u/TrumpSexedHisDaughtr

​

I can't count how many times my doc has been like, "you need X but your insurance is gonna deny it." And I've always been like "damn...I have such a good doc, but the man is keeping them down!"

Until you realize...nobody made them work for your insurance carrier. And in fact plenty of doctors go private all the time for this very reason...so why didn't yours? Because they are more concerned with making money, and they know you'll blame your insurance instead of them when they submit a claim they know will be denied.

I Googled "where am I" and got a generic response that said Google AI can't give me that information as it has no access to my phone's GPS or IP information.

I then Googled "emergency where am I" and the response was "based on your IP address you appear to be _________" and gave me the city I am passing through.

I wanted to take screenshots of the conflicting results but I can no longer get it to use the exact words "based on your IP address." No matter how many time I refresh now it will at most say something like "based on your network."

But either way it still does tell me my city when I say it's an emergency, and it says it can't tell me anything when I don't say it's an emergency.

The whole point of higher education is allegedly that it benefits the country more than its initial cost. That's the position the federal government takes to justify the Department of Education giving out loans in the first place. But if that's true, then by default an educated person is more valuable to the country than the amount loaned to them...unless the government is lying about the value of education.

So either (1) higher education failed and/or the government lied about its value, in which case the government should step in and take care of the debt...or (2) higher education succeeded by benefiting the country more than the cost, in which case the government should step in and take care of the debt because your education is a net benefit to the country even if the government foots the bill.

Either way, I see no justification for the government charging people to become educated. We would consider that absurd K-12, and it should be considered absurd for higher education.

I could see a more nuanced argument based on the majors/classes people choose, but I'm speaking more generally, and the nuances could always be addressed later. The larger point is that higher education is either a greater benefit to society or it's not. If it is, the government shouldn't be in the business of loaning people money for it. If it's not, the government also shouldn't be in the business of loaning people money for it.

And what's more annoying is they kept providing text updates that kept the ETA about 30 min out. If they'd just told me it was gonna take 2 hours I coulda gone shopping, grabbed lunch, etc.

I keep a magnetic key holder under the car and I also guess I didn't put the key back in last time I used it so that was empty, which gave me a nice chuckle.

For once I wanna see a profile that's like, "parent to two dumb nerds. You're gonna hate them. They just eat and cry."

I often see ads where someone will say things like "car doesn't start but it just needs a battery." While it's certainly possible someone would sell a car for cheap because they're too lazy to replace the battery first, an honest person and someone who wants the best price for their car will generally make that repair first before listing the car.

I believe it's far more common that someone is outright lying (e.g. the car's alternator is bad and that's why it won't start). Or else they know it's one of a number of things, and they're listing the cheaper fix as though it's the guaranteed solution.

Again, the battery is just an example. I've seen all sorts of stuff like, "car is slow to accelerate but just needs a new fuel pump filter" and on and on.

In general, I don't even advise buying used cars from private parties you don't know. But if you're going to, then I'd follow this advice.

Personally I'd only buy used if it's certified from a dealership with some kind of brief bumper to bumper warranty like 3 months/3,000 miles for anything you and the dealership missed during inspection.

Literally any time anything gaming related comes up in conversation, my boss cannot stop himself from somehow saying that he thinks gaming is a waste of life. He's never gamed, would never game, his kids don't game, they're too busy touching grass, and on and on.

At the office we use these dumb mini $300-$400 office computers that run like crap. They're underpowered, have too little RAM, too little storage, and they chug at everything even when they're brand new. But my boss, because he knows zero about computers, buys them because they're advertised as office computers and they're cheap. And then he and everyone else on our team whine constantly about how everything they do is annoyingly slow and buggy.

This week his computer gave up the ghost and he finally let me pick his replacement. I got him a normal sized desktop tower with discrete graphics and 32 GB of RAM instead of the freaking 8 GB our own IT person was trying to recommend.

Anyway, despite making the purchase, he has nonstop made fun of the computer, pointed out that it's listed as a "gaming desktop" in the Amazon ad, and in general keeps acting like I made him buy a computer that's as much a waste of time as he considers gaming to be.

