Yeah, my stupid, diphenhydramine-popping stepfather walked away from my disable mother after her stroke and a forest fire while she was away without anything but an email. He took almost everything and just left, and is now trying to cheat her out of spousal support and the many tens of thousands she paid to fix their retirement home. She is currently being kicked-out (move) during the pandemic is and forced now to leave the state.
Nope. The judge is an ultra-conservative Bible-thumper family court guy (there are only 2 judges in the rural county, and they seem interchangeable) who doesn't care about anyone and her attorney is a lazy, milquetoast, limp lasagna noodle who should be reported to the bar for malpractice. My mom is almost out of money and her ex is dragging her all the way to court and blocking every reasonable settlement. She won't have anything left after this is over. The ex even muttered "why did he do it" under his breath because it's costing him so much, like he has some sort of dementia mixed with regret going on. The kicker is he will eventually inherit millions of dollars, but my mom will die in abject poverty while he quibbles about $100 of spousal support which is peanuts to him.
Again sorry to hear that, it might be worth attempting to look up disabled advocate services, they often can provide legal council, or guidance. If your mother is disabled you might want to look into "Criminal Abandonment."
I know these situations can seem hopeless, and frankly some are, but in many cases the legal proceedings play out simply because the other side doesn't know or do anything to contest them.
And searching out an advocate and having a phone call with them is a really low bar considering the ability for them to possibly change the trajectory of the situation.
Only get married if you've been with the same person for many years and there's a legal reason to do so. Use a prenup that is video deposed with an admission of a lack of coercion and explanation of each term. Palnup if living together similarly.
Also, it is worth considering extended adolescence, economic, and other factors are leading towards a Japan-like population crash of native-born US citizens.
I get that. I'm from the US and will be looking overseas for a wife in Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, Czechia, and similar because American girls just aren't educated, skilled, dedicated, or adult enough to survive in today's real world. The entitlement, poor attitude, and ignorance are painful and obnoxious to the point too many are liabilities compared to females elsewhere where they actually know how to let a man be a man.
It's attacking women everywhere. The women he likes are the ones in countries where the women are forced to endure that misogyny, and who would come to the US to escape those countries.
He may find that they're less compliant once they come here.
Our family tried S-VHS players and VCRs back in the day, but ultimate found them to fall short of top-of-the-line VHS VCRs.
S-VHS decks weren't necessarily any better than VHS ones, and the two formats are incompatible.
Mitsubishi, Panasonic, and Sony made the best VHS VCRs, IIRC. The best ones for capture maybe different, but this is what I recall for analog NTSC playback. S-Video connectors, if you can get them may help, but not always.
If I were going green-field the design of a VHS/S-VHS VCR from scratch today, I use some sort of solid-state helical-scan-equivalent head that can over-capture tape domains, pre-process data to align scan lines per PAL or NTSC, and output unencrypted HDMI.
The best klepto-plutocratic pseudo-psephocracy money can buy.
There is only one party, the Property party, with two wings: Democrat and Republican. - Gore Vidal (the author of the book Julian Assange was clutching while he was being illegally dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy.)
We have the best government that money can buy. - Mark Twain
For some reason, that made me think of a concept I thought about when I was 19: a Brazil-like, future dystopian company that had only AI management and AI work assets maintained by a small cadre of human workers to keep it going. There would be no human customer service in the AVR tree, and it could only be contacted by fax, email, and back then, snail mail.
It makes one wonder when the first essentially fully-autonomous corporation will come online (not named Cyberdyne).
The net cord judge doesn't seem a huge deal, but it does take away jobs.
Maybe use an embedded micropower system with C or Rust and interrupt-based processing approach rather than CPU-eating polling in something dynamic like Python, Ruby, or Node without ever going into standby mode.
For my Tasmota based devices, increasing the sleep time in the main loop to 250ms decreases power draw by 40%.
They now might miss button presses (seems Tasmota polls?), but that's a non-issue for pure actors.
Hmm, if I am understanding correctly, it's not just about changing the runtime model of the eventloop for languages like NodeJs but also we need fundamental change in our hardware interacts with software.
