StatisticalOutlier
-
Posts
5.7k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by StatisticalOutlier
-
-
I just realized I don't actually know what a monkey's anus looks like, and I'm sure not gonna google it. But here's what I think it looks like.
-
8
-
-
23 hours ago, Bastet said:
I found the 15/15 rule excessive, but I long for a moderate requirement when I come across one too many "Am I the only one who thinks [idea that has been discussed in several recent posts]?" posts in a day.
I think the 15/15 rule was excessive, too. Something like 10/10 would be reasonable. Shoot--maybe they actually had a 10/10 rule but told people it was 15/15 because they knew they'd try to push it.
I had a post deleted recently because I questioned a reality TV show contestant's choice to have a beard that makes his mouth look like a monkey's anus. I'm quite confident that would have been acceptable snark at TWOP, which is why I miss it. I don't remember being on any of the "toxic" forums at TWOP, or if I was, I'd just stop going. No discussion among people I don't actually know is important enough for me to subject myself to content I find upsetting. (Obviously, I'm not on any social media. 😀 )
-
3
-
7
-
-
Quote
“DON'T post in a thread until you've read at least the last fifteen pages or days of content”
I like that rule. I find it disrespectful for someone to expect other people to read his posts but he can't be bothered to read theirs, especially since this person is probably saying something that's already been said. Or worse, something that's been said and rebutted, which he'd know if he'd read the previous posts, so all he's doing is putting the misinformation back out there.
-
11
-
1
-
-
I wish someone who actually knows what happened with the "plot" would divulge names, dates, and actions. I still don't understand what happened at all.
-
7
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, ahpny said:
Also, I know little about this drug, but if Jillian were correct that it essentially stops working after about 70 days, why are so many people taking it, and for longer than 70 days?
She said weeks, not days.
14 hours ago, rwlevin said:And it cuts down on cravings so big! I can have junk food in my house and not touch it for weeks. It used to be gone in hours.
I'm with Bill on this--I can't eat what's not there. I don't enjoy having an unfulfilled craving, but I get over it.
-
13 hours ago, Elizzikra said:
I don't find sex to be dirty; I think Brennan saw Emily's sexual past as dirty.
If he did, he can (and actually should) use that as a factor in deciding whether he wants to be married to her, regardless of whether she intends to continue having one-night stands during their marriage.
On 4/19/2024 at 11:25 AM, Starlight925 said:Cam to Emily: Let me set the record straight. Clare's and my marriage was already over
Wait just a second. Did he really say "Clare's and my marriage"? I would consider staying married to him just on that basis alone.
-
3
-
6
-
-
On 4/20/2024 at 7:02 PM, Tachi Rocinante said:
The problem with mental defectives like the woman who suggested the bodies be exhumed is that you could show her (for the purposes of discussion, if it existed) 4K video of all the shootings on an 80-inch HD TV and she would just shake her head and say, "that's fake".
Yep. That's what I was referring to when I was talking about the impossibility of dealing with these people. Or, well, it's not impossible, but you're going to lose no matter what you do. Ignore them? You're a coward and hiding something. Present evidence? It's fake.
-
3
-
-
I found it odd that he singled out Wyoming as a state that hadn't expanded Medicaid to adults. The whole state has only 600,000 people. I know it's important to low-income adult Wyomingians, but a more impactful example would be Texas, which also hasn't expanded Medicaid to adults, and has 5,000,000 uninsured people--almost ten times the total number of people in Wyoming. And Florida has 23,000,000 people, and also hasn't expanded Medicaid.
I can't remember if it was explained, but Medicaid is available to very low-income people. Obamacare was designed to cover people who make above a certain income (like $15,000 for a single person, give or take a few thousand) to get a subsidy that makes health insurance affordable. For those who make less than that, they were to be on their state's Medicaid program, with states receiving federal money to cover some of the costs of expanding Medicaid eligibility to everyone. However, not all states expanded their Medicaid eligibility to include non-parent adults, so in a place like Texas or Wyoming or Florida, people who don't make enough to qualify for an Obamacare subsidy get no help, as in zero, with their health insurance costs. They don't get a premium subsidy for buying a health insurance policy on the Exchange, and they aren't eligible for Medicaid.
I'm sure this is too into-the-weeds for the show he did, but if you're just going to do a drive-by on Medicaid expansion and people who qualify for no help whatsoever with their healthcare costs, why pick the state with the smallest population in the whole country? It has fewer people than the District of Columbia!
