Since you asked, the tax write off stuff is basically a myth. If you donate, let’s say $20, then they have to mark down $20 of additional income, raising their tax burden by $20 x 21% (federal, plus whatever state tax there is). Then, when they hand over the money to the charity, they get to take a $20 deduction (not a credit) which means their tax burden is lowered by $20 x 21% (again plus any state tax). So comes out even in the end. The deduction basically says, hey, remember the $20 I put down as income? Don’t tax me on that because I used it for a tax-exempt purpose. They report it as income, then report the donation. Nothing fishy there.

However, depending on how long they hold onto that money, it’s possible to use the money to make other money, like investing it or even just sticking it in a savings account where it would get a little interest. And with enough donations, that might add up.

That’s actually been found to be not true with advancements in how we detect bacteria and viruses. https://youtu.be/OTIYcemQ_OQ

Even if a claim gets denied the fact that it was submitted means you already got the treatment.

That’s quite often not true. There are tons of procedures/tests/etc that don’t get run until a “prior authorization” has been granted by the insurance company. Also medications and durable medical equipment are not dispensed until insurance has been approved. If the prior auth is not granted or the medication is not covered, they usually will not be performed/provided unless the patient pays up front, and without the negotiating power of the insurance company, the patient will be paying 5 to 10 times what the insurance company would have paid.

I’ve personally been dealing with medical issues the past 3 months and the amount of prior auths I’ve seen go by is astounding. Tomorrow I actually go in for some more tests that they couldn’t do a few weeks ago because these ones in particular needed some prior auths that are harder to get.

Well, he did The Nightmare Before Christmas as well as most of Tim Burton’s other films. Along with tons of other things.

Yes, voting reform is extremely important. The problem is Trump’s view of voting reform is to restrict who can vote. The dems idea of voting reform is to make voting easier, and at the local levels, push for ranked choice or approval voting making 3rd parties actually viable. Voting for Trump is pushing us further from good voting reform. Harris may not be platforming voting reform, but at least she’s not going to interfere with state level reforms like Trump will.

I’ve ordered the ring because I have the watch, but I don’t like wearing the watch at home. Sometimes I put it on at home, but instinctively I find myself taking it off within a few hours. I especially don’t like wearing the watch while I sleep. However I have no problem wearing a ring all day. The form factor itself is more advantageous for me, because it’s the difference between wearing it or not. When I leave the house, I have no problem putting my watch on and keeping it on. Same way I don’t have a problem putting on shoes and keeping them on. But like the watch, I don’t like wearing shoes at home.

I’m from the US and “better than a kick in the teeth” and “better than a poke in the eye” are both common around my area. Never heard the tree ones though.

Those aren’t film, they’re tape. Film is what’s in the camera or shown through a projector and are visible to the naked eye. VHS, Betamax, and video2000 are magnetic tape formats that aren’t viewable with the naked eye. Regardless, “on film” is still a universally acceptable term for “on the recorded video” no matter the format because terms stick around in industries

Yeah, that’s fair. I think the main reasoning is that shooting something out of the air can cause it to crash on people or light stuff on fire. I also don’t like the “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws, so I think both shooting people and shooting drones should be illegal.

New drones being sold in the USA are equipped with something called remote ID. In theory, it enables law enforcement to wirelessly identity the drone, who it’s registered with, and where the pilot is standing. This is very new though, and very few, if any, police departments have the tools needed to make use of it. It’s also possible to read remote ID from phones, but without the database, it only gives you so much info. Owners of older drones are supposed to attach a remote ID module to them in order to maintain legal flying, but someone being voyeuristic with their older drone probably isn’t following the rules.

Not in the US. You can report it to the police and the FAA, but it’s a federal felony offense to shoot down any aircraft, regardless of whether it’s a $100 drone or multi-million dollar full on airplane. But like the other poster said, voyeurism and harassment laws still apply. And also, if the pilot is out of sight of the drone, that’s a hefty FAA violation (assuming they don’t have a specific FAA waiver that’s hard to get) and something you can report.

