Yes, incels and just angry, bitter people everywhere! For a good time, go to a relationship sub and ask for basic relationship advice for an easily solved problem, like how to communicate to your boyfriend that you don’t want to have sex, and watch your post go down in flames.

I think what they’re getting at is not every person on the Internet lives in the United States.

I was coming to post the same. Those fucking clickers were so stupid and overpriced, all so my biochem professor could poll the class AND grade everyone on their results. Results to questions about material that was JUST taught in the same lesson. Good thing everyone benefits equally from lecture, right? Fuck that guy.

“Fiscal conservative” was always just a reputable seeming veneer for “we’d rather let poor people die than tax the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else”.

Holy shit. I get it! That’s a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I’m glad we don’t have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I’d give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.

The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn’t seem go away once it’s paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they’d end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?

I’ve been thinking about it and it still doesn’t make sense. I’m a scientist, not an economist, so it’s wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

Here’s where I’m hung up. Let’s assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.

Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.

Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.

Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.

Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.

Let’s stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively “printing money” and gaining interest on it. Nothing I’ve read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.

Halp!

I learned to pick locks in my youth. I absolutely have picked my way into places and things to fuck with friends and family, but I always tell them. At some point.

One of my favorites was getting into my friend’s garden shed and turning everything upside down, then a few weeks later rearranging everything so it was a mirror image of how it was previously.

I’m always surprised how few people know about this. The banks are literally gaining interest on money they never had. It should be illegal.

I’m sorry, but yes. She couldn’t resist my encyclopedic knowledge of self-hosted streaming options.

All spouses can be taught to use Plex or Jellyfin. It just takes the right approach and some determination. Mine is now sailing the high seas with the finest of us.

Shamelessly purloined from YouTube:

The Legend of Zelda: The Missing Link

I just respond with a hearty “yeeearghhhh!” and continue the conversation. The coworkers that know get it, the rest think I’m a lunatic.

Agreed. The only time I was suspended was because I filed a charge back for an incomplete, buggy game that was sold as finished. It took so long to even get running that I was just over the refund time limit and they refused to make an exception. There was some verbiage about being banned if I continued to do charge backs. I just stopped using Steam.

That’s actually an urban legend. Most of it was shown again by the NFL back in 2016 after they used various incomplete sources to patch the majority of the material back together.

The bit about the tape has a grain of truth to it. A man found a copy of most of the show in his father’s attic, had it restored, and wanted to sell it to the NFL but the two parties couldn’t agree on a price. The man and the curator of the organization which restored it both had watched it. It was then kept in a vault due to its value.

It was recently shown to the public by the organization that restored it, so I’m assuming it was never purchased by the NFL. Bummer for the finder.

Edit: I haven’t watched all of this, but it appears to be on YouTube. Grab a copy before the NFL finds out!

That’s how we felt! Who could make it through multiple Masters degrees and advanced certifications without even basic computer skills? I’d say it’s a one in a million chance and we found them.

I recently had a coworker who was unable to understand how to use Google or other search engines. She may have been the stupidest person I’ve ever met and was the living embodiment of the fact that one can be highly educated yet still incredibly stupid.

“It’s not a problem until it happens to me.”

It looks like c/conservative is leaking again.

This is a good paper that gives an overview of MRSA related stats: StatPearls - Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

The answer is it depends. It’s about 23.5% worldwide if I recall correctly, though I’m having trouble finding the paper I originally pulled that figure from. The paper linked puts it around 30-40%. Keep in mind that MRSA is pretty prevalent, so most people who have it have a commensal “infection” that just hangs out on their skin and, even if it does become pathogenic, it’s often subclinical, so many of the less serious cases go unreported. It’s only when it’s pretty bad or when people are undergoing medical treatment already that it’s actually discovered and even then often not in a way that can be reported. On top of this, treatment varies depending on numerous factors, so areas with fewer medical resources will have significantly higher mortality rates.

There you go again, making up things so you can make a point. No one ever said or even hinted COVID isn’t present, although I’d argue it is now and will for the foreseeable future be firmly endemic. I’m a microbiologist, remember? I actually worked in public health for years. We tend to believe in science.

There are also numerous things that aren’t COVID that can cause pneumonia. Until we know what that might have been in this case, any statements claiming with any surety that COVID caused these symptoms are purely supposition.

Edit: Oh no! OP caught that I accidentally posted and immediately deleted this comment on my old .world account. Such scandal!

When your response requires you to quote information out of context and to fill in information you don’t have with guesses (COVID and immunocompromisation), you’re just making things up to suit your belief. Your premise is that other people are just making things up to suit their beliefs. I’ll just stop there.