2025-09-14 00:07:00
In Japanese culture, there is one thing that I really like, a thing that I've seen both in real life and in the Japanese movies: “Itadakimasu” (いただきます).
Simply put, it is a Japanese phrase said before eating to express gratitude for the meal and everyone involved in its creation, such as farmers, fishermen, and cooks. In English, it can be understood as “I humbly receive” or “Thanks for the food.”
I have learned from this cultural practice and adopted it into my own life.
More than a year ago, I encountered some serious health issues that forced me to change my habits and diet. I was almost unable to eat anything for 18 hours each day, and during the remaining 6 hours, I ate very little to make sure I never felt full. Because of this, each mealtime felt like a privilege to me. I always found my meals delicious and deeply appreciated them, not just because of the hunger, but also because I was so conscious of not being allowed to feel full, knowing I would have to fast again for the next 18 hours. This made me even more grateful for every meal.
At that time, I was undergoing medical treatment, taking daily medication, and following a strict diet. I couldn’t do much, nor did I have the mood to do anything. I spent most of my days watching movies or learning something, but mostly, I just watched films (haha). Japanese movies helped me get through that difficult period, they calmed me, gave me a lot to think about, and even motivated me to keep going. As I mentioned, Japan has done an incredible job of packaging and spreading their wonderful culture to the world, especially through movies. One of those things is “Itadakimasu,” a phrase that I’m sure everyone has heard sometimes in life.
A scene from movie "Call me Chihiro" (2023). Chihiro (by Arimura Kasumi) is praying before eating. This is my favorite movie of all time.
Watching so many movies while enduring a strict diet, I gradually and unconsciously began to pray and put my hands together before eating. I could truly feel the meaning behind that phrase. I resonated deeply and felt immense gratitude for what was in front of me. I would often find myself sitting there, thinking about the journey from when the food was just seeds to the moment it became the dishes on my plate. I could easily sit, savor each small bite, enjoy every flavor of each ingredient, and be present with the sensation of swallowing. In those moments, I could feel my own existence, I was eating, I was present.
Truly, I even wondered, have I attained enlightenment? Have I reached the state that monks talk about? I don’t know if I can call it some kind of illusion, but it was a strangely clear and wonderful feeling.
Previously, this was a luxury thing that I almost never had. I never truly paid attention to what I was eating, always busy doing something else, or lost in thought about other things. Eating quickly, swallowing hastily, and not really caring much because it was just another daily meal. In my own culture, people mostly just invite others to eat, or simply eat comfortably, so putting hands together and saying something like that sincerely was unfamiliar and unnatural. But I didn’t care, I did what I wanted, and sometimes it surprised people around me or made them see me as a little strange.
I am Vietnamese, and I want to speak my mother language, so I say “Cảm ơn rất nhiều vì bữa ăn này”. Sometimes, putting my hands together, sometimes clenching my hands, but always bringing my mind into a state of true gratitude. Even so, I still say “Itadakimasu” when eating Japanese food, as a sign of respect.
I want to keep this practice for myself for a long time and even encourage my family members to do the same. I realize that teaching this to children is also interesting.
It is not just about putting your hands together or saying a phrase, it is about genuine gratitude from the heart, about being mindful and paying full attention to each meal as a blessing received from countless people. That is the intention I hold in every word of thanks.
Hữu Phong.
2025-09-13 19:44:00
I remember the first time I engaged in a debate very clearly. It was in middle school, when an external teacher came to teach us about the value of freedom of speech, the prevalence of debate, and its importance in a democratic society. Honestly, as a 14-year-old, I didn’t understand much of what he was talking about—we barely knew what democracy was, let alone freedom of speech.
The moment he realized the conversation was becoming dry and that kids were losing interest, he jumped straight into a practical example. He divided us into two groups and asked us to debate who was the best movie actor in Tollywood (our version of Bollywood). And boy, that spurred a conversation. There weren’t just two groups anymore—it quickly split into six or seven, because in India, movies are not just entertainment, they’re identity. They define who we are and where we belong. Everyone chose their side, and soon it boiled down to four major categories, unironically the top four film actors of that time.
