Infantilism as a norm (2018)
iq.hse.ru
iq.hse.ru
This is always something that has bothered by society's concept of adulthood. Are people just supposed to not like things past 35? Is the only acceptable use of your free time as an adult reading non-fiction about finding the meaning of life?
But it's not like this is denied to them. If anything, it's too prevalent to be even shunned...
Most of today's gaming industry is targeting adults. Kids rarely have the money to purchase 70$ games more than once or twice a year.
There is a real "maturity/sophistication" barrier, though. Games came close to breaking through about a decade ago, then enough "gamers" decided they absolutely did not want that and made sure to destroy that possibility.
Edit: Einstein surely belongs here too
Otherwise we end up with adults spending ridiculous hours playing video games, chasing that beautiful feeling they gave them when they were kids, all the while avoiding real life.
Maybe if we did not have a school system that completely kills any innate curiosity in people, they might do something real instead of virtual. Well, one can dream.
Once you've played enough games, you begin to recognize the pattern and can tell if it's going to be a new and engaging game or just another trope.
But they are a nice stimulus to get together in person, that part is right on.
To an extent, but board games can also highlight ambiguous interpretations of the rules. Just last night, I was playing Cosmic Encounter with some friends and a good proportion of the fun was banter and arguments about some of the specific rules. I think board games can get away with a lot more randomness and chaos than computer games as they have a big social aspect to them. If you go from a successful, winning strategy to losing in a computer game because of someone having a specific card, then you'd probably stop enjoying the game, but with a board game it tends to spur a round of laughter instead.
I'm not sure why you think there's any difference. RNG is RNG. At least that's how we treat it in our group.
Are you familiar with roguelikes? Nethack?
The games that I replay most often are the ones that are ridiculously difficult and callously unfair to the player - because they're also the ones that get my mind engaged the most, and where I get the most enjoyment from overcoming an unfair situation.
Same for TV but i don't think people stop watching those indistinguishable series.
So you can still play different games with similar mechanics because of the different setting.
I think we've been conditioned from childhood to get a job, work for the corporate world and chase material goods. All of those further the interests of those in power.
Update: Wild foraging, living with nature, moving to another country, or doing what hunter gatherers did. Running your own business. Camping out in the wild, while still making money from something. There are so many other options, you need to be creative about it...
Anyway @NoMoreNicks I've flagged your post and I'm closing this HN account down (by deleting the password)....
This is a hilariously millennial take on how life works. For the past million years or longer, humans learned (and quickly) that if you didn't want to starve you'd need to work to avoid that. The means to avoid starvation have changed. We're no longer hunter gatherers, and few of us are subsistence farmers--and I can have some sympathy for those who would prefer those occupations--but the truth of the matter is that nothing more than the details have changed in all that time.
People weren't "conditioning" you to get a job. They were gently introducing you to reality. It seems a little too gently, by the looks of it.
> All of those further the interests of those in power.
Huh? It furthers the interests of those who don't want to starve. But you've never even been hungry, not really, and so it's all still highly theoretical for you.
Do you own any fields? Do you own any factories? If you owned those, then you might be able to work in them and produce what you need to live, or at least something to trade for the things you need.
You seem to think there's a "we" here. There isn't. No one else is much in the mood to support you.
Of course there's a "we". We depend on supply chains and working societies to even be writing anything here now. No one is willing to support anyone but we're a social species with division of roles, that's the "we".
No, there isn't. You use the word, and deep in your lizard brain you hear yourself say "myself and all these other people who care about me and love me and are on my team".
There's no "we". No one wants to be part of that "we" with you, and those who lie and say they do want to be part of it with you are hoping they get more out of the deal than they give to be part of it. I'm probably the closest thing to being your friend that you have when I'm at least honest and tell you that's horseshit.
If people like yourself spent more time trying to solve the much smaller problem of "how do I make my way in this world" instead of "how do we make it so everyone gets what they want", then quite simply more of you would get what you want.
> but we're a social species with division of roles,
Your role's about to be eliminated. Might take 20 years, the timeline's hard to pin down. But the guys who get to keep their roles are perfecting autonomous war drones. Your odds don't look good.
Where's your "we" in that?
You can also say that we really are conditioned, by education, to slot ourselves into organizations, identify who the teacher/boss is, and do what they tell us to.