I keep trying to explain to him that for the most part "gaming" just means it has powerful hardware. Additionally, getting those same specs in a "business" labeled computer tends to just result in you paying a premium because you're too dumb or too proud to buy something that's labeled for gaming, so you end up paying hundreds to $1,000+ more for similar specs.

Anyway, I made the same upgrade when my 6-7 year old mini office comp started glitching out a few months ago. And I am so freaking happy with how much snappier everything is. And I know he's going to be stoked as well. But he'll never admit it, and he'll keep trash talking everything gaming because he's just too cool for school or whatever. So frustrating.

He's otherwise a pretty excellent boss, so I put up with this as just one of his innate quirks. But it really gets under my skin sometimes how condescending his attitude is toward anything gaming, especially when he's actively benefiting from it and from my knowledge of it.

I found a channel on YouTube where Usha Vance has guests on to read children's books. I immediately searched for an episode with Trump to see how he does at least reading at a child's level. Well it turns out Trump is the only guest who is just given a picture book to describe. Don't take my word for it...go look it up. Why does every single guest but him actually read?

I'm starting to notice a lot of "dark patterns" on Bumble.

Essentially, it seems like they use your engagement data not to connect you with compatible matches, but to specifically avoid them. That way you stay on the app and hopefully spend more money, view more ads, etc.

For example, it's become clear that you are only shown a limited number of preferred matches per day, despite the actual pool being much larger. Even if there are 1,000 matches in your immediate area, Bumble is only going to show you 15 of those (for example) and then cut you off until the next day.

One example is if I look up people who don't want children, I'll get to see maybe 10-15 people, and then it tells me there's no one left in my area who doesn't want children. Bitch...I live in an area with over one million people in a 15 mile radius. Pretty sure more than 15 people don't want children.

What really pushed me over, was that today I made a strict rule about only being shown likes from people within a 15 mile radius. Because Bumble freakin LOVES to connect me with people who live 40+ or even 80+ miles away. So what does Bumble do? It starts connecting me with people who are within that radius but only because they're on vacation, but they live in another state entirely. And I'm not talking just one or two people...every single match I've had since implementing that rule, has been someone who lives out of state and is visiting.

No matter what I do, I feel like Bumble has some algorithm that makes sure no one I meet will work out. Either it's distance, or something also important like differences on wanting kids, differences on religion, politics, etc.

The other day I opened up my restrictions and randomly got 27 likes in a few minutes. Literally not a single one met my preferences. I've been on the app for YEARS, so the algorithm has had plenty of time to learn. I swear they're using that data to HIDE good partners, not to connect people.

Is that intentional, to prevent people from posting reviews about products that are unsatisfactory despite "trust me bro" guarantee? And if it's not intentional, can you fix that, please?

To me it's legit "dark pattern" level to only allow people who relatively recently purchased a product to review it and get a verified badge, without contacting support for special permission to be allowed to leave a review.

For me, the review link works, but I can't select a lot of options necessary to make it a full and verified review (e.g. clicking on my age range does nothing). The final straw was when I was given the option to submit the review or else enter my e-mail to make it a verified review. Clicking the box to enter my e-mail simply closed the review window, effectively erasing my review. I tried again and the exact same thing happened. Chrome browser.

I remember as a kid it being a selling point that fish in the stores was fresh and "never frozen." Today, it's almost impossible to find fish in normal grocery stores that isn't "fresh/never frozen."

But you know where you can find fish that's been frozen? Anywhere that sells sushi grade fish, because that's essentially a requirement as part of the process.

What people don't know - and the food industry doesn't share widely - is that when fish is frozen, it's not just placed in a typical freezer. That would completely ruin the texture and make it appetizing to no one. So instead it's frozen right after catching, using liquid nitrogen. This is called flash freezing, and it freezes so quickly and deeply that it provides two major benefits.

First, it prevents a lot of water crystal formation that would otherwise damage the fish and ruin its texture.

But second and most importantly, it kills any potential parasites.

The latter is why you don't have to worry about parasites from proper sushi, and the former is why you still get excellent texture from sushi even though it's been frozen.

The food industry wants you to think frozen is worse, because frozen is more expensive especially due to the initial need of liquid nitrogen.

If you do find fish that's been frozen, it won't be labeled frozen. It'll just be labeled "sushi grade." Because they don't want you knowing questioning why the fish you typically buy isn't frozen, but sushi is frozen despite being a delicacy.

