Unpopular Opinion

Not saying that this is the only cause of divorce, or even the leading cause. I'm just saying that there are a lot of women out there who romanticise the wedding itself. Almost like the relationship, the wedding itself, is irrelevant.

Which totally misses the conceptual point of getting married in the first place. Some women just like the idea of having a big party, with all their friends and family, making them the center of attention for a day.

Which is FINE. If women want to have that happen, I feel like maybe we SHOULD make that a whole seperate other thing. Like a new holiday or maybe we combine the concept with their birthday.

It's just the concept we have now, the average wedding from the time the man thinks "I'm going to marry her" all the way through the first day they get back from their honeymoon......that entire process costs an average of $100,000. From the dress, to the ring, to the hall rental, to the wedding planner, to the catering, to the flight, and hotel, and rental car, and everything else that comes with the wedding, average cost is $100,000.

And the second you call anything a "wedding" anything, it skyrockets in price. Want a cake? Ok, sure, $30. Want a "wedding cake"? Yeah, $250.

You want a big poofy white dress? Hey is this a wedding dress? No. This is a wedding dress replica. It's being used to shoot a wedding scene in an independant movie. We're just buying the material. Yeah, ok. $70.

Oh, this dress is actually in a wedding? $2,000.

And I know this just seems like I'm just complaining about money. But it all ties together. Because if you ask most women what they dream about when they think about their dream wedding, they have this long list of things, and everything needs to be perfect, and the planning itself, the wedding party and appearance becomes an extention of themselves. If this is the womans first wedding, it really becomes a mirror of who they are are a person. This is why you should NEVER trust a guy with the wedding planning. At all. Unless you're willing to give up total control. Instead of your favorite flowers creating an arch that you walk under to get into the building? What if we instead had flame throwers that CONSTANTLY spewed flames which prevented you from getting in. And to stop the flames, you need to answer 3 riddles about the couple getting married. And if you get it wrong, a bunch of royal knights in platemail armor stab you with haberts until you get it right......or bleed out. And once you get inside the hall, all the hall vendors are cosplaying as classic pro wrestlers. Imagine coming in, and seeing Macho Man Randy Savage holding a plate of cheeses, and saying "OOOOH YEAH! TRY THE SWISS, IT'S AS GOOD AS MISS!!! ELIZABETH THAT IS! OR TRY THE CHEDDER! IT'LL KNOCK YOU OUT OF YOUR SWEATER!!! DIG IT!!!" Then he snaps into a slim jim.

See to me, that sounds awesome, and just as expensive as whatever the fuck would have been planned otherwise. But I also realize every woman who's in the current process of planning a wedding, read what I just wrote how I'd plan it, and they physically recoiled in cringe. And you're remembering that last week you asked your boyfriend what he wants at the wedding. And he said "whatever you want". And you tried to fight him about it, saying he needs to include his ideas.

No the fuck he doesn't. THESE are the ideas we create, and we know they aren't going to happen. Our ideas are not "good" from your perspective. Our ideas will cause fights. Because at the end of the day, you already know exactly what you want. You've been planning it since you were 5 years old, and you don't need any input from us. We're just going to screw it up. You just want to ask what we envision at the wedding, and you're under the delusional idea that we're going to say "White roses on every table, and all the groomsmen have green pockets on their suit vests." Or whatever the fuck is in your head. We're not going to say that. We've never in our lives had THAT vision. We know the wedding is going to look like how you want it to look. So we just say "Whatever you want to do, that's it." We stay out of it, because we don't want to start a fight over something we know we're going to lose anyways. That's a dumb fight. Telling a woman how to plan their wedding.

Well. I'm a dumb guy. Let me have a go.

The reason a decent percentage of these weddings end the relationships is because the money involved has no benefit to the couples long term happyness, and adds nothing to their lives. It's a big expensive party for the sake of a big expensive party. Nothing more.

And I hear you saying "But it's to celebrate the love between two people, and create a bond that will last a lifetime!"

No. Believe it or not, you can get married without all that stuff. The whole idea of a marriage, if you simplify it to it's core concept, is that you both have signed a paper informing the government that you are now a legalized couple within the country of residence that you got married. That's IT. You can both go down to the courthouse right now, fill out a form, sign it, and now you're married. I don't know what those forms cost, but I would assume about $100. And then you'd both go home to where you already live.