The class erupted—people were shouting slogans, singing songs from their favorite actor’s films, and reenacting action scenes. It was complete chaos, but in that chaos, everyone became deeply passionate.
And I was just sitting there silently, listening. I could have taken the easy route by choosing one of the four and calling it a day, but I already knew I didn’t like any of them—or the idea of becoming borderline religious about movie actors. I didn’t know the word “cult” at the time, but I had seen signs of it. I thought to myself: If I can’t raise my voice now and express my opinion amidst this chaos, I may never be able to do it.
So while everyone was shouting and chanting, I quietly said something along the lines of: “I don’t think being super religious about a movie star makes sense. We should appreciate the content and entertainment, but not idolize them.”
And, of course, I immediately got booed. Everything from “shut up, nerd” to “what do you know about content? Don’t you think my hero does meaningful movies? His last film was full of family values” (it wasn’t—it was loaded with patriarchy and misogyny).
But the teacher stopped everyone and asked me to continue.
So I did: “Well, I used to like one of the guys you mentioned, but as I grew older, I couldn’t unsee the over-the-top action scenes and the mediocre acting. I realized I liked him just because everyone else said I should. I followed the cult, even though his last few movies were absolute garbage. Now that we’re speaking freely, I thought I should say this. I know I’ll get a lot of hate because everyone’s so passionate, but this is my opinion: we should appreciate good content, not idolize people. At the end of the day, we are the consumers paying for this, and we deserve quality movies.”
I heard murmurs in the background—some quiet agreements like, “yeah, I see your point.” Not loud, no uproar, but a few voices. Of course, the booing continued as well.
The teacher stepped in again: “This is why we need debate. Freedom of speech and the expression of opinions help us learn from each other. The moment you boo, the people with something meaningful to say go silent, and we end up in cohorts or cults. Then there won’t be much difference between us and animals. The day we stop thinking for ourselves and stop listening to different perspectives is the day we stop growing as a society.”
Why am I talking about this now? Because I’ve been following the news about Charlie Kirk’s assassination over the last few days. To be fair, I had no idea who he was before this. As I caught up on his content, I realized he was a classic conservative political activist.
Would I agree with him on most things? No. He thinks abortion should be illegal—I believe no man has any business telling a woman what she can or cannot do. He talks a lot about religion and faith—I’m neither for nor against it, to each their own. He’s pro free markets—which I agree with. Overall, would I have a conversation with him? Absolutely. Would I hate him so much that I wished him dead? No. I absolutely would not.
And that’s the reality we are living in. I’ve seen political pundits discussing this incident—left blaming right, right blaming left. I’ve seen people sympathizing with him, but I’ve also seen people mocking him by quoting his own words from 2023: “Some unfortunate gun deaths are required for us to hold on to gun rights.”
There’s just too much information flying around.
I don’t fully understand U.S. politics, but I don’t think this is about that. It’s about democracy and freedom of speech. We can’t have a civilized society if we wish death upon those we disagree with. Violence is never the answer—it only breeds more violence. And at the end of the day, a man is dead. If you strip away everything he said or stood for, he was still a father of two young children who now have to grow up grappling with the loss of their father.
If you don’t agree with someone, just let it be. Ignore them if you must. But celebrating death—saying he “became a victim of his own words”—that terrifies me. Are we really at a point in society where we celebrate someone’s death just because we disagree with them? If so, that makes me afraid to express any opinion that doesn’t align with the majority.
Human civilization has been soaked in violence for most of history—killing each other barbarically over religion, race, and countless other divides. And only now, for the first time in history, we’re in a place where we can focus on thriving. Yet here we are again, slipping back into the same patterns. Our societies have evolved, but our brains haven’t.
For me, this leads to two possible conclusions: either I completely shut off my thoughts and focus only on myself and my loved ones, ignoring the world because any opinion I express might invite retaliation—violent or otherwise. Or, I hold on to the hope that we’ll learn from these incidents, treat each other with respect, and focus on building a better society. Sadly, looking at current events, I find myself sliding toward the former.