-
1
-
2
-
-
So here's what came out of Brennan's mouth:
Brennan: I felt there was a massive mismatch from the very beginning. And the hurdles that we encountered very early on I personally could not get over.
Emily: What were the hurdles?
Brennan: When I first saw you I was like, pretty girl, you know, cool, fun, making me feel comfortable. An hour later I'm talking with your friends and they're telling me that you get ghosted all the time. You love one-night stands. You're selfish.
Emily: I don't think they said I had one-night stands or I'm selfish.
Brennan: Someone was telling me that. So I'm already feeling turned off at this point. So the next day, we talk, you have no idea where your money goes. Alarm.
Emily: I make more money than you, OK?
Brennan: No you don't.
Emily: Yes I do.
Brennan: You lied about that. So that was cool. That for me is not what I was looking for in my future wife.
Clare [interjecting her opinion for some unknown reason]: That's fair. That's fair.
Brennan: So when I heard that I was turned off.
-------------
This money business is new, right? But what I find really interesting is that in response, she says (truthfully or not) she makes more money than he does. Objection, your honor! Irrelevant!
I noted in the thread for Part 1 that Clare was asked, point blank, if she visited Cam in the hospital and she said "yes." But actually, she didn't. When Cam said she hadn't 'visited him, she talked about how she wanted to, and how Cam wouldn't return her calls, and Cam told her she brings bad energy. That, apparently, equals "yes" when asked if she visited him.
And Emily did something similar at the beginning of this episode.
Brennan: You got caught lying about making out with someone at the bar. And--
Emily: I told you the truth about the Australian.
Brennan: But how many times did I ask, though, before you came clean?
Emily: I was scared to tell you because I didn't want that to be your easy out.
And these are the two who spend the most time accusing the men of lying.
-
8
-
7
-
1
-
-
On 4/15/2024 at 9:43 AM, Elizzikra said:
We were definitely led to believe he owned the business and I think whoever dug up information on it confirmed that. He got a new job in finance, he said, but I suppose he could still run the shop part time?
ETA - I just googled it and there is no mention that it closed permanently. It is open “by appointment only” and lists Cameron as a co-owner (but no other owner information is listed).
You can look at previous versions of the website on archive.org (an incredibly useful tool these days). It appears (and we of course have to account for the fact that a website is an advertising tool) that a guy started the business at least 10 years ago (he's the "founder" on the current website) as what looks like a one-man shop fixing carbon fiber bike frames. There was another guy working there for a little bit, and then more recently Cameron shows up on the website as an "engineer" (he has a master's degree in composite engineering). And then later Cameron is listed as "Engineer and Co-Owner."
The shop has always been "by appointment only," which is not uncommon for businesses like this. You contact them to let them know you need your carbon fiber bike frame fixed because you don't want to spend $2,000-$5,000+ on a new one, and they'll arrange for you to drop it off or, more often, you ship it to them.
-
1
-
5
-
-
13 hours ago, princelina said:
I'll stick up for him here - apparently he told her that he had learned that in church,
And of course my question was, "Do you still believe it?" Which was not really answered, as usual. There would be an important difference between "No, of course not" and "Yes I do" and "I don't want to but I just can't shake it."
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 4/17/2024 at 7:45 AM, Yeah No said:
And that was basically my point. So potato/potahhto.
Agree. And as I said, it's a semantics issue. But if there's an accurate way to express something, especially when it comes to taxes and the like, I'll always push for the accurate wording.
People generally pay lower tax on retirement income, but that's because after they retire, they're usually in a lower income tax bracket than when they were working. But not always. Say you made $50,000 a year while working, and on the day you retired you inherited $2,000,000 in cash, which generates $100,000 a year in income. You'll be in a higher tax bracket than when you were working, which means you'll be paying more tax on retirement money you socked away than if you'd paid tax when you earned it. That's because the retirement distributions are taxed as ordinary income, and that wouldn't be the case if they were "taxed at a lower rate."
On 4/17/2024 at 7:45 AM, Yeah No said:AND.....I lifted this straight from the Charles Schwab website:
Well, Charles Schwab is who fucked up my Roth IRA conversion, resulting in my having to pay tax on the entire amount in one year instead of spread over five years. I'd calculated that my income was going to stay below the next marginal tax bracket even if I converted my IRA if I took the option to spread the conversion over five years. But Schwab fumbled the paperwork and the entire conversion was pushed into one year, which did put me into a higher tax bracket and is something I never would have chosen to do.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, shapeshifter said:
As seen on FB:
(“What could possibly go wrong.”)