So you're saying "That sounds like a terrible wedding". And the issue here is, you're confusing the wedding PARTY with the idea of MARRIAGE.

So if you get proposed to, ask yourself this. Would you still marry this man if he insisted there were no party. No flowers. No big hall. No poofy white dress, no dancing, no family or friends, no big cake, no big vacation afterwards. Just you, him, city hall, a pen, and a form. Maybe a minister if the idea of religion is important to your marriage.

If you are in love with the person you're marrying, it might be disappointing, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker. If it's a deal breaker, you don't love the man. You love the idea of being the center of attention. And that, plus the huge amount of savings you're blowing, is the reason for the divorces. The party has ended. The party has brought you hard financial times, and you were never in love with the person to begin with. So now, they have nothing left to offer you.

Again, I'm not claiming this is the only reason, or even the leading reason for divorce. I'm just saying it's a significant percentage.

I will rate these people on this scale:

1 (I hope you step on a lego) to 5 (I hope you fall in a pit of Lego)

Scale

1- Share a direct link to a YouTube/TikTok/etc as conversation starter or reply

2 - the above, but without a summary or timestamps.

3 - the above, but the video is longer than 5 minutes and "dude wait until the end".

4 - the above, but no context. It's just the direct link.

5 - the above, but the video is part of some "influencer" bait and you "have to understand their lore about why it's funny"

So prior to WWII there was an order to things. Women stayed home. Men went off to work all day. The woman raised the kids, the man made the money, and together their home was well taken care of both financially and emotionally.

Then WWII happened, and Hitler was like "Hey man, come join these parties on the beaches! We got invited to France, and now we're hanging out! Come on over!"

Well.....it didn't happen EXACTLY like that, but the end result was that something like 60% of men in the USA were now over in Europe fighting WWII. Which left the issue of the ecconomy. Who was going to work, if the men weren't even in the country? So, the women did both jobs. They went to work. Then they came home and tried their best to raise the kids.

Doing that alone is tough.

Then the war ended, and the men came back with the idea that they'd just take over their old jobs, the women would go back home, and things would return to normal.

Except that didn't happen. The women decided that they enjoyed being at work more than they enjoyed being at home. And the men were stubborn like men are, and they ALSO went back to work. This left the entire boomer generation with a situation where nobody really raised them. Instead of previous generations who got good discipline from their mother, and a punishment from their father if they were bad, they instead got.....nothing. They were allowed to freely do whatever the fuck they wanted. Which is why that entire generation has felt so entitled from the time they were kids to now in AARP. There has never been a time when the boomers mentality as a generation has felt "I should be more responsible for myself and for others". Whereas that was the main mentality for centuries prior.

So now you got households throughout the 50s and 60s with 2 incomes, at a time that stores and the economy was designed for 1 home income. So families spent in excess because they had excess. Houses were cheaap, salaries were abundant, life was good.......as long as you ignored the cold war, and the fact that both America and the USSR were playing chicken with nuclear warheads. Other than that though.....

So now you got the 1980s, and the economy is starting to catch up to the idea that most houses have 2 incomes. They gouge a little more, because fuck it. The 1980s became the decade that was all about corporate greed. Remember that movie line? "Greed is good", and people were revoling in that concept. They were even dumb enough to believe in trickle down ecconomics, because their lives weren't fucked yet.

And the 90s is when things started tightening even more, where now it wasn't just known that you had a 2 income home, it was expected.

So then life went on, and corporate America just kept down that path of asking "In the 80s, we took.....and in the 90s, we took more! How much more can we take and take and take?"

And that's a question that they've been asking for decades now, and only very very very recently with Luigi Mangione have we seen any sign of what would it take for the public to fight back corporate America taking from them? We're FAR removed at this point from the average American household doing well. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck, budgeting in a way that asks the question "Which is more important this month, heat, or food?"

Meanwhile the CEOs of this country have never had it better. The gap between them and the plebs has never been bigger.