So I’ll end with two notes:
“Teacher, thank you for the great lesson you taught me at such a young age. You helped me learn the power of curiosity, free thinking, and expressing opinions as the bedrock of a stable society—and I carry those lessons to this day. I am indebted to you.”
“Charlie, I didn’t know you before this, and I don’t agree with most of what you stood for. We are diametrically opposed on many issues. But I am terribly sorry for what happened to you. I can’t imagine what your family is going through. I hope you find peace in whatever faith or belief you held, and may you rest in peace.”
2025-09-13 16:00:00
Article written by winther
On the 1st of September, Herman, the creator of Bear Blog, announced that he was changing the open source license from MIT to something based on the Elastic License, which emphasises that the source code cannot be provided as a hosted or managed service. This has spurred some reactions from blogs, and discussions on Tildes and Hacker News.
This is not meant as an opinion piece, but more as an overview of the various concerns, arguments, counter-arguments and comments on the issue.
Some people have expressed that they feel this breaks the original promise of Bear Blog with its commitment to open source. As a user on Tildes puts it:
I can understand how it might feel to see people take your open-source code and set up their own paid services, when you're running a service yourself. But why does this "hurt"? If you chose a freely open license to begin with and other people take your code and build their own products with it... that's fully in the spirit of the license you originally chose. Also wouldn't you be glad that more people are using your code and doing their own things with it? Sure, there's no requirement for them to contribute back, necessarily, or make any major modifications, and I get how that can feel like just being "copied"... but this whole response just seems off to me and against the entire spirit of the licensing they chose in the first place
The change is also compared to similar license changes on bigger open source projects:
Ah yes. Pulling up the ladder always works well. I guess there weren't too many contributors to browbeat into allowing the change of license. How long before 'Cub Blog' releases on the last MIT licenced release and eats their lunch. Maybe they should ask redis? This sort of relicensing of existing projects is disgusting. Don't want your pet project used by people? Well okay, make a closed source one.
But don't make it open, build a community and then slam the door. That's just scummy.
This refers to some controversial license changes made by big projects like Redis and Elasticsearch where the projects started out with permissive open source licenses that fostered a lot of contributions, only to then latter “pull the rug” for commercial reasons.
However, other people say that that is a comparison that goes too far:
Operated by an individual (not a big corporate entity) who made the source open for people to tinker with personally. Provides the service itself for free and is now finding other entities running with the code and charging people a lot more for it. [...] One is the a creator trying to prevent their work from being commercially exploited by others without contribution, the others are powerful entities on a whole different magnitude of scale.
On the other hand, a user on Hacker News finds the license to be best way to achieve the project’s goals:
I really believe this is the best model or licensing. I care about seeing the code and being able to modify it to suit my own preferences, but I also care about the project being healthy and the maintainer being able to earn from their efforts without worrying about cheap competition.
It should be noted that the license change doesn’t work retroactively. Everything up till the license change is still available under the original MIT license, for anyone to fork and use as they see fit. As some people point out, the freedom open source licenses provides also means freedom for the maintainer to change the license. The new license will only apply to all future development Herman does on the project.
This leads to the next big topic on the differences in just open source and free software, which many of the above disagreements ultimately lead back to. These terms are being used somewhat interchangeably though:
They claim they "believe in open source" and then got "bitten by it". In actuality it seems like they never believed in open source in the first place. Open source is a philosophy. It's based on the belief that I should be allowed to know what runs on my computer, and I should be allowed to freely modify the behaviour of code running on my computer, because it's MY computer. If there are restrictions on my ability to modify code on my computer, then it stops really being my computer: I am giving the developers of whatever program I'm running power over my computer.
I think what happened here is that the developer realised that the open source philosophy at its core is incompatible with the capitalist commercialism mindset. The notion of writing code, freely sharing it, and letting others modify and contribute so that everyone can benefit, is too socialist. Everyone benefits, but no one person profits. If you see other people improving upon your code as a threat to your status rather than a mutually beneficial development, then you shouldn't make your code open source. It's as simple as that.
