychological disorder

-Creep

-Some neurological disorder (though the likelyhood of him having something like early onset dementia seems very low)

It is true that working on a wage too small to live off of is an insult. But at the same time, what would you expect there? Ultimately the job market is a competetive environment, and people coming from poorer countries who didn't have access to the same advantages that natives got will be valued at less as workers. I would even assume most of them don't even speak the native language to a communicative degree. They usually have a completely different work ethic, customs, and expectations. Not to mention many people immigrating there are not properly aware of their rights and are thus swiftly exploited by greedy employers. Emigrating to another country is not as easy as travelling there, it takes real planning and research to do it safely and not get taken advantage of. And even then odds are your skills and education will put you behind all the natives, hence the only real way to compete initially is through extra hard work.

Either that or USI.

What are you talking about? They were in a relationship for 4 years and she STILL didn't trust OP that he never slept with his friend and that he is faithful. There is no relationship without trust, there is nothing left to fix here. Unless OP has a history of cheating or crossing boundaries being distrusted or accused of cheating is deffinitely grounds for a breakup.

Unless it was a violent or abusive relationship, in which case you should break it up however you need in oder to stay safe. Including just ghosting the person by disappearing while they're gone.

I want a lamp that will provide a consistent 12W/m2 of energy in the 400-450 nm wavelength for my... needs.

I think you're mistaking richer with higher quality of life. If I have one fridge but nobody else does that makes me rich. When everybody has a fridge that doesn't make everybody rich. Life is getting better, yes. But the real measure of how rich you are is either your share of total wealth or how much continued effort it takes for you to keep your current quality of life.

The system is designed around consumption and spending, hence it inherently funnels wealth into the hands of the wealthy who simply cannot consume any more. When the US government gave people "free money" during the pandemic it was printed/borrowed, thus reducing the purchasing power of everyone's money and making everyone slightly poorer. What happened then is the simple consequence of money flow in the economy. People have needs and they spend their money to get those needs met. Money makes it's way up the wealth ladder with a small portion falling back down as underpaid wages to workers and low income taxes. The rest goes all the way to the top, the super rich. They have so much money that they hardly have any more needs to meet outside of the most eccentric ones. Thus they invest their money, keeping the wealth in their own hands and letting it accumulate. So long as money doesn't flow back down the ladder to the poorest you will get growing wealth disparity. This is why state mandated minimum wages and higher taxes on wealth and capital gains are somewhat effective in reducing this effect (see gini of nordic rich countries or east european poorer countries). This is why the US is getting so divided, all the upwards mobility of money with very little downwards flow (no universal healthcare, low capital gains tax, no consistent minimum wage laws, few efficient social programs, plenty of legal and tax loopholes).

Is it by design? Well all systems have been designed by us so technically yes. Was this the intended outcome? For some of those who helped make things this way certainly yes, but I feel that a lot of it is just because every country's financial system is always a work in progress. Although it feels like in some places the "progress" was artificially slowed or stopped because those who benefit from its current state have leverage and power to slow down the necessary reforms. I mean, having lobbying as an accepted legal activity seems just ridiculous to me, an equivalent of legalizing bribery. But that's a different story.

The ultimate counter.

I wonder if maybe the girl who walked up to you and claimed to know you might have been feeling unsafe and looking for someone to stick to for a time. But that would greatly depend on the circumstances in which it happened.

Exactly.

All kinds of hostile actions. Everything short of actual open official war. Because conventional war is no longer a thing countries are willing to do, as I said.

Not that I advocate for it. But judging how peaceful the world is based on open official wars is misleading as a metric nowadays.

Rail transport is cleaner, safer, and more reliable. If more money was spent on building rail than roads it would have been better for everyone. Trucks will always be needed, at least to complete the last leg of the journey, but everything else should be done by rail, sea or pipes where possible. 2019 data says rail does 28% of transport in the USA compared to 40% done by trucks. In 2005 that was 29% by rail compared to 38% by road, so things are going in the wrong direction. Especially since pipeline transport share declining in the same years from 20% to 17%.

The situation in the EU is even worse. In 2005 pipeline transport was tiny (3%) as was rail (10%) compared to road transport at 44%. While in 2013 this was still 3% pipeline, 11% rail and 45% road transport.

Germany, the most industrial country in the EU, transported 72% of its freight by road in 2017, compared to rail at 17%.

Road transport of freight is bad for the economy, human health, and the environment. This is one of the reasons why so much effort is made to develop self driving cars and trucks. Freeing up the roads for people is a key issue. Despite the pushback from the trucker labor unions.

I thought this when I read the post. I think you are close to how he feels about the situation. Being dependent on your partner driving you, them telling you when you are to leave, managing your time for you etc. I would feel like my partner was mothering me, and it would make me feel weird to be so dependent and not having much decisive power. OP has every right to enforce boundaries for the sake of her education, but at the very least the delivery needs to be different. He needs to accept that he simply isn't as independent as OP (living with parents and no car), and she needs to learn to make her sheduling needs clear and involve him in some decision making, even if it's no more than okaying her decision to go home.

This. Not everyone needs/wants to receive oral. Also just because they go down on you does not necessarily mean they expect reciprocity. Sure, if they want oral but you won't provide they are free to say they won't provide either. But ultimately, in a healthy relationship all acts are done because they bring joy to both parties, hence they shouldn't need to be reciprocated.

I was wondering why after OP assured us they could not possibly have done anything wrong for the 3rd time I felt like this was one of those "missing reasons" posts. I hope I am wrong. The only advice I can think of giving would be for OP to analyze their relationship with their son previous to that. Was he happy to visit regularily? Did he actively call his parents often to catch up? Was he happy to come to family gatherings and events or did he try to avoid them? What was the relationship with him like aside from what his girl caused?

Her: "What am I out of ten?"

You: "Insecure"

Does it ever make you feel like you're just eating black squid cum?

This.

The minimum number of full scrub showers is 3 a week, as this is the number of times I need to wash my hair to keep the dandruff away, as well as my workout schedule. Other than that, due to cool climate and non-physical work I shower as needed. If I get sweaty or dirty I do a quick extra shower with soap. Otherwise just soap and wash the most important parts. Face gets washed 2 times a day. I actually try not to take full showers too often as the water where I live is very hard and can cause skin issues.

Leaping to conclusions to invalidate my point doesn't make a good argument. I'm pretty sure you're fully aware of my point and are just nitpicking.

- Capitol storming was a sign of instability and internal conflict

- Instability and internal conflict can be fueled by the actions of outside powers

If you believe both of these to be true then you've just agreed with my point of "this could be used to wreck or even break up a country".

Let me then reiterate the argument you've already understood: covert and overt actions that include anything short of an open armed conflict are the bread and butter of today's foreign policy of most countries. If applied forcefully and thoroughly enough over a long enough period a combination of those, especially from multiple sources, can crash economies, foster unrest, lead to the collapse of a government and even a subsequent collapse of a state. Do you disagree with such a statement, and if so, why?