It's used in embedded. For a server you have other consumers which are a pain yo power down. And then you need to get some interrupt.
My home server can WoL on unicast packets, so that could be used as an "interrupt" to wake the machine from standby. But then you need a suitable workload that allows for substantial sleep time (e.g. wake up for 3s every 30s). Or you could schedule minutes precision polling by waking up via RTC.
Saving power when serving even a few https requests peer second with a sub 10ms response time - as I said, forget about it, at least with x86 hardware as we have today.
IIRC, when USB was first introduced one form of comment was that it forced reliance on more central CPU resources [for polling?]. I.e., conveniently for Intel in terms of need for CPU "power".
SF is an aberration because relocated high-income earners and rich people move in and raise prices because they out-compete for limited resources by throwing money around (out-bidding real estate) and/or sellers raising prices knowing the upper-crust will still pay them.
SF also is a problem for anyone not making more than $150k/year because it's a magical wonderland where everyone wants to live there, and so they're willing to irrationally sacrifice their financial futures to hang-on to something they can't afford, i.e., paying 50%+ income in rent, unable to contribute 10% to savings, and other forms of financial suicide.
How lower income people make it in SF, even with rent controls, seems like an unsustainable proposition.
I think a better way of measuring of microeconomic affordability is a reasonable budgeted cost-of-living for one person per month in a median housing situation in relation to their potential income. In other words, or thought of another way, the ratio of cost-of-living to income in local nominal dollars.
This is not mutually exclusive though. When the incumbents are poor to start with, it does help them from not being gentrified out of their homes.
Between scenario A: rent control, some poor people are helped, others are not and scenario B: all poor people are forced out of the neighborhood, A starts to look acceptable.
Until that is, someone comes up with a workable scenario C that helps even more people than A. (UBI looks great in theory, but I think the "workable" part needs some more work.)
That's a good question. One problem is that my skills have improved, but so have the skills of others, while the overall amount of available work has declined. I'm a double bassist, and when I started playing, there was a shortage of us, but I'm not sure that's true any more, and the caliber of players has increased.
I think one thing is that $100/player is a kind of psychological "anchor" that people understand, and that is easy to negotiate. By the time I receive the offer, the bandleader has already negotiated their fee with the client, and now has a fixed budget.
For 12 years, I have had an email setup where all emails for the domain go to one mailbox (postmaster style). Then, I just give each service their own, unique email address without any configuration. Any spam or unusual mail is then easily-identified. Plus, it makes for easier searching, sorting and tagging. A good, secure, backed-up email & webmail setup is necessary to make it work.
For anything I don't care about and want better anonymity, I'm fine with using random, public disposable email addresses.
I've started doing this and have ended up depending on my password manager to track which emails I need for logging in to a service, which is a bit of a hassle although I think it's still worth it for the reasons you outlined. For example, did I use [service]@domain.com or [abbreviated-service]@domain.com, or was it [service.com]@domain.com...?
The only service I have that problem with is Microsoft since it's a merge of like three different accounts (MSN messenger, Skype, and Office365) so I can never remember which is the right one.
Otherwise my rule is to use the central part of the domain name (no www or TLD), or it's easy enough to just search my email archive for messages from whatever service.
This also happens to some extent in real life. Often when I say that my email is "your-company-name@my-custom-domain.tld" it's met with a "well, if you're just going to give me a fake address…". At which point I have to explain 1) catch-all email addresses, and 2) yes, you can own your own entire domain name.
Near enough everything is in my password manager. I use <service>.<month>.<year>.<nonce>@domain so I have to so to speak.
Using keepassxc + its browser and mobile extensions make this easier than typing the address in myself. I was astounded at how bad the ux the paid pw mamagers I've used is
Combined with being unusual and not wired as everyone else, I take a different tact by accepting human nature and opening up the possibilities. From a young age, it became apparent that I did't experience jealousy in relation to a deep interest having close friends including ex's or infatuation clicks with other people. Not some sort of low self-worth thing, but the opposite. Therefore, mutually open relationships work better for me to dispense with dishonesty and limitations based on insecurities. Not in my face if it's with a dude, don't get pregnant, or diseases, and I don't care. Heck, I think it's extremely cute when a bi/pan woman I'm seeing hits on another woman, even right in front of me. Also, it's exhilarating when she feeds me her cool friends like proverbial bow-wrapped gifts, such as a row of lined-up puppy-dog eyes looking up as who will be chosen next. This makes her a potential keeper#.