Open source software is big business. That big tech companies like Google or Microsoft are maintaining and supporting various open source projects is not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it serves their business. Having tools and libraries open sourced allows its use to spread, comes with lot of free bug fixes and additions from developers from other companies that are using it and they can then have huge leverage over the tech world beyond their own company. Usually those projects are licensed under very permissive licenses such as the MIT license as it allows for commercial use without disclosing modifications.
The free software movement prioritises freedom for the users, not the developers as such. Its focus is on allowing users total freedom to modify and change the software they use, and one way to try and enforce that was the GPL license. A license that requires any modifications to also be released under the GPL. It doesn’t prohibit commercial use.
With the license change, Bear Blog is therefore still open source, but not free software as it comes with restrictions on how it can be used. Hermans also explicitly said he didn’t chose something like the AGPL as it doesn’t prohibit others from running the software as a service.
As a user on Hacker News puts it:
There are two freedoms of different people (or rather different roles) that are in conflict here: the freedom of developers to do whatever they would like to do with code that they have access to, and the freedom of users to be able to change and control the software they use. MIT/BSD/etc prioritise the former, while GPL prioritises the latter: free software advocates generally believe that proprietary software is immoral, and that all software should be open to users to modify, even if that limits developers freedom to keep it secret. The GPL is an attempt to enforce this as much as can be achieved under current law, not a natural reflection of their wishes (which would compel all software to have source code available for modification).
Though some people point out that that isn’t really applicable for Bear Blog, as there isn’t an existing big community built around it. It is a solo developed project with the purpose of providing a hosted service. It is not meant to be used to self-host your blog.
A user on Tildes says:
Bear blog itself is a free service and while the license was open source already did not accept contributions for quite a while. Which is reflected in the fairly short contributor list. [...] Basically what I am getting at is that this isn't some sort of big corporate entity trying to pull a rug pull. There is no effective self-hosted user base of the software itself, as they already operated effectively on the "source available" model. Operated by an individual (not a big corporate entity) who made the source open for people to tinker with personally. Provides the service itself for free and is now finding other entities running with the code and charging people a lot more for it.
There are many different reasons and motivations for providing free or open softwars, and many reasons to not do it. Hermans principles on “built to last" doesn’t make the choice of software license easy all things considered.
All this came about because Herman felt threatened. In his own words:
Unfortunately over the years there have been cases of people forking the project in the attempt to set up a competing service. And it hurts. It hurts to see something you've worked so hard on for so long get copied and distributed with only a few hours of modification. It hurts to have poured so much love into a piece of software to see it turned against you and threaten your livelihood. It hurts to believe in open-source and then be bitten by it. [...] We're entering a new age of AI powered coding, where creating a competing product only involves typing "Create a fork of this repo and change its name to something cool and deploy it on an EC2 instance".
The ideals and collaborative benefits of free and open source are challenged by the ubiquity and ease of taking advantage of free software. In a sense, before it was to some extent being gate kept by a skill level, and many skilled developers want to share their code with others. Jamie writes:
This isn't just one developer's bad day. Herman's anguish signals a seismic shift reshaping software development, where artificial intelligence has weaponised the very openness that built the modern internet. The collaborative spirit of open source—once protected by the sheer difficulty of meaningful copying—now faces an existential threat from AI tools that can clone, modify, and deploy competing projects faster than their creators can respond.
The license change of Bear Blog is just one shift among many in the open source, that according to Jamie has to redefine how to apply the principles of free software in a world where AI tools are accelerating things:
The question isn't whether restrictions reduce innovation, but whether they redirect it. Traditional open source assumed abundance—unlimited developer time, infinite collaborative goodwill, and benevolent corporate participation. AI-accelerated competition has revealed these assumptions as dangerously naive.
A user on Hacker News shares a similar sentiment on how to best protect the beneficial elements of free software:
I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source software has to offer.
