Or hear the kid out: dat ass. 😎
- 0 Posts
- 77 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
Cake day: December 13th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
1·3 days agoCredit cards and debit cards can be disabled at a whim. Prone to being fucked up by computer error
That’s the beauty
- if my card goes missing, I can lock it
- unauthorized charges can be reversed
- I’m alerted of any charge immediately.
Plus, they extend warranties on purchases & provide purchase protections.
don’t work when the internet is down, or during a disaster with no power.
Unless you carry around a large supply of cash at all times, you’ll be in the same bind withdrawing cash: ATMs & account ledgers run on power & networks.
Cash always goes through, though.
That’s a problem: anyone can use my cash without authorization. If they steal it, I have no way to disable it, and it’s more difficult to recover. If I lose it, it’s most likely gone.
Cash will always remain king.
Not in terms of security or recovery.
I could withdraw cash & carry it around, but then it won’t earn high interest.
More than maybe one. Some also accept deposits through stores. I’ve never used them or needed to.
It was easy to adapt away from cash, and I prefer the safeguards of credit & mobile pay.
Is that not the purpose of their ATM networks? Though I never use them, I read some offer deposits that way.
I’ve always direct deposited or scanned checks. If someone needs to send me cash, it’s always through some service like Zelle, ACH, or online bill pay.
I don’t like to carry cash. Cards, digital wallets, & ACH meet all my needs. I can see how that’s a PITA for those who do, though.
overdraft fee
Banks & brokers without those are common, especially online ones. I’ve switched to online ones & never had to think about them.
- They block overdrafts without charging a fee.
- Deposited cash often earns high interest rates.
- Large ATM networks or ATM fee refunds.
- Well documented policies.
They beat the credit union I had in every way, especially in the documentation (an unusual pain point with my credit union). Some guides
Financial planning/advising services (perhaps through work) may offer good guidance, too.
Did someone use AI to generate you?
I own you!
take ownership & full access of all resources
threat actor exploits a vulnerable application that is (1) running as you to (2) access resources it doesn’t need: they commandeer your system
how did that happen?🤔
Great way to get your computer pwnt.
/*What’s
*doing here? Operate only on the nonhidden top-level files?
91·8 days agoUnless someone watched Borat or recognizes some Dune character (I haven’t & don’t), this context is shit, so I can’t?
Someone explain this bullshit?
That’s a good reason to wear them along with stiff fabric that awkwardly wrinkles outward in the crotch area: fun to flick that in plain sight to enhance the discomfort of onlookers.
Unless they state the risk & danger and support those claims with something concrete & rational (instead of leaving it to ungrounded speculation), it seems like peanuts. I like to set parameters around my anxiety & keep it real.
For decades, we had phonebooks publish names, addresses, phone numbers, and the sky didn’t fall.
alt text for accessibility?
clever
You use that word…
Because my precious data bellyachers & tinfoil hatters basically.
Am I the only one who wonders how to get this in Edge? I like my shit integrated.
photograph of monitor
pressing Print Screen
Does OP know about screenshots (Print Screen key or WindowsKey-Shift-S which brings up Snipping Tool) or alt text? 🤦
I see lots of people on the left type “punch a Nazi” online
“punch a Nazi” reads better than a more realistic “throw a feeble, limp-wristed nudge that hardly registers at a nazi that leads them to innocently ask whether you need their attention for something”
Yep, clear & direct is kindness.
I like to insist on basic standards: “Please provide an agenda that explains why we’re needed. Otherwise, I’ll have to turn down this meeting. Thanks.” and reply all. Often, others will agree the lack of written preparation is a problem & follow suit.
If the agenda is simple & clear enough, I’ll just answer in writing so we can cancel the meeting.
If your whole schtick is about decluttering, you should be able to differentiate between “less” and “fewer.” Getting things down to a countable number achieves “fewer”-ness.
Bullshit dogmatic rule by pedants who make up rules & pass them down like schmucks instead of observing & studying the actual, standard language. True: fewer is only for countables. However, less is fine. It has been used with countables for about as long as written English has existed as documented by linguists & English usage references:
quoted passage
The primary point is that the now-standard pedantry about less/fewer is in fact one of the many false “rules” that have recently precipitated out of the over-saturated solution of linguistic ignorance where most usage advice is brewed.
But not the usage advice at MWCDEU. This is the start of its entry on less/fewer:
Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: fewer refers to number among things that are counted, and less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured. This rule is simple enough and easy enough to follow. It has only one fault—it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for fewer: fewer does refer to number among things that are counted. However, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted. Our amended rule describes the actual usage of the past thousand years or so.
As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on less:
This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but strictly proper. —Baker 1770
Baker’s remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly—“I should think,” “appears to me”—his own taste and preference. […]
How Baker’s opinion came to be an inviolable rule, we do not know. But we do know that many people believe it is such. Simon 1980, for instance, calls the “less than 50,000 words” he found in a book about Joseph Conrad a “whopping” error.
The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great—he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin—more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language. After about 900 years Robert Baker opined that fewer might be more elegant and proper. Almost every usage writer since Baker has followed Baker’s lead, and generations of English teachers have swelled the chorus. The result seems to be a fairly large number of people who now believe less used of countables to be wrong, though its standardness is easily demonstrated.
Less is more general than fewer, and the references identify common constructions where less is preferred with countables.
More like present day appreciator of dat ass.