Partner guarding seems like a lot of pointless energy expended based on insecurity; one of my aims in relationship(s) is to constantly improve to remain the highest-value around without resorting to possessive capture. Plus, it's better to let people move freely and self-select voluntarily, rather than give them ultimatums or threatening "if you ever" speeches.
I look at importance of relationships (love/friendship) based on the amount and sustainment of attention, mutual care, support, and trust. Sex is just sex to me without deeper affinity and common interests; a shared, social activity that is delightful without being black-and-white all-meaningful. It's also important to be sure other participants are truly on this same wavelength so that they don't end-up regretful or are otherwise left worse than before.
In conclusion: open works best for me, with a consideration for Mff or Mfff poly where f are pan/bi. I think Mfff tetrad of ever-reconfiguring pairs is more stable because there's no third-wheel issue. And all disagreements must be followed by bedroom activities, and stalemate disputes are resolved by last one who gets there wins.
> Combined with being unusual and not wired as everyone else
From this line, I already knew where this comment was going. It's oddly familiar.
> Partner guarding seems like a lot of pointless energy expended based on insecurity
And there it is. Counterpoint: No, it's not; you're just, as you said yourself, different. For the vast majority of people it is neither pointless nor is it born out of insecurity.
The odd thing is that you start by acknowledging yourself as different, just to turn around and present these opinions as statements. It's not the first time I've seen it either with people explaining why they buy into polyamory.
> Plus, it's better to let people move freely and self-select voluntarily, rather than give them ultimatums or threatening "if you ever" speeches.
Wasn't aware that the only two choices were "not caring at all" and "giving ultimatums".
Speaking of "moving freely" and "not partner guarding":
> Not in my face if it's with a dude
... Right.
> with a consideration for Mff or Mfff poly where f are pan/bi. I think Mfff tetrad of ever-reconfiguring pairs is more stable because there's no third-wheel issue.
So the conclusion is that... You "discovered" polygyny. That's also familiar; reddit for instance is full of guys supposedly in that kind of arrangement, and many more others clearly wishing they were.
It's not new, many societies have tried it; most of those weren't big on women's rights, though. And a lot of it stemmed from, shall we say, "partner guarding"... against other males.
Then again, quite a few of the discussions I've had with self-declared polyamorous people were themselves women and I am not only strictly monogamous, but I'm also gay, so what do I know.
Small note here, I'm not a jealous person. From observation of others some innately are, but many seem to act so because they've picked up the idea that they're supposed to be. It's the done thing so that's what they do. I can't give a size but it seems a decent proportion of people do it.
The open relationship thing didn't/doesn't work for me, but I'm upvoting you because I think it's a little unfair you're being downvoted for your personal experience. I think some people may be downvoting you, though, because you seem to present yourself as "open" and yet it reads a bit as though your open relationships are more open for yourself than the women involved. No judgement from me, though: I also find that sort of 'open' arrangement easier to deal with. Probably all men do.
> Not in my face if it's with a dude, don't get pregnant, or diseases, and I don't care.
(I didn't miss this.) You may be very equally open; it's hard to tell from your comment. Congrats on having such an unusually low level of jealousy.
Exactly reflects my feelings. I discovered that mfff+ is what makes me sexually and emotionally excited, and that a lot of amazing women want to be in such relationships once they feel genuinely loved and cared for. And see how many other women are excited about exploring things along these lines.
The biggest turn-on for women is safety. Once women feel safe they don’t care about the fact that the man they are with also loves other women. Just like friends who are emotionally mature and secure do not care that you have multiple close friends.
speaks about not partner guarding and then says "Not in my face if it's with a dude," and is only open to m+f*n relationships lol - partner guarding lol