Other people are less convinced that this should be a big threat to Bear Blog specifically, as the value of using Bear Blog is more than simply blog hosting. Full disclosure, this is my comment on the topic on Tildes:
The value Bear Blog provides isn't really with its tech, but with the community that is built around it. Someone being able to spin up a copy-cat product is not really something I see as a big threat to what herman has built with Bear Blog. It is like an empty instance of Facebook is pretty worthless in itself, as it won't attract users anyway.
Another responded that they use Bear Blog for technical reasons, but Herman himself is also part of it:
I wouldn't be capable of having my own website so to me value is the tech and Herman himself. It is quite a privilege for a non-programmer to have a company founder as tech support. I try to not bother him too much but yeah, it's nice. The kind of content I put up is not relevant for Bear's community and I completely removed votes from my posts. So I am definitely there for the tech and the Hermann.
While there are plenty of very critical commentary on this license change, it should be noted that most of them come from an angle on general principles and less about Bear Blog itself. It doesn’t look like a huge numbers of Bear Blog users are leaving the platform over this.
2025-09-12 11:45:00
A complete contrast to the posts I've made before, but first, hello again. I have not blogged in a whole while because I just kept forgetting. A lot of life has passed by, and I have a lot on my mind I could definitely be blogging about.
A habit I do actually keep very well is note-taking. I've been loving Notesnook and the peace of mind it gives me knowing the notes are fully private. But I digress...
Lately, I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the lot of emotions. Loneliness, fatigue, love, hope, and above all else... fear. I've been fearing the idea of something, the idea of being without someone. The story goes like this:
Boy wants love, boy dates, is unhappy, but finds someone to finally love. He's hopelessly in love with this other boy, finding himself and accepting who he is and what that relationship spells out for him, but the other boy is going through a lot. So, the two break up mutually, and keep in contact. They just go back to friends.
But the first boy's feelings never ceases, he just put it out of his mind. That boy has no idea if the second boy still feels the same. Life happens, he knows that more than anyone else. He writes blogs and journals to himself about the very sh!ts of life that occur daily.
-- basically, I'm so tired of being alone. I have so much love I want to spend, to give, to share, to live by, but I'm afraid he doesn't feel the same anymore. I'm afraid that if I open up to the fact that I'm still available to the idea of being together, I'll come off as "crawling back to me." That's not it at all. I just have my heart set on one person, and I can't imagine moving on and finding someone new. Because I did date, I did try and move on, and it just never worked out. Everything would literally be nowhere near the level of impulse and unconscious desire that I had felt.
I went through hell discovering myself to finally give into the feelings that had been boiling inside of me, and for a time after our breakup, I thought that I could move on. I thought to myself that, "this is for the best" and that "I'm happy as long as he's okay." Well, for someone who prides himself (me) in being nonchalant, this is something I find increasingly hard as hell to keep contained. I am in love and I cannot see myself moving on. This relationship deeply changed me, and I recognize that.
I care about him. I care about this fucker a lot, but I don't ever want to push myself into peoples lives, and I am torn between fighting for something that matters to you, or enjoying the friendship we have together. Maybe I just need some liquid courage, but then again, I'd hate to offend.
I could definitely keep going. This is what happens when you don't have anyone to express these emotions to beside whatever god you pray to.
And to people who know of my blog, and know who I am. Yes. I like a boy. Do myself a favor and don't even bother mentioning this to me because I assure you I do not care about having the conversation, nor does it matter.
...
I'm not going to even bother grammar checking this blog. These are more thoughts undiluted. This other blog↗ I made really hammers the nail about that.
2025-09-12 10:41:00
Bear with me.
I think Charlie Kirk was bad, harmful, and indirectly responsible for suffering and death. I think it's good that he is no longer preaching his white supremacist message. I think it's good that he is no longer advocating against trans existence. I think it is good that he is no longer encouraging harassment of women of color.
I don't think it's good that he's dead. I don't think it's good that somebody committed murder. I don't think it's good that his family suffered a loss or that the people at the event that day likely suffered trauma.
Is the good WORTH the bad? I don't know.
I wish the good could have come without the bad, without the violence.
I'm not happy about his death.
But I'm happy he's done promoting white supremacy. Both those feelings are in me, and it is ... unsettling.
