dclxvi616 t1_je8enqg wrote

Sure I just try not to convince myself my pistol is "protection." It does not make me safe. It is a hail mary last resort act of desperation that might give me a small chance to survive a situation that might never occur in my life where I would otherwise certainly die. It's better to have and not need than need and not have. Nothing more.

There may be some people trained and skilled enough to consider their firearm protection, but I don't think that counts for most of us.


dclxvi616 t1_je4ivfk wrote

That’s what they want you to think. Seriously. They’re supposed to find any excuse they can to charge you with a crime. Misleading you into believing they are supposed to protect you only makes that easier. If you want protection, you get a lawyer, a bodyguard, or a condom, depending on what kind of protection you need.


dclxvi616 t1_je0wrx7 wrote

Okay, you’re correct I was confused about the timeframe. But I don’t think the fact that we merely use our fingers more is expressed through natural selection unless people who are better at using their fingers are more effective at reproducing offspring. And they very well may be, it just takes a stretch of the imagination, imho.

Basically the selective pressure is always about if it makes you more or less likely to successfully produce offspring, who then in turn produce offspring of their own. Characteristics that make it less likely to do this die off, or are at risk of doing so. Characteristics that don’t effect your ability to reproduce don’t really effect the selective pressure.


dclxvi616 t1_jdyz482 wrote

The two statements are not mutually exclusive: "SVB did not have enough liquid assets," & "The assets of SVB are good."

It's like if you put all your cash into savings bonds that you cannot redeem for a 1-year holding period and don't leave yourself anything to buy groceries with. You are financially ruined in the moment, but your bonds are still good assets.


dclxvi616 t1_jd8ta3v wrote

Well of course, that's why my question wasn't really answered, it was "reframed" into a question I hadn't asked. Was also surprised to see him treating solar panels on rooftops as if they're just obviously nothing but a good thing. The Technology Connections guy does a video addressing that topic, but it's from his less polished side channel so anyone interested shouldn't be expecting him to get straight to the point or anything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4cNnVK412U


dclxvi616 t1_jd4yxqk wrote

Realistically, how much does the average Joe really contribute to climate change such that it could be perceived as appropriate to focus on, "personal efforts to combat climate change," when there exist things like corporate efforts, industrial efforts, governmental efforts, etc.? Why am I the problem?


dclxvi616 t1_jcs4yny wrote

I don't know why people can't seem to give you a straight answer. PA State Income Tax is levied at 3.07%.

If you expect more than $8000 of PA taxable income in the year that won't be subject to employer withholding you are required to file estimated taxes quarterly. This may or may not apply to you depending on your revenue and expenses. https://revenue-pa.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/246/~/who-should-make-estimated-payments-for-personal-income-tax%3F

You may or may not be able to qualify for Tax Forgiveness: https://www.revenue.pa.gov/TaxTypes/PIT/TaxForgiveness/Pages/default.aspx

Good luck.


dclxvi616 t1_jcdya9h wrote

I mean that’s not an upside-down ‘k’, it’s a character/symbol that’s there for some other legitimate purpose that just happens to look like an upside-down ‘k’. I dunno’ wtf that purpose is because it’s an obscure symbol, but that’s how it be.


dclxvi616 t1_jc9x00h wrote

What benefit? Millions of dollars in potential ransom money. They are essentially Russians. It’s not so much that they’re protected by the law, it’s that the options to pursue them under any semblance of jurisdiction is going to look like military intervention or hoping they come visit the US, assuming we even know their identities.


dclxvi616 t1_ja4rb1u wrote

>SNAP is maxed out I believe like $281 a month.

Just wanted to point out that literally everyone's SNAP benefits have been maxed out since COVID started. This February (right now) is the last month for these extra payments. According to this article every SNAP household will lose a minimum of $95 a month in SNAP benefits. Personally, my benefits are dropping to the minimum, either $16 or $20 a month. I'll be fine, but it's certainly a big adjustment I'd rather be prepared for than not.