Now let's look at the other side of things. People. Starting as kids. Now, each generation has different identities. The boomers are known for being self entitled brats who never grew up despite growing old. Gen X is known for self deprication in a way that's not really humor. They just kind of laugh to themselves but it's more to hold back tears because they know how fucked up their world is, but they also have never been allowed to overcome the boomers shadow. The millenials are known for being whiney, because that's what works. They whine about an issue, and now suddenly it gains traction, and you have millions of people whining about it. Now something can be done. The Zoomers are known for being politically minded from a young age, because they have to be. Growing up in the first age where school shootings are a more real threat than a fire.

But the one thing that all these generations have in common is the idea that nobody was there for them at home. Their parent(s) were always at work. They had either babysitters, or other temporary family watching (as in, maybe your grandparent watches you for the day. It's not that they're leaving your life, but they're also not the one who will be raising you).

And so you look at how kids have acted over the years. Kids will always rebel. They'll always act up. They'll always do something that needs a parent to raise them. Discipline is just as much about the guidance as it is the rules. Punishment is only there to make you understand that discipline has consequences for breaking.

Except kids today, and for a long time, have gotten none of that. Dating all the way back to the boomers. And just like corporate america taking a little bit more with each passing day, the youth with each generation falls a little more behind what they should be being taught. And not just in the schools. Not just knowledge. I'm including that, but I'm also talking about empathy, emotional guidance, character building. No, they get none of that. They get a screen 16 hours a day that the parent doesn't pay attention to. With the logic being "So what, they have an iPad all day? I had TV all day growing up, and I turned out fine."

No. No you didn't turn out fine. You, and everyone else around you, has turnout out horrible. So horrible that you don't even recognize what a stable person acts like. That's just your own ego refusing to admit to yourself that you might be flawed. You are. You are flawed. You're passing those flaws onto your children, or already have. This is a cycle that nobody is trying to break. The idea that a TV show, or an app, or a website, or whatever the fuck on a screen should fill in for your responsibility as a parent is mind boggling. You're entrusting a corporation to instill into your child good morals, empathy, how to be a good person. But as we've already covered, corporations do not give a shit about you. Corporations do not give a fuck about your family. Corporations just care about you long enough to let you watch their advertisements to sell you their products, and take your money. That's all you are to them. That's all your children are to them. That's all it's ever been. There's an entire industry out there to pay the grocery stores to place the kid friendly products on low shelves where they can reach them more easily. It's all very well thought out. It's designed to manipulate your kids into manipulating you into giving them more money. That's all it's ever been. That's all that screen is there to do. To feed you ads. To take your money. And now you've entrusted those people to raise your kids for 16 hours a day. Are you begining to see how flawed that is now?

So, I say we take an approach, as an entire society, to correct this coarse of action. We COLLECTIVELY need to go back to 1 income households. One parent stays home. One parent works. And I honestly don't see any advantage right now in making that a gender exclusive thing. For what the goal is, I think each individual household needs to discuss between partners who's better suited to work, and who's better suited to stay home? Because I think one person, even if they're not a parent staying home to cook and clean is important. With both of you working, it becomes an issue of "Ugh the house is messy" "Yeah, but I just worked for 10 hours. I just want to sit in this chair and do nothing" "Yeah me too.....guess we'll clean on the weekend". And then the weekend comes, and you got shit to do. You gotta go grocery shopping, you gotta pay bills, you gotta do all this other shit, and oh by the way, the dishes haven't been washed in like 4 days.

Well, they're only not getting washed because you're exausted. If you woke up at 10am, and did the dishes at like noon, and every day did some light cleaning. And then maybe did the grocery shopping for the week, then your partner would come home, the house is clean, and you can both spend time together doing nothing. Then the weekend comes, and all those chores are done. Your weekends together are free. And now you both have the time, and the energy to go to an art muesum, or to a baseball game, or whatever. Fuck it. The bills are paid, the house is clean, the meals are made. And the kids are getting life lessons all day from whomever is home, and best suited to teach them how to be good people.

Then suddenly, over the coarse of 3-4 generations, you have a smarter society, which leads to more people reaching bigger discoveries. Medicine, space, underwater, these are all feilds that we think we're experts in, but we only know less than 1% of what's out there. Nobodies even invented time travel yet!

And why are we living in a society where men work, and women also work? Because it brings home more money. But we're all living month to month. So are we REALLY making more money? Or are we just doing double the work?

We need to end the 2 income homes. 1 income should be all a home needs to survive.

