Debating between FM and neuro, however living in Coquitlam (preferably near or in Port Coquitlam) is the end goal.
I think I enjoy neuro more but have been told it’s harder to find jobs in specific locations. Is this true?
Could have made profit off shorts and instead of following my advice you followed some idiot out of cope. And yeah I’m salty because of how unbelievably confident everyone in the comments section was. Told me my calls were stupid. Still stupid ?
The “ḍaraba has many meanings” defense of Qur’an 4:34 does not work. Yes, the root ḍ-r-b has many meanings in Arabic, but words do not carry every possible dictionary meaning into every sentence. Syntax determines which meanings are actually available. In 4:34, the construction is \*wa-iḍribūhunna\*: imperative ḍaraba + a direct human object, essentially “ḍribū them.” The Qur’an itself gives a very close parallel in 2:73, \*iḍribūhu\*, meaning “strike him.” Same verb, same imperative form, same human direct-object structure. By contrast, when ḍaraba means things like “travel,” “turn away,” or “set forth,” Arabic normally uses different constructions such as \*ḍaraba fī…\*, \*ḍaraba\* ʿ\*an…\*, or \*ḍaraba mathalan\*. So saying “ḍaraba has many meanings, therefore 4:34 could mean leave them” is not a serious linguistic argument. It ignores how syntax works.
More importantly, I have not seen a convincing pre-Islamic or very early Arabic example where ḍaraba + a human direct object, by itself, clearly means “leave,” “forsake,” or “separate from that person.” If that was really the natural 7th-century meaning, then someone should be able to produce an actual parallel construction. Without that, the “many meanings” argument establishes nothing.
Then there is the “light beating” defense, which is even harder to take seriously. If the strike is supposed to be so light that it causes no pain, injury, fear, humiliation, or real physical effect, then what exactly is the point of it? It becomes a bizarre symbolic action that is supposed to function as discipline while being stripped of the very features that would make physical discipline consequential. And 4:34 itself does not say “tap them lightly with a toothbrush” or “use a miswak.” It does not specify an instrument, amount of force, number of strikes, body part, or even use the word “lightly.” Those restrictions are brought in from hadith and later jurisprudence.
So the defense ends up in a strange place: the verse uses a construction naturally understood as physical striking, then later interpreters narrow it down until it becomes almost physically meaningless. That does not solve the issue; it just shifts it.
The other common defenses are not much stronger. Saying the verse was only “restricting an existing practice” raises the obvious question of why an omniscient God did not simply state the restriction clearly or prohibit the act outright. Saying the Sunnah provides the restrictions may explain how later law limited the verse, but it does not explain why the Qur’an itself gives the command in such open-ended wording. Saying Muhammad personally never struck his wives may show that striking was not the ideal behavior, but it does not change the meaning of the verse. Saying the three-step sequence ends in “separation” because it escalates from advice to bed-separation is possible as a contextual theory, but it still lacks strong early linguistic evidence for \*ḍaraba + direct human object\* meaning “leave.” Saying that the Qur’an elsewhere emphasizes mercy, kindness, and reconciliation may create an ethical tension with the traditional reading, but that does not override the syntax by itself.
At that point there are really only two serious possibilities. Either “strike them” is genuinely the intended meaning, in which case the Qur’an really does permit husbands to physically discipline wives, however restricted that permission later became. Or God supposedly intended “leave/separate from them,” in which case a supposedly perfect revelation chose wording that naturally communicated “strike them” and was understood that way by generations of native Arabic-speaking scholars. Neither option sits comfortably with the claim that the Qur’an is perfectly clear and perfectly worded.
So the actual challenge is simple: can anyone produce strong early Arabic evidence that ḍaraba + a direct human object meant “leave/separate from them” in this construction? If not, then the “many meanings” defense collapses, and the “light beating” interpretation looks less like an explanation of the verse and more like an attempt to make an uncomfortable meaning morally acceptable after the fact.
This is just not true but every thread makes it seem common practice
When residents complain about money, the standard response is that they should have entered investment banking or private equity. People then defend medicine by saying it offers greater stability, but that misses the more important advantage; medicine is one of the few reliable paths to a high income where the basic source of your wealth is honest. You become highly skilled to relieve suffering and keep people alive.
Much of high finance cannot make the same claim. Private equity firms profit from leveraged buyouts, layoffs, cost-cutting, healthcare consolidation, housing, fossil fuels and defence contractors. Investment banking facilitates the acquisitions, debt and capital structures that allow this system to operate in a way that transfers wealth from those who need money to those who already have it. Obviously, not every deal is harmful and finance performs necessary economic functions, but pretending that these careers simply “create value” while doctors are greedy for wanting fair compensation is absurd. Furthermore the finance jobs that purely focus on these necessary economic functions are not the high paid ones that contest with med salaries. In med, your income generally increases because you developed a scarce ability that directly helps another person, not because you found a more efficient way to extract returns from workers, or patients. Compared with most routes to becoming rich, it may be the most morally defensible one.
Just wondering what the work hours are like?
I know many specialists in USA who cross 60h a week. Is it similar here or are the work hours more reasonable?
Just wondering what the work hours are like?
I know many specialists in USA who cross 60h a week. Is it similar here or are the work hours more reasonable?