So while the past required effort, I can see how OP (1827163) could have a point.
Go hunt on their lands. See how they welcome you.
If we imagine that life is good for hunter-gatherers -- or at least that they have individual autonomy -- then we get a way to frame the issue: The Machine easily steamrolls these people, taking their land from them, but, people born inside The Machine are enslaved to The Machine.
Maybe you were responding to my word "permissionless": You cannot actually hunt on tribal lands without permission. Makes sense. What I had in mind in the "permissionless" sentence was something more like operating an informal business in a developing country -- which appears to be common. Perhaps there are networks of patronage there too, that you don't see? Protection, security, "turf"?
Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this is, except for mood: OP was arguing from a sort of utopian perspective, and you insist on a more competitive, resource-limited worldview.
I think my point, that there are societies not built around large organizations and formal employment, still does stand, however. Perhaps everything is bad, but it's presumably bad in different ways.
That is only true if you limit yourself to modern games or have very limited tastes.
The pursuit of happiness IS real life…
But to each their own, I just get a gross feeling after I’ve spent too long engaged like that. But movies are arguably even more passive and empty, and I like those!
What do you consider to be "ridiculous hours"?
There are definitely times when I end up playing online games for >20h/week. That's well above the median I'm sure... but how many hours per week did my parent's generation spend on average watching TV? My dad is retired now, and spends probably ~40h / week in his shop just... tinkering.
How is my playing War Thunder any less "real life" than him rebuilding his 124th Coleman lantern?
People need a way to recover from the stresses of everyday life. I don't understand why gaming in particular is so often discounted, while various other non-productive pursuits are readily accepted.
The video game doesn't expose you to as much thorium?
What you're describing is a coping mechanisms to a life they don't wish to face. It does not make them any more of an adult if they instead chose gambling, drinking, illegal drugs, shopping, or any another method of escape.
Because that's science.
The biggest problem with average contemporary "true adults" is that they only act as if they have their shit figured out. In reality they mostly tend to be incredibly close minded, have super limited knowledge of the world due to their TV addiction and are generally more authoritarian due to our socioeconomic system being super authoritarian.
The (more intelligent and cultured) outliers are actually closer to these supposed "kidults". More open minded, more tolerant, way less zealous.
I think it is more that the “games” that we play become less overt, and overt games tend to be replaced by covert ones, such as social stature, and personal growth, IRL social “games”, like relationships and solo or shared challenges, “levelling up” in accomplishments such as books written or papers published, business or notable accomplishments, etc.
Overt games give way to applying learned behaviours that use game theory to create personal value, wealth, or legacy… but it’s still very much “playing a game” just with greater risks and rewards.
IRL games make practice games seems quite boring by comparison, their challenges mundane and their prizes irrelevant.
Nations prosper when old men plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.
>Preserve some biodiversity? Anything vaguely useful to the next generation?
Fusion is harder, but hey.
Make a little house for solitary bees on your windowsill. Guerilla plant a tree once a week. Flower-bomb some vacant lots for the local bees. Create something useful that reduces wasteful consumption, and open source it to the world.
The key here is that everything I mentioned is a positive motion. It creates something new that is useful. You cannot create a worthwhile world just by using public transportation or biking instead of driving. Sure, reducing your footprint matters, but it will go to zero when you die anyway. Do things that can transcend your tiny life, do them frequently, and some of them actually will.
All of those things are doable with minimal effort, and everyone who does those kinds of things it changes the world in significant ways.
Ok. Let’s assume we’ve made the world a more survivable place.
…what then? What do we do with all this newfound “survival”? At THAT point are we allowed to watch anime?
Otherwise you’re just another jerk that wants all the cake for themselves.
Wow, blanket generalization much?
It’s not necessarily being used as a disagree button in such a case. It’s similar to, “This might be unpopular but ...”; some people will principle-downvote (right or wrong) for what they see as conducive to a bad discussion.
This place has an in group, I see… serves me right for typing comments on a VC blog
Stay a while longer, get a few more upvotes on your comments (the general key is to add substance), and one day you'll get the option to downvote comments | flag topics / comments, etc.
Downvotes and more are unofficially documented here.
Mostly I agree with your take, my assumption is that the karma requirement for downvoting is to help prevent downvote spam, but that's just me making crap up.