I find the AI Art debate very interesting. Should it be praised as art? Is it a cheap ripoff that cheapens the "real deal"?

I don't know. All I know is I've seen AI art so beautiful and unique that I can't bring myself to condemn it. I like what I'm seeing. I still respect the commitment to "real" art. I like both. Is it wrong to like both?

Why publish something claiming to cover the entire year if the year isn't even over yet??

I say new to exclude the remakes, because those do kick ass.

The three new Zelda games on switch are Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom, and Echoes of Wisdom.

BotW and TotK should have been a new franchise. They're way too different mechanically from everything in the series beforehand. Innovating on the gameplay makes sense, but this was doable within the established formula (see Link between Worlds for how to do this well.)

Now for quality. BotW is a fantastic game in most facets, and most of my complaints I can recognize as me problems (I dont love the fact that just getting to a shrine makes it teleportable, it feels too easy to just cut the exploration by running to all the shrines in an area. However, this is a preference, not an objective flaw.) I think it would have done very well on its own, and didn't need an existing IP to support it.

TotK is where my complaints overlap. It should've been in the separate franchise, and I think it's a TERRIBLE sequel, and far more mediocre game. The tutorial is worse and way too long, they didn't add enough to the world to justify reusing the entire map, the underground area is largely barren, the zonai shrines existing at all is contrived bs, and the zonai building mechanic, while cool, feels incredibly unbalanced and strange. Its like it just got bolted on without any of the other devs being told.

Echoes of Wisdom is a crying shame. After two complete deviations from the games the Zelda series had become known for, I was excited by the trailer! But then the echoes system poked it's ugly head in. I hate, with a burning passion, games where puzzles have "free form solutions." The old zeldas were full of tightly crafted puzzles, and they're by far my favorite part (and, notably, the meat of the games.) So being handed a world where the main mechanic is "use these basic tools however you want!" by another game is just infuriating. I love immersive sims, but these are not a replacement for actual puzzle design (this sentiment also applies to the zonai building in TotK)

TL;DR: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom should've been an original franchise, and TotK and Echoes of Wisdom have lazy game design unbefitting of the Zelda series.

remember the posters for Episode I, when we all thought we would see the character development and learn to understand and even empathize with pure evil? The movie Wicked pulled that off.

Nintendo, while aggressively litigious, do so to maintain the value and exclusivity of their IP.

Their games also never go on sale, and all sell really well over time, unlike many releases from other publishers.

The result is that Nintendo are able to release a solid cadence of high quality, first party games free of other forms of aggressive monetisation, maintaining the value of the games as art.

I keep reading reviews of how horrible it is they switched the guy who did the songs in Moana 1 for the 2 girls who did the songs in Moana 2. After listening to alot, NUH UH. It is exactly what the Moana2 composers said about their songs growing on people. The specific difference is Energy. The Moana2 songs are Good and Empowering. The Moana1 songs are not except the Horizon one, which is beautiful. But I don't identify as a murderous giant crab addicted to shiny nor a deceptive braggart, so, while they may sound audibly well put together, the energy is off in Moana1 songs. I can almost smell the gender stereotype identity stuff with middle aged famous male composer songs being 'i need shiny things and will attack you' and 'youre welcome for being this awesome whilIe i decieve u', while the 2 up and coming girls have purely songs for protagonists that are like "destined for greatness go!" "think different to get extra far" and "you can do it x2". So to me, being a protagonist, I can find the first Moana songs wellwritten, but only the Horizon one repeatable. Moana2 does not have this problem and whichever song someone attaches to is healthy. I personally love "Get Lost".

But also I know the norm is to not care about that stuff and people say horrific movies done well are "good" while, to me, that they are horrific makes them "bad". I assume it's this same difference in values that causes the majority of reviews to say Moana2 songs are worse than Moana1 while I think the opposite. Moana 1 songs could be way darker and reviewers would still say they are better than Moana2. Meanwhile, I think about myself or the child singing them, listening to them repeatedly, and Moana2 is 100% healthy while Moana1 has some healthy ingredients but also artificial colors known to cause cancer. Thus Moana2 songs > Moana1.

