There are several companies that provide access to bank payments, but they all tend to have substantial limits, especially for US banking.

Your meaning is unclear for me

Only 4% of people who went back to living in their sex assigned at birth for a while cited that their reason was because they realized that gender transition was not for them. When considering all respondents who had transitioned, this number equates to only 0.36%.

I will grant you that the survey includes the information in a much better context compared to the article. However, this paragraph from the survey I take issue with. Those who de-transition are the only subcategory that is compared to the total population in the written text in this way, even if the percentages are subsequently present in a chart.

Taken together, 82% of those who went back to living as their sex assigned at birth at least for a little while

The conclusion on the following page also clearly identifies that de-transition on the basis of identity is uncommon. It also uses “at least for a little while” as though it’s a portion of a larger demographic, which it is not. Perhaps they mean it as compared to those who are currently not living as the gender they identify with, but I think that’s a strained interpretation.

I think it’s disingenuous to attempt to make a claim about the occurrence rate of something which can’t be captured in your survey without noting the incompleteness. Especially so given the controversial nature of detransition within the broader conversation about trans issues. While it is technically true that the claim is made only of survey respondents, I still feel that the way the section is drafted provides/implies a broader framing.

My opinions here are clearly quite pedantic. However, the topic is one where it’s critical that care be taken to avoid giving opponents any reason to discredit the larger work.

Okay… there’s not really any serious question that de-transition is often a result of transphobia, and that the vast majority of those who explore the gender squiggles at some point in their lives do not detransition. But this survey and this article are making an argument using awful, bullshit science and should be called out for it.

This is a survey done on trans people. This does not include those who did explore transition and then came to the conclusion they were cis. There is no valid means for these authors to draw any conclusions about the claim they are making. And, those who are anti-trans could easily take a bad-faith reading of this which is “9% of people who transition questioned their decision before remaining under the trans ideology, which confirms that this is something our children are being pressured into.”

We need people to stop doing fake pseudo-science bullshit analysis and calling it trans science.

This isn’t a client list, it’s his address book.

As with most things, not categorically, but commonly. I had some cosmetic (technically reconstructive might be more accurate, but it was “elective”) surgery a couple of years ago, and I believe I paid like 85% of the bill up front. My recollection is that the remainder was due to some variables in the final cost.

However, that’s not to say it can’t be financed even if due up front. One could certainly use any number of debt-based funding methods to acquire the money, and the surgery provider would have no means of knowing.

IANAL.

The judge is, mostly, correct from what I can tell. The FCRA explicitly allows the use of this information, as amended from a prior prohibition. He is correct in concluding that a blanket probition isn’t well supported within the statute’s boundaries. He is wrong in suggesting that the CFPB has no regulatory authority over the sharing medical details. The statute obviously semi-implicitly authorizes the CFPB to place some restrictions on how this information is shared, but the judge too-readily rejects these arguments. Not that the defendants made them particularly well, granted.

But… even setting aside the partially erroneous legal finding, it’s moot. Trump’s CFPB joined the plaintiffs in this case, agreeing to roll back the provisions. That the CFPB has the right to do so isn’t in question. Or well, the defendants argued it, but it’s not a good argument. They basically said that because they don’t agree with the change, the Court shouldn’t be allowed to permit it.

Congress needs to fix this, but obviously won’t.

Credit card companies (Visa, Discover, MasterCard, AMEX) make their money through transaction fees. They make their money when you spend money using the card, regardless of any debts involved.

The banks that issue cards are a different matter. They also make some money when you use the card (some of which goes towards those credit card rewards you get, which is how they can do stuff like offer % back) but mostly they make money by letting you spend just enough money so as to be perpetually in debt. Your bank wants you to carry a balance. They want you to be paying them tens of percentage points of interest each year. The credit limit they give you isn’t the amount they want you to spend in one purchase, it’s calculated to be the maximum amount you can afford the running payments on, which will do nothing to touch the principal.

Sure, you can discharge the debt if you go bankrupt, but consider as well that your bank has a couple of other advantages. First, they get to see all your spending. They know how you’re spending your money, where, when. They also usually get to see your other information. They know how much money comes into your balance accounts each month, they know how much your rent/mortgage costs, they know how much money is coming in from Venmo when you borrow from family to cover debts you can’t pay, how much money you spend on food delivery apps, how much of an emergency fund you keep. They know how much money you’re spending on things that you don’t have to be, which is money you could be giving them instead, if it becomes a running balance. And at 25% interest, they only need this scheme to work for 4 years before they make as much money as they’d lose if you default on your entire balance. Plus, when you do have money in the bank, they get to use that money for other things while it’s with them. If you have a $100,000 credit limit, odds are pretty good you have an account with them holding a few tens of thousands of dollars. They get to use most of that until you ask for it back.

For the free (no-interest) versions, it’s a bullshit legal loophole in the US credit laws, or at least it was a few years ago. May have been more strongly codified since, though I bet almost nobody who could close it realizes the gap is there. The whole scheme is out of Australia, but I have no idea what their legal setup is.

The US requirements are basically:

• You can’t charge fees to host the plan
• You can’t charge % late fees, only fixed
• You can’t have more than 4 installments, meaning no more than 5 payments if you include an optional down payment
• You must not deny customers for means-based items, or using credit data. You can give them an effectively meaningless approval value though.

You as a customer pay late fees if you miss a payment, but they make most of their money by charging the merchant a higher transaction fee. So, it’s theoretically free for the customer, meaning it can fit into the loophole. Legally it isn’t a credit product.

The TL;DR is “because the law is full of holes and bullshit, and if it’s making people money then it’s not likely to change”

deleted by creator

There are a number of compression algorithms that prioritize decompression speed, usually at the expense of higher compression times.

Doing their part in getting us towards the reality where we can push the moon out of orbit.

This instance (and I refer to the instance to intentionally be inclusive of both Ada and our community) takes issue with certain kinds of content, at least while we’re on our local accounts.

Admins from another instance have taken the stance that this sort of content is not, by their own evaluation, harmful enough to be removed from their instance. That’s a subjective choice about what they feel is right for their users, even if I disagree with the position.

Blahaj has decided that exposing the community to that sort of content, knowing it will not be removed by the remote instance, is not worth doing. However, in the interest of transparency and allowing users choice, has made sure its community is aware of the change.

Blahaj users who still wish to engage with the instance can easily still do so with accounts homed on other instances, should there be Communities or content that are of value to them.

What part of this do you have an issue with? This is how most people SHOULD be living their lives. If there’s something that doesn’t enrich your life, find ways of mitigating its impact. Don’t like some vegetables? Find new recipes or supplement the nutrition otherwise. Uncle is kind of a douchebag? Stop going to holidays at his house. Friend holds political views you disagree with? Make sure your engagements with them are still something you enjoy.

Nobody is saying that there won’t be aspects of life that are negative AND unavoidable. People have shitty jobs, terrible families, poor health. Why should that mean they should accept worse things in the parts of their life they do have discretion?

The top 10 states by voter participation are: Minnesota Colorado Oregon Washington Wisconsin Maine New Hampshire Michigan Iowa New Jersey

Those above as well as Virginia, Montana, Massachusetts, Vermont, North Carolina, Florida, and Connecticut have participation rates above ~70%. While a few swing states are in there, it’s certainly not overwhelming given that I’ve listed about 40% of the states.

He got more votes than Harris, but less than 50%.