This appears to be the actual sign:
-
1
-
4
-
-
20 hours ago, Yeah No said:
I know for sure that Social Security income is taxed at a lower rate than other income sources,
A semantics issue: social security income is taxed as ordinary income, just like distributions from retirement accounts. It's included with your other income to arrive at "combined income," and the tax on that total is calculated using the usual tax table, at the end of the instructions.
Where the difference comes into play is how much of your social security income is taxed, and once you calculate that, you add it to your other income and use the same tax table you use for everything else. Up to 85% of social security income can be subject to tax, and it depends on how much other income you have. It's not like there's a special X% tax rate for social security income.
This is in contrast to long-term capital gains, which ARE taxed at a different rate--either 0%, 15%, or 20%. The rate is dependent on your taxable income, but the long-term capital gains don't get lumped in with your income. Retirement account distributions get lumped in with your income in determining your tax, and a portion of social security benefits gets lumped in with your income in determining your tax. And short-term capital gains get lumped in with your income in determining your tax. All of these use the same old tax table we're used to using to calculate the tax, and are therefore taxed at the same rate.
The long-term capital gains tax, because it does have a separate rate, gets calculated independent of the tax table, but you still use the tax table to calculate the tax on ordinary income (wages, retirement distributions, short-term capital gains, a portion of your social security income, etc.).
How to manage distributions to fund retirement is a case-by-case situation, and of course depends on accurately predicting how long you'll live.
-
4
-
1
-
-
On 4/10/2024 at 4:36 PM, ECM1231 said:
I need to stock up on US postage stamps. I just read that there will be a proposed increase to $0.73 for a first-class stamp, which is outrageous considering how bad service has gotten in the last few years.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and defend the post office a little. With the caveat that I'm old enough to remember writing letters, and the thrill and anticipation of checking the mailbox.
I've always thought it's nothing short of miraculous that I can drop a postcard in a mailbox in one corner of the country and it will show up in another corner of the country in just a few days. Seriously--what are the odds? My little piece of paper makes it to its destination while being bounced around among hundreds of millions of envelopes and boxes of all shapes and sizes, and is delivered to someone's door. (Fortunately, it appears sealing wax on the back of envelopes is not all the rage it was when I was a teenager, so the machines probably run smoother these days.)
As for the cost of stamps, the post office is in a unique position--it gets no taxpayer money, but Congress imposes all the rules on it. The post office can't, for example, delete unprofitable routes. So all of the hassle and none of the benefits of being associated with the government. Personally, I wish they'd do a substantial hike every once in a while, and I'm surprised they're needing to raise the price again already, but if they have to charge more in order to be profitable, that's what has to happen.
I've been traveling fulltime for the past 20 years, and the first question people ask is, "How do you get your mail?" General Delivery by the post office. It still works. My friend boxes up my mail and sends it to me c/o General Delivery at a given post office, and they hold it for me until I come pick it up.
So far, I haven't experienced significant delays in having my box o' mail show up, but other people report that they have. I gather that it depends on where the mail is coming from and going to. And of course I have to calculate for delays when predicting where I can meet up with my mail, which I didn't have to do in the past, and actually still haven't experienced but I can't be sure I won't. So that's a hassle. But at least it exists, and I'm actually a little worried that some people would be fine with the post office ceasing to exist at all.
-
8
-
5
-
-
13 hours ago, Yeah No said:
The one thing I think is important to remember is that retirement savings is tax deferred so it lowers your taxable income. I benefitted from that at tax time. So it doesn't feel like as much of a bite out of your pocket. Then when you do collect the money it's taxed at a lower rate than regular income.
As far as I know retirement account distributions/withdrawals (like a 401(k) or a non-Roth) are taxed as ordinary income at the time they're taken.
People often end up paying less in tax on the distribution than what they would have paid on that amount when they earned it, but that would be because generally, people's income after retirement is lower than when they were working, and the distribution could be in a lower marginal tax bracket than it was when they were working. But I don't think there's a separate rate of taxation for retirement withdrawals. (On the federal level, anyway. I have no idea what individual states that impose income taxes do.)
-
4
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, CM-CrispMtAir said:
Depending on the conclusion of the team, the post will either be back up or stay removed. In that case, posters are informed as to why the decision to remove their post was made. (As moderators are volunteers, please know that it can take a couple of days to get to a post, though).