Most of the posts that are frequently featured in the homepage are about social problems or styles of life common to that country (or most first world countries), and even limit to only United-Statesian media discussion. They do not appeal to someone like me, who has different thoughts, different people, different problems. It's hard to find something relatable in (most) non-local communities, because it's just about this style of culture. It doesn't helps with the poor website discorverability, making me limited to these same repetitive and unfunny posts.

Voting has concluded on whether the community wants to remove the "Vote the opposite of the norm" voting guidelines.

As you can see in the screenshot below (or in the post), the results are a tie (only upvotes are counted, not the score). I abstained from the vote, leaving it entirely to the community, and I do not wish to cast the tie-breaking vote.

Since it is a tie, I'll treat that as a non-majority vote and, as such, we will keep the voting guidelines as they are.

I think most people say that it's not because it's popular to do so. The series has some genuinely funny bits.

The amount of people who are all giving "reasons" why they are gonna be ok to treat others with contempt and apathy towards any suffering just means you wanted an excuse to not care all along, not that you are morally superior.

You will still look like an asshole to anyone that isn't informed and to the people who didn't agree with you in the first place.

If you actually care you keep trying, stop pretending minute crusades are anything but.

Story, worldbuilding, dungeons, combat, and especially graphical performance are all universally better in Horizon. The only reason people care about Zelda is because "muh Nintendo", and the fact that it is a good set of ganes. However, I've seldom seen any criticism of Horizon outside of outright misogony and xenophobia, or "Assassin's Creed did it first", as if Guerilla has any control over history.

Sony ownership is valid criticism. The Zero Dawn remaster forces PSN sign-in. Yet, Nintendo owns Zelda, and is easily a shittier company--with a crowd of zombies lined up to lick their boots. Horizon isn't the series with the cult following, here.

None of that changes the fact that people find it so important to mention their disdain for Horizon the moment it's brought up. Everyone within my space who has tried the game has admitted it's quite a well-designed set of games. If you don't like it because of its genre, then that's completely fine, but stop saying it's "unorignal". If Horizon is unoriginal, so is Zelda. They're both unique compared to their predecessors.

"QUIT HAVING FUN!!"

It’s a means of answering the question: ‘Does this add or subtract from the discussion?’

If you talk to most of my fellow micks, they'll whinge and moan about Yanks 'pretending' to be Irish. They'll take offence to it, like Irishness is little more than a fashion accessory to foreigners. They'll say that such Yanks are annoying and will scold them online for saying "I'm Irish" when they're several generations deep into being American.

Fuck all that noise. If someone wants to be associated with my wee island (and it is mine), I get a warm feeling in my chest like an internal hug. I don't care if the person has never had a single ancestor so much as set foot on Ireland, if they nevertheless wanna be Irish I'm thrilled to hear it. It makes me less self-conscious about my shite accent, it makes me feel like I could have friends in other countries before I even meet them. It's like a cheat code whereby I'm granted, up front and gratis, 30% of the required 'social ingratiation' mileage you usually need to put in before you start getting somewhere with a new friendship. There is literally no downside to it that I can see, and certainly no downside that has ever presented itself to me. The only way I could feel negatively about it is if I already have a casual hatred of Americans, which I don't.

If you don't believe that the cunty "ur not irish m8" attitude is borne of hatred for Americans, show me the reams of similarly-scolded Australians claiming Irishness. Show me the Iraqi with an Irish grandfather being told to shut the fuck up for claiming Irishness. Show me the hoards of Englishmen, even, being told the same. I have only ever seen or heard it directed at Americans.

The Australia example is much more powerful because it's one of the two places Irish people tend to go when they leave the British Isles, the other being the USA. We have been going to Oz in droves - voluntarily or not - for about as long as the USA has existed, so we claim a huge portion of the populace. The USA is still a brand-new country, in the grand scheme of history, so there're legit reasons for people to still feel like their families' previous countries are the more defining ones for their identity. There's nothing wrong with that. Unless you're American, apparently.

In closing, let me talk directly to my fellow spud-botherers: please shut the fuck up. I assure you, between the scolding Irishman and the Irish-loving Yank who never shuts up about it, you are the annoying cunt in this scenario. You make Irish people sound like völkisch wankers obsessed with the purity of their genes and the ethnic make-up of their country. Spend less time gatekeeping national identity and more time on avoiding heart disease, ya greasy hoors.