FAA Certified drone pilot in the USA here. That’s wild. In the US it’s illegal to shoot down an aircraft of any sort no matter the type or who is flying it. And also, the Federal Aviation Administration is the only authority in the US when it comes to airspace, and as long as you have authorization from the FAA or are in uncontrolled space, you can fly over anyone’s property. However, that doesn’t give you the right to voyeurism or harassment. If you are intentionally spying on things that are normally considered private (peeking in a window, for instance) or repeatedly or specifically bugging a specific individual or family, then you can still be charged with those crimes. Also, unless you have a specific waiver that’s rather hard to get, you have to be within line of sight of your drone. If the drone pilot is not following the rules, they can be hit with hefty fines. Even though drones can be bought easily, there’s still strict rules that the FAA has for both recreational and professional flying, and anyone operating a drone outside those can and should be reported.

In your first examples, you are using female as an adjective. A female troop, a female Sargent, a male soldier. That’s usually fine. Even “that female cashier over there” is probably fine. However if you say “that female over there” or like you pointed out, “get over here right now, female” or really any other instance where female is used as a noun instead of an adjective, that’s where it becomes gross. It’s all about adjective vs noun. Adjective: usually fine. Noun: usually not.

I want to start by saying this is an attempt at an explanation not just for you, but anyone who stumbles upon this thread, and is not making any assumptions of anyone’s character.

The answer to why it’s offensive or gross is twofold.

First is that using it as a noun like saying “I went on a date with a female” sounds clinical or sterile. Female as a noun is mostly used in science and medicine, and women don’t want to feel like test subjects. They get objectified enough as it is. Is it technically incorrect? No. But it feels that way to the person being called it.

Which leads to the second, more important reason. They’ve asked. Again, to emphasize the importance: They’ve asked. In general (yes there are exceptions), women have asked people to stop referring to them as females (the noun), and if you respect people, then you call them what they ask. You hopefully don’t call Asians Orientals anymore. And when your friend Stephen says he goes by Steve, hopefully you say Steve the majority of the time. Or if Richard really hates being called Dick, then hopefully you don’t call him Dick. Language is fluid and cultural, and if you want to get along with people (Asians, Steve, Richard, women) then you should learn to use language their way.

I think that is really the more important reason, because it’s totally fair if you don’t understand why someone else finds something offensive. Everyone has had different life experiences and not everything offends everyone. But when a large swath of society says they find it offensive and you continue to do so, then you are being offensive regardless of whether or not you understand why. And in the end, if you choose to continue to be offensive just because you don’t buy the reasoning, then you shouldn’t be surprised when you get bad reactions and find it hard to bond.

Tips for a better life: Call people what they want to be called. Be nice for no reason. If in doubt, ask for advice from someone who doesn’t look like you.

Hope this makes at least some sense.

In general, female is an adjective. It can be used as a noun, but generally shouldn’t be, at least when talking about humans. So you can say “my female colleague” or “a woman I work with”. You can say “the female mind” or “a woman’s brain.” You can say “a panel of female postal workers” or “a panel of women who work for the post office.” If you stick to the adjective/noun rule, you’ll come off far less offensive/gross sounding. Hope this helps.

Apples too. But I’m not sure this is unusual. Even Arby’s sells a chicken salad sandwich with grapes and apples in it.

Yeah, I’d say it’s 50/50 on whether a pretzel gets served with mustard or cheese in my experience, and I almost always try the pretzel when it’s on the menu. Sometimes you get both. Assuming we’re talking soft pretzels. Hard pretzels, idk.

Mostly just freeways. I don’t think it’s heavily enforced. The idea is that cars traveling at drastically different speeds on the same road are more likely to cause an accident. It’s best to drive “the speed of traffic” because that’s what is predictable. Roads should be designed in such a way to make the target speed limit the fastest speed at which most people feel comfortable anyways, rather than just obeying a sign. So a 20mph road should be skinny and not straight. A 70mph highway should be wide and straight. Back to the point, though, in a traffic jam, all the cars are slow and therefore the speed differential is small already and therefore no reason to ticket anyone.

If somebody is thanking you, you likely exerted effort on their behalf. So they say “thank you” for exerting effort, and then you respond with exerting effort was “no problem” you don’t need to thank me. You’re welcome would be a response more along the lines of “you are welcome” to make me exert effort.

They’re both fine, and it’s both a generational and locational thing. I personally prefer “no problem” because honestly I don’t mind helping, but I’m also not giving you permission to use my effort at any time. You can have my efforts when it doesn’t cause a problem.

Right. Like, my use case for SD cards is for my cameras. I want to take pictures and bring them home across international borders. And a 4TB card would be amazing, though probably not fast enough. I simply don’t put files that I don’t want people to find onto my SD cards in the first place.