I find your argument pretty ridiculous. It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
The reality is everyone gamer or not is just generally inneficient with their time.
My partner and I are in the top couple percent of incomes, have more savings than the average retiree, have both achieved a lot in our careers, and have spent time volunteering for causes that genuinely improve people’s lives or contribute to the world.
I also “waste” a lot of my time doing silly things (including video games, but other hobbies as well). I got the new Legend of Zelda game on release day!
It makes no sense to say that these two can’t coexist. I think that doing enjoyable hobbies like video games makes me a more interesting person overall. Friends at work were asking about the new Zelda game when I said that I’d spent the weekend playing, for example.
But like, why work so hard if I can’t do my video games and art and athletic hobbies?
They care if they inherit a world that their grandchildren can prosper in. That’s what we all should be focusing some of our energy on.
It's like you willfully ignored the following part of OP's comment and decided to continue to criticize them as though they didn't say this...
>... and have spent time volunteering for causes that genuinely improve people’s lives or contribute to the world.
For many of us, looking in that particular mirror can be an unpleasant experience.
Information that has helped other people fix problems or learn something they thought was hard.
What has your tearing down of others accomplished? Have you considered a deeper look in the mirror yourself? From where I'm standing your the only one who seems in need of it, all of this sounds like projection to me.
I started asking myself these questions in my thirties, and because of that I now write software and farm organic coffee, cacao, avacados, and a handful of other permaculture crops on a small scale. The farming makes zero money, but it is worthwhile, and I strive to create a space that benefits not only myself, but my community.
Also - planting trees is largely pointless. Trees plant themselves if you leave land unused. If they don't that usually means you have to waste a lot of resources to maintain the trees that you planted in particular spot.
It's funny how the societal norms work.
Clearly this is a metaphor for doing things that will benefit future generations after you are gone.
Planting a shade tree in a park, or planting trees (of appropriate species) along a street or sidewalk is not useless.
It’s the costs of our production that propagates through time. Your consumption ends with you and is largely irrelevant. What are you helping to create? What does that look like in 50 years?
I can’t imagine justifying my existence by what I don’t leave in the toilet.
If that's your weekend hobby project, what do you do at work?
And while by no means is it certain, hoping I succeed a little earlier and settle that for my children too.
Once those issues are secured, maybe there will be a little extra to buy a few toys.
I started too late to be able to be anything but a K strategist, but even if I could've been the other I wouldn't want to. My children are my life.
The part no one reading this comment will believe is that my life has been so much better than it was before. I was a worthless asshole, and all the misery I experienced was no one else's fault but my own.
If you never have fun, especially next to your children, your kids won’t forget. Your great grandchildren won’t know you and they probably don’t want to be shackled with the expectations that comes with your money.
I'm not convinced either person is correct about anything. They probably would drop those thoughts if they got off social media and got to know each other instead.
It's easy to be open minded when nothing is at stake. As soon as you have something to protect the game changes drastically. You start eliminating ideas from your head that provide no value.
For example, someone who works retail and plays video games and opines on the way the world should work vs someone who works as a nurse raising two kids and doesn't have time to opine and instead just wants to put a conservative in office to lower their taxes.
Neither is right or wrong but one has a more measurable external impact.
This is true, and we should try to be wiser as we learn more about the world, not just flip to a different flavor of simple-minded reactionary.
I otherwise disagree with the dichotomy in the first paragraph. It seems to me that one might be open-minded and contributory.
On the topic of “opining vs. voting”: what’s the difference? Additionally, couldn’t the retail employee go vote and have the same sort of measurable external impact?
I guess I’ll attempt to answer the question in the comment: all else being equal, an open-minded person is more valuable to society than a closed-minded one.
As society becomes more complex and your role in it becomes more specialized, adults too lose the ability to grasp the entire thing.
Consider the way you are “supposed to” watch an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine versus Better Call Saul. Both are fun for their respective age groups.
If you watch the former in the form the latter, you start to see moires that probably escaped the writers (1).
(1): https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/the-repressiv...
That's predicated on adulthood being a state where you're autonomous and free to do something with your life, and falls apart when we're up to our ears in debt and working as wage-slaves.