In the community details, we have a note about "Vote the opposite of the norm":

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

I've read lots of comments here that amount to that being confusing. There's also the fact that not everyone votes like that, so it's hard to really tell from the votes if something is widely considered unpopular or not. Plus, I don't really want to tell people how to vote.

I also just realized that it's slightly unfair to people running with downvotes disabled.

So, should we get rid of that guidance and just assume posts are voted based on their overall merit / agreement? I'll leave that up to you all.

There are two distinguished comments below which will be used as the poll. Upvote the one you wish to vote in favor of. You can downvote the opposing option if you want, but it won't affect the results; I'm only going to look at the upvote counts. I'll leave this up until next Friday to give everyone time to voice their opinions.

I'm not going to lock the post so that you can comment with any opinions or thoughts. Hopefully the 'distinguish comment' action federates out so those remain visible. If not, look for the two top level comments from me that start with [POLL]

Read this today in the Bible

Isaiah 24:1-3 NIV See, the Lord is going to lay waste the earth and devastate it; he will ruin its face and scatter its inhabitants— it will be the same for priest as for people, for the master as for his servant, for the mistress as for her servant, for seller as for buyer, for borrower as for lender, for debtor as for creditor. The earth will be completely laid waste and totally plundered. The Lord has spoken this word.

Global warming, MAD, political polarization, overdue caldera, plastics, rise of the oligarchy, loss of personal property rights, solar flares, extraterrestrial objects, I'm tired of listing but I'm sure I've missed a bunch.

Perhaps it's meant to be. Maybe the scale has tipped too far in the wrong direction. Humans haven't existed very long on a global scale, but already we've left scars.

The Bible went on and said,

Isaiah 24:5-6 NIV The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt.

SIDE NOTE: If a post on "unpopular opinions" gets 87% downvotes, does that mean it's truly unpopular, and therefore successful?

Or does that mean it's being downvoted because it's actually a popular opinion?

Most recent example: I was asked to participate/lead our team's Movember campaign at my company.

How I politely declined: oh sorry, I'm a bit too busy with my personal life and work projects this year.

My unpopular opinion I couldn't say: it doesn't align with my values.

Movember raises money and promotes awareness of Men's health. Nothing wrong with the organisation themselves, but frankly I think the paltry couple of thousand of dollars our (pretty large) company manages to raise each year is a waste of time.

If we taxed corporations a fraction of a percent more on corporate profits we would bring is orders of magnitude more money than individuals asking others, out of the kindness of the hearts, for money.

Health research shouldn't have to beg for money, the government should just fund it with tax dollars. Taxes that you don't get to choose to pay. Other than by voting.

I hate fun runs, and do subtly judge those who participate in them, especially because (I think) they skew towards wealthier people, and it's their way of making themselves feel good for raising money for cancer or whatever, and then turn around and vote for tax cuts, and use accountants to make their tax liability as low as possible - something poorer people can't afford.

I used to give money to charity when I was younger. But I honestly think it's silly now, and it ought not have to exist.

(Mods, this is politics adjacent, but I feel is general enough to be compliant, since I'd say most people view charity organisations mostly favourably)

hate twitter, but this is something its community notes gets right. it takes all of two clicks for us to see a removed comment and when it’s “Reason: misinformation” that does nothing to combat the misinformation.

like you don’t have to link articles for obvious stuff like antivaxx shit (though that’s appreciated). but when it’s like deep lore on political parties or terrorist groups, or when the comment is like 80 paragraphs long “reason: misinformation” doesn’t really cut it and doesn’t inform the community of what specific point(s) of information were false.

for all but the most egregious misinformation (such as those encouraging or threatening harm, which should be modded anyway for those reasons), if you can’t link an article in the modlog it’s almost better to leave the comment up and let your community do a paragraph by paragraph fact check for you. otherwise it’s just kind of festering out there unchecked, your servers are still hosting the misinformation, just in modlog form.

i think giving info correcting links was more common in the past so no idk why it’s uncommon now. hoping this can be some friendly constructive criticism :)

Hypothetically it would make the concept of "voting with your wallet" a real possibility. The biggest flaw I can see is that records of costs would likely see much more fraud, which would require more monitoring and enforcement.