Yes, there’s that, too.

But even if you don’t like your job and don’t find much meaning out of it, it’s still worth trying to find contentment and happiness in other parts of your life.

I’ve had jobs I hated with coworkers I loved. I’ve had jobs I’ve liked in places I hated. I’ve had jobs I mostly hated that I actually appreciate having taught me important skills I still use today (for example, a 3-year stint in restaurants in my 20’s was miserable in a lot of ways, but it helped me stretch a tight grocery budget and fed me plenty of staff meals, and 20+ years later I’m still a great cook).

Jobs don’t define us. For many people, they’re just a small part of us. And we should go on to build fulfilling lives for ourselves across many domains, not just at work.

I had fun in college. My major didn’t define my actual day to day, or my memories of that time. I had fun in high school. I had fun in elementary school too. I don’t remember everything or even everyone, but I know I had a blast at those stages in my life, and most of the fun was had outside of school.

Work is the same way.

You should be having fun during the 20 years that you’re studying. And you should be having fun during the 40 years that you’re working.

“Well when the president does it, that means that it’s not illegal.”

If you remove the art from the context, would it still mean the same to you?

Kinda depends on the artwork, right?

When you know that a Eric Clapton wrote “Tears in Heaven” for his dead 4-year-old son, it does hit different.

Picasso’s Guernica also carries a lot of meaning from its context, in its anti-war message. The symbolism in the painting itself can be debated, but the context of time and place (and the author’s chosen title) clearly conveys a message that war is horrible and that the specific bombing campaign on Guernica was cruel.

Filmmakers love long one-shot scenes not just because of the content itself, but also because of the technical feats required to actually make it.

The context can add quite a bit of meaning to art. It doesn’t always, and often isn’t intended to, but for a lot of artwork stripping away the context actually strips away some of the artistic value.

I feel like a lot of people miss the meaning of this one.

A gunshot wound that creates a splatter of red liquid is very, very different in meaning from a splatter of ketchup. The comic is criticizing the type of person who criticizes art only based on the superficial similarity rather than the actual context and meaning represented by the artist’s choices.

Not every artistic choice has intrinsic meaning, and plenty of artists and art critics go too far in focusing on the “how” than the “what” in art, but I still think the “how” matters a lot.

Go outside, nerd!

That’s just solar with extra steps!

Every culture takes/mixes foods from other cultures and makes it their own.

Perhaps more importantly, every generation remixes their parents’ and grandparents’ food.

French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Mexican food aren’t the same as they were 50 years ago. Lots of new dishes were invented and remixed, sometimes from imported influence. It’s not like chefs sit around and refuse to do anything different from how they learned. They do invent and innovate and tweak recipes. That’s, like, the job.