In the latter scenario, you may satisfy the itch for the thing you've been preparing for by additional preparation. We play video games or watch TV-shows about people going on adventures instead of actually going on adventures ourselves because that's not an option.
this is no longer the case. besides computer games, things like board games have massively expanded, lego and compatible bricks have sets targeting adults, and more.
the difference between childrens games and adult games is no longer so clear.
and to add another counterpoint to the article, all those supposedly kids games that i am playing now, except for lego, i did not play as a kid. so i didn't preserve my teenage likings. and even lego i stopped playing as a teenager and i didn't get back to until i had kids of my own.
A 40 year old that likes Star Wars or Gundam? I don’t really see anything “wrong” with that.
A 40 year old that likes schoolgirl anime? I don’t know…
I have tried to get into "adult" fiction but oh my god it's so boring and dry how do you all stand it? It's like how with horror you don't touch it unless it has an R rating, any book that's trying to cultivate an adult audience is gonna be bad. And I devour YA series to the point of losing sleep because I didn't realize how long I've been reading so it's not that I just don't like reading. Maybe some switch will flip eventually but I doubt it.
I don't read comics but what? Of course comic book movies are an adult activity but reading the source material -- children only.
I'm sincerely hoping to be proven wrong.
If you want to try going in a totally different direction, I am a big fan of Abe Kobo's avant-garde work, such as The Box Man or the Ark Sakura. I guarantee it's unlike anything else you've read if you've avoided straying from the kiddie pool, playing with the whole structure of the novel itself and challenging your expectations constantly.
If you want to try some nonfiction, I have rarely read a Paul Theroux travel book I was bored by and I think Ryszard Kapuscinski is also great.
I do think anyone can enjoy Dune. Although it's still essentially about coming of age, it has a compelling plot and universe, if you're into that sort of thing.
But compare with one of my fave books, Murakami's The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. Main character is a middle aged guy whose life essentially starts unravelling. And it's like.. if you haven't yet gotten to that point in life where you can empathise properly with the characters and your sense of meaning of your own existence starts unravelling, it's not really going to make as much sense and maybe won't be quite as interesting or meaningful I guess?
A bunch of crazy shit happens, sure, but not of the pew pew lasers and kicking people in the teeth kind. I do think I would've enjoyed it a lot as a YA but maybe not as much. And the level of writing is different, Murakami (as translated) writes very simply but it's much more complex in terms of the underlying concepts and it's not like you stop getting better at understanding shit once you hit 25 years old.
So that's at least one illustrative example!
They are supposed to become grumpy old men/women.
I suspect the authors have noticed a number of separate phenomenons:
* Young people living with their parents for longer and longer. IMHO arguably this is because of our incredibly inflated house prices.
* A rise in people reporting they "don't know how to adult", that they don't know what they're doing at work, and reporting struggles with simple tasks like answering the door and making phone calls. IMHO arguably this could just indicate we're more open to talking about mental health.
* People eschewing professional wear like shirts, in favour of things that let them avoid ironing. IMHO arguably this is because of changing fashions, and the fact far fewer people have a stay-at-home spouse taking care of their laundry
* The film industry being dominated by disneyfied content from franchises (initially) aimed at children. IMHO this is because making your action movie kid-friendly as well as adult-friendly maximises your audience. And nobody needs to go to the cinema to see scantily clad beautiful women any more, so some adult elements aren't a competitive advantage.
* People getting married later, and having children later. IMHO this is because young people are saddled with more education debt and find it harder to buy houses than ever before.
* The rise of computer gaming, anime and adult board games. IMHO this is simply because those things have got vastly better and more easily available over the past 40 years.
Personally, I think these phenomenons are all largely unrelated.
Presumably the authors think these are all examples of the same thing and see it as larger than just people liking video games.
Then there's the, "living up to expectations". Whose expectations? What rule of life says we have to buy a house when we're 25, or that living with extended families is bad and should be avoided. What rule says money and monetary capability are the measure of a persons worth. Now, the money one has real consequences but i'd argue our attitudes on all these questions are culturally informed and created and solidified. Our parents say, that's who, because their parents said because their parents said.... I'm not saying the desire is not real, but
There's always Disney content. Who cares? There's plenty of other content.
The rise of distractions coincides with, or causes, the loneliness epidemic. People now are far more distracted than they were in 1950 or 1980.