On Charlie Kirk | Sam Schutte’s Blog
This post is a good read, worth hearing, worth considering.
But I want to challenge a message carried throughout it.
he never advocated for violence
...
But - do we want to live in a country where the bold, the opinionated and those who think differently than us must risk their lives to do so? I think not.
He did advocate for violence. Advocating for trans people's non-existence is advocating for genocide. Advocating for 10 year old rape victims to give birth is advocating for violence. Advocating for Jim Crow laws - "[Black People] were actually better in the 1940s" - is advocating for violence.
"Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge.” This is advocating for violence.
Sam, you raise good points that are worth considering, but you also whitewash his legacy. He didn't just "think differently than us". He advocated for deadly policies and a dictator who now runs our country. He was the figurehead of a white supremacist organization. Not a bold thinker. A White Supremacist.
Also Read: on Lowering The Temperature
2025-09-11 21:49:00
As a writer who has failed to write anything publish-worthy in the last few years, I always thought I was the problem. My ideas weren't concrete enough, my inspiration not strong enough, my skill not honed enough. There must have been something wrong with me, I thought, because every time I opened Google Docs with an idea for a story, it would disappear. But I would like to venture that there was never anything wrong with me. Google Docs is unintuitive, uncreative, and wasn't made for writing stories. So why did I keep trying to convince myself it was my only option?
After Google rolled out their AI policies for Google Docs a few months ago, essentially laying claim to everything I have ever written or will write into the website to program their AI, I decided it was finally time to let go of Docs. It didn't take much searching to find rave reviews of Ellipsus, a writing program currently in Beta which was created by writers for writers. It provides a sleek, minimalist workspace with folder-within-folder functionality. It also has a drafts function, which allows you to keep track of multiple drafts of a document within the same page. All of that sounded great to me, so I gave it a try! After about a month of using Ellipsus to write both assignments for school and creative writing, I am happy to report that I don't think I'll ever be using Google Docs again.
Inside my Creative Writing folder. Oooooo, colors!
The first thing that struck me about Ellipsus was the gorgeous design. Google Docs by comparison looks like it was designed to repel me. There are plenty of pretty color themes to choose from, and the theme menu is always within view so you can change the theme within seconds. I change the theme multiple times every day, whether I want something a little more covert like dark mode or I need a good reason to stay on the page (when writing a paper for example) and make everything rainbow.
As for the actual writing experience, I love the ability to collapse all the menus and have the text be the center of attention. The first time I used Ellipsus, I wrote 3k words of a play script I had been procrastinating on because the layout made it easy to zone-in. The keyboard shortcuts on Ellipsus are also very intuitive and easy to get used to, so I can format my text and make changes without ever having to open the toolbar.
My pretty writing workspace ft. a poem called "Reeling".
When writing for school, I find that Ellipsus allows me to feel more in-touch with what I'm writing. Now, I'm not trying to get every assignment done as quickly as possible because the 11pt Arial typeface is ugly and the screen is hurting my eyes.
One of the only reasons Ellipsus (in its current state) might not be the perfect platform for everyone would be the pageless format. There isn't currently an option to turn it from pageless into paged, unless you convert it to a PDF when you're done. For school, I have to submit papers in a Word format, so I usually paste into a Google or Word Doc and save it that way when I'm done writing. Thankfully, that's the only issue I've run into with it so far. Since the platform is in Beta, that's probably something that will change soon. I'm also pretty sure a paid version is coming to the platform at some point, but all of the necessary features will stay unpaid. With how happy I am using it so far, though, I wouldn't mind paying (a reasonable amount) to use its features. There is also an app in the works, but the webpage on mobile works just fine and I haven't had any issues.
Overall, I'm very pleased with Ellipsus and its anti-AI stance. While it feels like every company is trying to take advantage of my creative work for AI, Ellipsus is a welcome break from the status quo. I can't believe I tried sticking it out with Google Docs for so many years when there were smaller companies with better options right here. I am finally enjoying cuddling with my laptop in a blanket and just writing again.
