Is there any reason not to trade in a base "fat" ps5 for a ps5 pro or advantage to keeping both?
one of my friends is insisting it's always better to keep your old consoles, which yeah if there was an old ps3 i could maintain backwards compatibility, but this is a ps5 to ps5 pro, I don't think I would be missing anything.
It struck me today that I have seen almost daily posts from r/genealogy on a problem I have never seen people ask about in any citizenship forum.
In genealogy, one of the most common problems is accurately differentiating between 2 essentially identical individuals.
They may have the same first and last name, be approximately the same age (and the ages go all over the place on census, marriage, death records, etc), have an origin from the same large country, and may even have similar relative names or other similar features.
When someone is researching genealogy for fun, it's just a puzzle to sit with.
For people who have navigated citizenship by descent claims for countries that allow you to go far back, to the early 1900s or 1800s where records are "fuzzier" and more error-prone, has anyone run into a barrier where it was difficult to prove that your ancestor was specifically John Smith A eligible for XYZ citizenship, and not the John Smith B who is not eligible for XYZ citizenship, but lives in the same town and is the same age?
Does anyone have any insight into how various countries deal with this? Or is it just not an issue somehow?
It seems straightforward to prove a positive (descendants of John Smith are entitled to citizenship) but very difficult to prove a negative (keeping track of all the possible candidate John Smiths and disproving the relation for every other candidate)
The closest thing I've seen are "one and the same" (OATS) declarations for Italy, but from what I've seen online, these are treated as something close to an annoyance and a waste of time for people with minor spelling errors who are obviously the same person.
I have never seen someone post an actual case of contested identity, and I'm curious to know if anyone has any experiences with it.
another specific familysearch question...
I emailed familysearch asking about something, and 1 thing led to another, and I ended up sending them some documents over email (that they asked for and very kindly volunteered to look at without me even asking)
They then sent me a link to log in and give them "helper" access to my account. The name associated with this request is a total stranger.
They emailed me and informed me they added a lot of information to the family tree based on the documents I had.
However, looking at my family tree after their email, the User ID associated with the recent batch of edits across several people in my tree does not appear to be my User ID, familysearch, or the stranger's name who appeared when I logged in to give them permission to be a "helper" on the tree.
Instead, it is the same User ID that had uploaded some information on these people several years ago. I enabled "relationship viewing", and this individual is apparently my 1st cousin 3x removed.
Is it possible that edits made by FamilySearch staff would show up under their name instead? Why would this specific name show up? Or is it just a coincidence somehow?
I sent a short message to them out of curiosity but they have not replied.
past 2 years did not receive retention offer despite attempting. this time received the $200 travel credit for $2000 spend in 3 months which I happily accepted.
Used to spend a lot more on this card in past years before diversifying away from it and now have a lot lower spending, but I have no clue if that affected their algorithm or not.
In the USA, 90%+ start as CFI.
In the EU, I'm curious what the most stereotypical first job is.
Is it mainly LCC FO or is there more variety?
EDIT: thanks to all who commented with explanations.
I am on my 3rd attempt to order a 1980s death certificate from a particular county in Minnesota now.
The first 2 times it never showed up in the mail.
I have successfully received multiple vital docs by mail from various MN counties, and a couple other countries. So there seems to be an issue with this particular county (this is the only document and first time ordering from them).
I followed up by email as respectfully as possible to ask if they're sure they sent it, and if I would have to pay for a 3rd attempt, and the clerk was pretty terse in insisting they properly mailed it, and that yes I am required to pay for a 3rd attempt (despite not ever receiving the first 2). And I have to visit a notary again.
Has anyone else had this problem? Any advice other than potentially throwing my money away a 3rd time?
The only thing I can think of is trying a different address (family member) on the off chance it magically shows up in the mail this time.
I would go in person, but it's a 4 hour round trip driving...
EDIT: They agreed I can send them a prepaid envelope with tracking/signature with the forms. Fingers crossed this time Lol
Is there any point to contacting FamilySearch somehow to find what their source was if they didn't attach it? Has anyone done this? Is there a backend they can see, or would it just go to some random customer service agent who wouldn't have any insight?
To reiterate, NOT by anonymous or random contributors on FamilySearch- by "FamilySearch Change made by authorized support staff or as part of an update."
It's so frustrating, I found so much information on a branch of my family that is hard to track, but there's 0 indication of where they found this or if it's reliable.
Is there a way to check the specific conditions of access details for an item?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/catalog/1376701
All I see here is that it is not available online. How can I tell if it would be available at a FamilySearch research center in person?
If the page doesn't say anything does that mean there's just no way to access it?
Any recommendations for free or paid genealogists to search for records?
-Anecdotal stories from family that we have at least one branch from Canada originally
-Multiple distant cousins/23andMe DNA matches from Canada that seem to line up with the expected branch of the family based on "relatives in common" feature (my maternal grandmother)
-family genealogies/family trees trail off in 1800s, as well as familysearch. I haven't been able to push back further myself
Under posts criticizing any aspect of SN2, I see a ton of people spamming "it's in Early Access, of course XYZ..." or "it's obvious that they will change XYZ, don't complain just wait"
Yes, it's in Early Access, and they're actively seeking opinions and feedback to improve, that's the point of Early Access
and I think people underestimate what is "obvious" to the devs, I think it's quite common that game developers are surprised by what people come up with in playtesting
SN2 looks awesome and look forward to the full release
Is it possible for high profile people to avoid having their name listed in US citizenship renunciation rolls?
I used to think it was not possible. For example, Eduardo Saverin, billionaire cofounder of facebook, is listed in this roll.
I'm sure many people in this sub are aware of the weird dance Japan makes people born with dual citizenship do where you "choose" nationality at age 22 but you can keep both by "endeavoring" to choose 1.
The media reported that Naomi Osaka lost dual citizenship when she represented Japan in the olympics but covered the japanese law without nuance or detail.
I cannot find Naomi Osaka's name in any IRS citizenship renunciation announcement, not only in the year it's claimed she renounced but also before and after by a couple years.
I also cannot find any quote where she specifically, explicitly confirms she is no longer a US citizen. I can only see that she talked about choosing Japanese citizenship, won't represent the US, culture and citizenship aren't the same, etc, but I don't see her say "I'm no longer a US citizen".
Is it possible to avoid having citizenship renunciation not be announced in the USA?
Did I somehow miss her name in the rolls?
Or do people agree that the media failed to cover the nuance of Japanese law and she has kept both but avoided speaking directly about it? Because that is my conclusion