People getting married later, having children later, and "childfree" views are contributing factors towards soft population limits that could have a genetic basis from an evolutionary psych perspective: when resources get scarce, people don't have as many kids.
Of course not! You could also read about productivity. Or maybe a biography of Napoleon? I think those are both fine (got to check with my boss first).
Of course not. There's also alcoholism.
It shouldn't be surprising that something designed to appeal to young and old alike, is consumed by both groups.
The point is to be a highly-productive caregiver requires a greater level of organizational, wisdom, and internal model formation than someone who is, say, both very young and immature in attitude and behavior. That part of them hasn't developed enough yet to be able to prioritize appropriately and produce better outcomes.
The reverse is seen in the decline of aging as we lose more than good habits. I anticipate having to look forward to both ARMD and dementia due to genetics.
And that is fine. Elvis Presley generation listened to Presley whole their lives.
> characterized by immature feelings (‘childish’ reactions, lack of willpower, lack of confidence), external locus of control (other people are blamed), inflated self-concept, low demands on self (accompanied by high demands on society), and egocentrism.
So you tell me none of your older neighbours will display this and instead be models of "emotional maturity (rationality, self-control, lack of impulsivity, etc.)" when you talk to them about lawn mowing, car usage/size, energy, meat eating, land use regulation, ...?
There is no more infantilism than before, what has changed is the definition of achievement.
I think the great shift occurred with the boomers, The surge and wealth, and the tragedies of world war II making spoiling a child seem worthwhile
Many of the stories I've heard are themes of struggle and survival.
People use to drink all the damn time.
My grandfather was a silent generation career man for GE, worked there 40 years, fought in WWII by lying about his age and fought in Korea, raised a family, bought a house, the very type one would venerate as a true adult man... and he drank a lot. He didn't stop drinking until I was 8 or 9 and had suffered a heart attack.
People are still willing to follow that path, of course, but they increasingly need to build up their savings to afford it. It's incredibly unsurprising that big barriers to entry prevent people from passing through traditional life stages, and instead lead them to sit on the couch smoking weed and watching anime.
It's no surprise many people just...gave up. There's nothing to latch onto or own - everything is blocked by someone who already got theirs.
In my ever-longer life, I have found that many people at some point expect to put on an adult suit, a metaphorical phase change that involves wearing suits, no longer smiling, putting away the xbox, and the like. I have also found that the vast majority of people who feel very strongly about that adult suit suffer from crushing insecurities. That's ABSOLUTELY not to say that all people who wear suits and do stereotypically adult things are insecure--just, by and large, the ones who lecture and finger-wag at people who don't put on the adult suit.
Put another way, I have extremely high demands of the people I work with. Wearing a suit and not playing xbox does not, by itself, give me confidence that your work product is superior. If someone can give me a good product while wearing a bathrobe on a break from a marathon Fornite session? You do you, boo!
I'll do you one better, I refuse to wear shirts!
That, or exchange a prolonged youth for having effectively no adulthood, while also moving your society in unsustainable mode*
So our social behavior no longer matches our biology, in which by a quirk we (at least women) are only fertile for around 1/4 of our total life, and less than that in socially acceptable fashion.
* Caveat emptor, perhaps it would be great if we could deflate population of most countries by having low birth rate for a while, but this is not what we are good at - instead, countries seem to race into hyperurbanization and population replacement
What? Women become infertile around 45-50. Going with the lower bound, your 1/4 figure implies a lifespan of 180 years.
More like 12-13, but you are right. I did not consider that.
For example: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr146-508.pdf
Now I'm wondering if there has been any change in the age of the onset of menopause, and whether that's been studied...
https://courses.fetalmedicine.com/images/Course/Course.007-0...
Notice the y-axis is a log scale.
This may be offset if women froze their eggs beforehand, but, obviously not everyone can afford it, and also until recently, it wasn't really needed as couples would have children earlier in life.
So we invent the kidult, which is just a scapegoat for all of this -- oh, when will the kids grow up and realize they are adults and act like it? It's a sign, it's a symbol, for what we can't talk about, because you never, ever discuss the way the money influences us.
It seems like this is painting with an extremely broad brush… is liking video games (or, I don’t know, the Offspring) really that similar to putting off employment or parenthood?