Couple decades ago I spent the weekend in jail when a woman falsely accused me of rape, and I'm wondering if I didn't have to stand trial because a jailhouse snitch helped convince the DA not to press charges.

First of all, I need to address the elephant in the room because I'm a proponent of "believe women." I understand the gut reaction to assume that someone saying they're falsely accused is lying. I don't want to make the entire post about proving my innocence, but I'll say that this was not a situation where we had sex and there's a disagreement about consent. Rather, she said we had sex when we literally did not, and she further claimed that it was against her will, that she was crying and telling me to stop, etc. A textbook false rape accusation, which she called in just minutes after we got in an argument and I told her she was crazy and needed to leave and never come back. I'm happy to entertain clarifying questions, but I'm hoping this doesn't just devolve into a post about people questioning whether I'm a liar.

So anyway the cops come to my place after our argument, and tell me I need to walk out to the street to answer a few questions. I stupidly do, not realizing that walking onto a public street removes the need for a warrant. They put me in cuffs, place me in a patrol car, bring her in to identify me, and then arrest me.

Here's where the question/the potential "snitch" comes in.

I spent the weekend waiting arraignment (which is when you are brought before a judge and you're told your charges, you make your initial guilty/not guilty plea, etc.). During that weekend, I was transported to a different jail. During the transport, I was chained to another inmate who looked and acted like a stereotypical inmate. Like movie trope stereotypical. He was this drug-skinny dude with an obvious accent and face tats and a real sociopathic type serious demeanor. During the transport he took a clear interest in me specifically. He started asking me a bunch of questions about my situation, and I answered them all in detail.

Mind you I'd also been prepped earlier on by someone in law enforcement who warned me not to lie about my situation to anyone who asked. He claimed that inmates had a way of learning, and would beat the hell out of you if you lied. So that convinced me that when this scary, face-tatted dude asked what I was in for, I needed to tell him. So I told him the whole story.

At the end of the story, he seemed to ignore everything and was like, "but you fucked her right?" in this almost growling angry voice. To which I repeated I could not stress enough that we never ever had sex. And he was silent after that.

The next day for my arraignment, came and went. I was never arraigned - never brought into the courtroom - which turned out to mean the DA had decided not to press charges. So I was released not long after that Monday arraignment date.

For years I looked back on this and figured what happened was that I escaped getting murdered by this dude. I figured that the reason he was so interested in my case and responded the way he did at the end was because he was gearing up to murder a rapist. And I was pretty sure that had I not been released, I would've been shanked shortly thereafter because this guy didn't accept my story and never would have no matter what I said.

But recently I've been wondering if he was an informant. Between his interest in my case and his almost cartoonish trope appearance and behavior, was he just prodding me to report back to the DA to help them decide whether to press charges?

Maybe neither is the case. Maybe he wasn't going to murder me, and he wasn't an informant. But I don't think it's all that common for people to get arrested for such serious allegations, and then get released without the DA ever even filing charges. So I'm really starting to wonder if this guy didn't report back and the DA decided it was a waste of time. In which case, hey movie quality inmate bro...I appreciate what you do and thank you because you basically saved my life in multiple ways.

Couple decades ago I spent the weekend in jail when a woman falsely accused me of rape, and I'm wondering if I didn't have to stand trial because a jailhouse snitch helped convince the DA not to press charges.

First of all, I need to address the elephant in the room because I'm a proponent of "believe women." I understand the gut reaction to assume that someone saying they're falsely accused is lying. I don't want to make the entire post about proving my innocence, but I'll say that this was not a situation where we had sex and there's a disagreement about consent. Rather, she said we had sex when we literally did not, and she further claimed that it was against her will, that she was crying and telling me to stop, etc. A textbook false rape accusation, which she called in just minutes after we got in an argument and I told her she was crazy and needed to leave and never come back. I'm happy to entertain clarifying questions, but I'm hoping this doesn't just devolve into a post about people questioning whether I'm a liar.

So anyway the cops come to my place after our argument, and tell me I need to walk out to the street to answer a few questions. I stupidly do, not realizing that walking onto a public street removes the need for a warrant. They put me in cuffs, place me in a patrol car, bring her in to identify me, and then arrest me.

Here's where the question/the potential "snitch" comes in.