Here's one that was posted 11 days ago (4-4-24) and was deleted, and I was never informed why. I know about its existence only because somebody happened to quote it:
QuoteYou didn't care when Jose locked her out of their apartment when she left one night after a fight without her keys, and the aftermath was caught on the unmanned camera in their apartment? That was epic! I still can't believe Jose thought that beard that made his mouth look like a monkey's anus was a good look.
Also, Rachel said the women her season (Houston) agreed not to discuss sex on camera because three of them were in education. They did it in a group text, but there was a mole; she doesn't know who it was.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, ChristmasJones said:
I do wonder how much of her actions on the show were based on trying to maintain a certain profile, given her chosen career path.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but on the previous-cast show a couple of weeks ago, Rachel said that in her Houston season, all the wives agreed not to talk about sex on camera because three of them were in education.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Alexander Pope said:
1. While Brennan has many faults, I so appreciated his often scathing BREVITY during the reunion.
That reminds me. At one point Brennan told Kevin, "This is what she calls yelling," as he spoke in his usual low voice. Then in the previews for the next episode, Kevin accuses Emily of yelling at him.
-
5
-
-
14 hours ago, JenE4 said:
Clare then went and told the girls “her version” of what Cam said, and Emily in particular seems to still be angry about Cam “telling Clare he’s not attracted to her,” which never actually happened though Clare feels like it did.
Which is like when Kevin asked her, "When Cam was sick, did you go visit him?" She said, very definitively, "Yes." Well, it turns out she did not visit him. She talked about how she wanted to, and how Cam wouldn't return her calls, and Cam told her she brings bad energy. All of which may be true, but they do not add up to a "yes" when asked if she visited him.
QuoteI thought Kevin did a really good job “speaking for the people” by pointing out when certain things didn’t add up and stopping the pile-ons and letting people speak for themselves.
I'm lukewarm on Kevin generally, but I think he did as good a job as can be done in a situation like this. If people won't answer questions directly, there's not much you can do but try to get them to, and then give up.
Also, what's up with Clare repositioning Emily's extension? Weird.
-
8
-
-
5 hours ago, Yeah No said:
I would think knowing that information from a previous post would have prevented having to ask the question in the first place. I would have figured it out from the context and left it at that.
That's one approach. But I favor accuracy, and wanted to make sure that I was deciphering the code correctly, which required saying the quiet part out loud.
If somebody feels safer being with people who are carrying a gun, that's great. No need to hide that. Or, if you think there's a need to hide it, then don't mention it. As everyone says these days, "Own it."
QuoteOne thing I personally hate is being made to feel like I have to justify everything I say and my responses here are coming from empathy for someone I feel is being made to feel just that.
I don't know about anybody else, but I never requested justification. All I asked was, "What did you say?" Not, "Why do you say that?"
QuoteI promise not to post on this subject again.
Works for me.
-
4
-
-
18 hours ago, Yeah No said:
I didn't see the part about the relatives in law enforcement. If I did I would have seen that as answering the question
Except the part about relatives in law enforcement was posted before the question was asked, so it couldn't be answering the question. I just happened to remember it when I saw the vague post about packing legally.
The actual answer given to the question of what the "relatives are packing legally" in order to feel safe when going to New York City to have lunch and visit a museum was "lunch."
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, shapeshifter said:
I’m guessing it was a play-on-words joke that just didn’t work?
The comment was that they feel safe going into NYC because "the relatives are packing legally," and just a few posts before that they had mentioned having relatives in law enforcement, and law enforcement officers are allowed to legally carry guns when off duty. Sure doesn't sound like packing lunch to me (plus they even said they were going to have lunch in the Village before going to the museum--why would packing your own lunch when having lunch at a restaurant make anybody feel safe?).
But, you know...whatever. But then the post was edited to take out the part about feeling safe because they were packing. It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. 🤣
-
4
-
1
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, kristen111 said:
Kidding. Of course no guns.
I don't get it. You originally said (it's been since edited out, but someone else quoted it), "No worries, as the relatives are packing legally, lol. We feel safe." Why would a relative packing a lunch make you feel safe?
-
3
-
1
-
S17.E0 • Where Are They Now: To Hurt or to Heal
in Married At First Sight
I think that's what we got in the U.S. a couple of weeks ago--two women who know each other and maybe have a podcast. So maybe y'all are just a little behind.