When we moved to Italy me and my SO joked that people in the west have two youths: one for generally screwing around and the other for picking up their first jobs, making initial career choices etc.
Back home the age at which women give birth for the first time is lower than the EU average, but so is fertility rate - it's actually some of the lowest in the union.
And this was visible when we returned after four years - in the meantime some of our friends went the, as my aunt puts it, "marriage, mortgage, family" route, while others seemingly changed nothing in their lifestyles.
The best predictor of this that I can think of is whether someone's parents both expect grandchildren to appear eventually and are willing to provide support - be it by helping finance real estate or participating in care for the infant.
Fulfilling other people‘s expectations is a really bad reason for having children.
Anyone trying to do a "pros and cons" list on this topic will eventually arrive at the logical conclusion that it's not worth it.
Whoever did such a summary and still decided to follow through is in for a bad time, because "pros" inevitably include someone else's expectations.
That being said I've seen people postpone or, eventually, eschew having children entirely due to lack of support in the time window they had - especially from prospective grandparents applying pressure.
And herein lies the crux of the issue: some people support bringing another generation to this world, others don't. As it stands the latter have slim chances of ever having grandchildren.
I think this is a good insight. I don't agree with your other comments that one can draw up a rational "pros vs cons" list to weigh the merits of reproducing and inevitably find it's a bad deal. It's ultimately a question of what gives you joy in life.
We are now in an era where people who do not want to reproduce can choose not to without being celibate. Over time, this will select for a population more full of people who value children and will choose to have them. And, to your point, it will select for people will also choose to help their own children do the same.
Essentially, strong selection pressure is currently being exerted (at least in developed societies) which selects specifically for people who innately want children. And that apparently also correlates strongly with other beliefs, like religiosity and traditional views.
I might be in the wrong here, but I see a number of parallels with gender - a somewhat-strict biological component (age) vs a social component (maturity). Both having alternative models of the normative ones.
Fall of Rome vibes...
I'm sure the parents of e.g. "back to parent's house at 30 to find myself" types are also delighted for their alternative life course involving freeloading on them...
More about the "30 year old avid gamer living in parent's basement" or "coming back to live with parents after the dream of skateboarding-pop-singer career didn't pan out".
I've clearly failed that way, having no kids, so I'm in no position to lecture other people.
If you're religious, then you think your purpose is to serve God.
However, the fixation in this thread on games, especially video, is weird. There are four mentions of "parents" and only one of "games."
Individual humans have occasionally impressed me, society has only disappointed me. To butcher and paraphrase Ghandi: “what do you think about snivelization? I think it would be a very good idea.”
Delayed? It means it’s being eliminated for some. Like Einstein, who said;
Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.
There's just no doubt about the destructive aftermath of abandoning physical reality for life inside one's own mind (i.e. online).
If you are a Syrian refugee, the last thing you are caring about is the new Mario Nintendo game and Starbucks frappucino.
Time to get serious and have children (me talking to myself)
Adulthood is what we choose to make it. Any concept of age brackets is an arbitrary definition we impose on ourselves. Given the current economic and ecological situation, fucking you do you.
In fact, in the very first sentence, they say that this view is no longer relevant. As in, for who knows how long, it was. Suddenly it isn't.
This framework for viewing ways of organizing society as equally valid and inconsequential defeats the purpose of what, I believe, social sciences are for. I don't need a taxonomy of options, I want actionable insights!
social sciences suffer from a lack significance and repeatability more than others, which suggests to me that they are indeed foremost required to establish taxonomies and definitions because anything more is just guessing with a great potential to harm ppl.
The article is describing academic research, not self-help. In this context it is perfectly reasonable to examine causes rather than consequences, and taxonomies rather than "actionable insights". Thats not to say that consequences etc aren't valid areas on inquiry, just that this article isn't examining them.
so juvenile :)
it's important to understand the phenomenon, this is science. action is about politics.
But seriously though, taxonomies are part of the whole science enterprise. Unless we formulate hypothesis that can be used to predict new phenomena, we're missing out. Or just cargo culting.
For example, Lego is now targeting adults as well as kids. You can make a living out of collecting sets as an investment vehicle or by starting a YouTube channel where you review and show your collection.
its from the neverending drive for safety
(The paper is from 2018, so before the invasion, but already after maidan, so the narrative was likely already taking shape)