The amount of bugs, and no responses is absurd at this point
Notability now also has a lifetime plan for 30€ and it’s easy to switch
This is unusable
On Ipad ; latest app version
How shit do you have to be a software coding to fuck up the most basic close commands
I have a roommate that randomly shouts things like “suiiiii” and yells all the time in the common space. My AirPods 4 ANC don’t do much . Wondering if the pros 3 will be better . But I have been told for random , non background yells, it won’t be much better?
People often confuse two separate ideas about compounding.
Yes, compounding early matters. Starting earlier is better. Nobody is denying that.
But that does not mean starting one year later permanently destroys your financial future. In most cases, you are simply one year behind.
Being worth $2 million at 45 instead of 44 is mathematically different, but it is not a life-changing disaster. The real cost is one lost year of income, saving, and compounding. That matters, but it does not ruin the trajectory.
This is especially true for people who spend 12 to 15 years in education or training. If someone was going to be worth $6 million at 56, maybe now they are worth $5.5 million at 56 and $6 million at 57.
That is not financial ruin. That is being one year behind.
“Starting early matters” is true.
“Starting one year later means you will live a different lifestyle” is a misunderstanding of the concept. For all you know you may live 1-2 years less. Then you both die with the same number considering all else the same
On top of this I know doctors that don’t know how to job hunt correctly or negotiate contracts and lose millions over their career. That is a much bigger problem than starting 1-2 years late
Edit: Some are still missing the point: You will have that million just a year later. I may live 3 years longer than you . Then I die with a higher compounding amount. Your confusing concepts. The curve is shifted to the left but there is not set end date. The multiplier is stationary in a shifted curve within a non-fixed timeline. The tradeoff is: does it matter that you will be a year older when you have that million at all points in your life. does it matter to you that at 55 years old you will be worth 6 million where as in case B at 56 years old you will be worth 6 million. You are just one year behind. And due to a non fixed timeline you really are not, so long as your variance is roughly the same as the variance of human life length. Some people will retire 3 years later because they have aged genetically slower. Some people will live 4 years longer and thus compound for more time. You are NOT losing 1 million dollars, you are just making it one year later as both the multiplier and income are fixed. And in an unfixed timeline small fluctuations do not matter
Very surprised at astronaut Income in general as well
I know to most of you space professionals here this will not be new news, and I admit I was naive in thinking they make much more. However, I was still very surprised at the pay. The USA astronaut on Artemis 2 made around 150k a year, where the Canadian astronauts made about 109,000 USD a year. Assuming that some of these astronauts are the sole provider, would that not be tight to raise a family.
I mean if I were NASA I certainly would not want my astronauts worrying about money, and a family living in Florida or Houston Texas on 100-110k USD a year (Canadian wage) would have to worry about money to some degree.
To be completely honest I thought they were on 500k a year plus. I know they are technically gov. workers but still, when looking at their portfolios they deserve 1 million plus. Ofc the experience and work they do is priceless, but at the very least I think they should not have to worry about money, which would not be the case for a family of 4+ on 100k USD a year in Houston.
Everyone here that bought over M and A hype is learning a lesson now.
I warned everyone 3 months ago to not follow this guy. He talks like he’s in his early 20s. He got lucky and thinks he knows what he’s doing.
Move on from this shit stock or be a bag holder. This is the first time a community on Reddit pisses me off enough to write in. You guys are following someone who talks with 100% conviction on an OTC. It’s not even the community that is frustrating it’s Wolv himself. Most people trading using Reddit are some 20 year old guys that don’t know the difference between a bull and bear market and Wolv is taking advantage of that . Don’t blindly follow someone who posts using rocket emojis and terms like “Diamond hands”
Did anyone watch the conference?
Thoughts on whether this will actually happen with current funding?
Building off my previous post about 70+ future Moon landings, most people seemed to think a Moon base and Gateway probably won’t fully happen.
So what do you think is actually next for human spaceflight?
With the ISS being decommissioned, where will astronauts be going 20 years from now? Commercial space stations? Gateway? A Moon base? Mars prep? Or will human spaceflight stay rare, expensive, and mostly symbolic?
Do you think we’ll get a Moon base, Gateway, both, or neither?
Also do you think the crew will be mixed nationality like Artemis 2 or fully American?
My personal opinion is that it probably will not happen in any of our lifetimes. Maybe not ever, at least not in the dramatic “boots on Mars” way people imagine.
Best-case scenario, I could see it happening around 2060–2070, but only if there is a major shift in funding, political will, technology, and public ambition. Right now, it feels like Mars is always “30 years away,” and has been for decades.
I would love to be wrong, but I think people underestimate how difficult, expensive , and politically fragile a crewed Mars mission really is.
Or do you think we will no longer go to the moon after Artemis and it will be a very expensive scrap book item to beat China back .
What do you think human space flight will look like in 20 years considering the ISS will be decommissioned soon ?
When they are not in space or in mission training what do they do?
Do they work long hours or is it a regular 9-5?
Do they travel a lot for press and interviews?
Just wondering what its like after seeing all the Artemis hype
Would you go to the moon with Artemis 4 as a civilian that has won a lottery ticket
Fun hypothetical
Rules:
All risks remain the same in terms of chance of crew loss, radiation exposure, etc
Do you go?