I spent the weekend waiting arraignment (which is when you are brought before a judge and you're told your charges, you make your initial guilty/not guilty plea, etc.). During that weekend, I was transported to a different jail. During the transport, I was chained to another inmate who looked and acted like a stereotypical inmate. Like movie trope stereotypical. He was this drug-skinny dude with an obvious accent and face tats and a real sociopathic type serious demeanor. During the transport he took a clear interest in me specifically. He started asking me a bunch of questions about my situation, and I answered them all in detail.

Mind you I'd also been prepped earlier on by someone in law enforcement who warned me not to lie about my situation to anyone who asked. He claimed that inmates had a way of learning, and would beat the hell out of you if you lied. So that convinced me that when this scary, face-tatted dude asked what I was in for, I needed to tell him. So I told him the whole story.

At the end of the story, he seemed to ignore everything and was like, "but you fucked her right?" in this almost growling angry voice. To which I repeated I could not stress enough that we never ever had sex. And he was silent after that.

The next day for my arraignment, came and went. I was never arraigned - never brought into the courtroom - which turned out to mean the DA had decided not to press charges. So I was released not long after that Monday arraignment date.

For years I looked back on this and figured what happened was that I escaped getting murdered by this dude. I figured that the reason he was so interested in my case and responded the way he did at the end was because he was gearing up to murder a rapist. And I was pretty sure that had I not been released, I would've been shanked shortly thereafter because this guy didn't accept my story and never would have no matter what I said.

But recently I've been wondering if he was an informant. Between his interest in my case and his almost cartoonish trope appearance and behavior, was he just prodding me to report back to the DA to help them decide whether to press charges?

Maybe neither is the case. Maybe he wasn't going to murder me, and he wasn't an informant. But I don't think it's all that common for people to get arrested for such serious allegations, and then get released without the DA ever even filing charges. So I'm really starting to wonder if this guy didn't report back and the DA decided it was a waste of time. In which case, hey movie quality inmate bro...I appreciate what you do and thank you because you basically saved my life in multiple ways.

I've been playing for many years. Steam records me at over 600 hours of playtime (about 400 of those hours in B2). I've never found a single pearlescent. Meanwhile you can generate legendaries like candy using SHIFT keys in B4. Are they just a thing bots and influencers talk about to keep people playing, or are they really out there and I just have bad luck?

Edit: apparently they may exist...but they're generally garbage tier. Thanks for your replies confirming it's a useless tier.

Obviously tongue in cheek, but a shower thought that I figure only people who play Starcraft or certain other RTS games could relate to at all.

The basis of the theory is about the common rush tactic in multiplayer games, and how if you survive past the initial rush, it's often just about hunkering down and gathering resources until you're the first to amass enough of a military to easily overwhelm everyone on the map.

Back in the day rushes were pretty much how all wars went. Some strategy has been introduced over time, but especially in the beginning it was largely a matter of throwing quick large groups at each other and hoping you could hold out the longest in each battle.

With the advent of nukes, we quickly passed the rush stage. With the protection of nukes, countries who could build them became hunkered down with little fear of being attacked on a large scale. This became the initial cold war. From that point, anyone who had nukes was trying to amass the most. Everyone who didn't have them, was trying to develop them. Sometimes countries would attack each other, but rarely was it two countries both with nukes.

At some point (in the 1950s-1960s), a number of countries reached enough nukes that the term "mutually assured destruction" was used to describe neither side surviving if one side launched nukes. From there, much of the "hunkering down" became focused on how to make sure you could defend against all nukes in a retaliatory strike, or prevent a retaliatory strike in the first place. That quickly became impossible due to the sheer number of launches either side could conduct simultaneously from different locations.

And that's where UFOs could come in. I'm with the folks who believe they're not aliens and are just incredibly advanced human craft. And I propose their primary development purpose isn't to take on other craft or to win a war on their own. It's to use their speed and stealth to prevent any effective retaliatory strike in the event of a war with a country that has nukes.

And if it ever gets to a point where one country's tech clearly establishes this ability before any other country...that's when that country sweeps the map, like a swarm of 32 Protoss carriers.

It's gotten to the point where if the person's main profile pic is a group pic, I just assume they're the least attractive person in the pic and swipe that way.