hakobo

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's actually been found to be not true with advancements in how we detect bacteria and viruses. https://youtu.be/OTIYcemQ_OQ

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even if a claim gets denied the fact that it was submitted means you already got the treatment.

That's quite often not true. There are tons of procedures/tests/etc that don't get run until a "prior authorization" has been granted by the insurance company. Also medications and durable medical equipment are not dispensed until insurance has been approved. If the prior auth is not granted or the medication is not covered, they usually will not be performed/provided unless the patient pays up front, and without the negotiating power of the insurance company, the patient will be paying 5 to 10 times what the insurance company would have paid.

I've personally been dealing with medical issues the past 3 months and the amount of prior auths I've seen go by is astounding. Tomorrow I actually go in for some more tests that they couldn't do a few weeks ago because these ones in particular needed some prior auths that are harder to get.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

Well, he did The Nightmare Before Christmas as well as most of Tim Burton's other films. Along with tons of other things.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, voting reform is extremely important. The problem is Trump's view of voting reform is to restrict who can vote. The dems idea of voting reform is to make voting easier, and at the local levels, push for ranked choice or approval voting making 3rd parties actually viable. Voting for Trump is pushing us further from good voting reform. Harris may not be platforming voting reform, but at least she's not going to interfere with state level reforms like Trump will.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I've ordered the ring because I have the watch, but I don't like wearing the watch at home. Sometimes I put it on at home, but instinctively I find myself taking it off within a few hours. I especially don't like wearing the watch while I sleep. However I have no problem wearing a ring all day. The form factor itself is more advantageous for me, because it's the difference between wearing it or not. When I leave the house, I have no problem putting my watch on and keeping it on. Same way I don't have a problem putting on shoes and keeping them on. But like the watch, I don't like wearing shoes at home.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Those aren't film, they're tape. Film is what's in the camera or shown through a projector and are visible to the naked eye. VHS, Betamax, and video2000 are magnetic tape formats that aren't viewable with the naked eye. Regardless, "on film" is still a universally acceptable term for "on the recorded video" no matter the format because terms stick around in industries

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In your first examples, you are using female as an adjective. A female troop, a female Sargent, a male soldier. That's usually fine. Even "that female cashier over there" is probably fine. However if you say "that female over there" or like you pointed out, "get over here right now, female" or really any other instance where female is used as a noun instead of an adjective, that's where it becomes gross. It's all about adjective vs noun. Adjective: usually fine. Noun: usually not.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I want to start by saying this is an attempt at an explanation not just for you, but anyone who stumbles upon this thread, and is not making any assumptions of anyone's character.

The answer to why it's offensive or gross is twofold.

First is that using it as a noun like saying "I went on a date with a female" sounds clinical or sterile. Female as a noun is mostly used in science and medicine, and women don't want to feel like test subjects. They get objectified enough as it is. Is it technically incorrect? No. But it feels that way to the person being called it.

Which leads to the second, more important reason. They've asked. Again, to emphasize the importance: They've asked. In general (yes there are exceptions), women have asked people to stop referring to them as females (the noun), and if you respect people, then you call them what they ask. You hopefully don't call Asians Orientals anymore. And when your friend Stephen says he goes by Steve, hopefully you say Steve the majority of the time. Or if Richard really hates being called Dick, then hopefully you don't call him Dick. Language is fluid and cultural, and if you want to get along with people (Asians, Steve, Richard, women) then you should learn to use language their way.

I think that is really the more important reason, because it's totally fair if you don't understand why someone else finds something offensive. Everyone has had different life experiences and not everything offends everyone. But when a large swath of society says they find it offensive and you continue to do so, then you are being offensive regardless of whether or not you understand why. And in the end, if you choose to continue to be offensive just because you don't buy the reasoning, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get bad reactions and find it hard to bond.

Tips for a better life: Call people what they want to be called. Be nice for no reason. If in doubt, ask for advice from someone who doesn't look like you.

Hope this makes at least some sense.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (58 children)

In general, female is an adjective. It can be used as a noun, but generally shouldn't be, at least when talking about humans. So you can say "my female colleague" or "a woman I work with". You can say "the female mind" or "a woman's brain." You can say "a panel of female postal workers" or "a panel of women who work for the post office." If you stick to the adjective/noun rule, you'll come off far less offensive/gross sounding. Hope this helps.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Apples too. But I'm not sure this is unusual. Even Arby's sells a chicken salad sandwich with grapes and apples in it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah, I'd say it's 50/50 on whether a pretzel gets served with mustard or cheese in my experience, and I almost always try the pretzel when it's on the menu. Sometimes you get both. Assuming we're talking soft pretzels. Hard pretzels, idk.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Mostly just freeways. I don't think it's heavily enforced. The idea is that cars traveling at drastically different speeds on the same road are more likely to cause an accident. It's best to drive "the speed of traffic" because that's what is predictable. Roads should be designed in such a way to make the target speed limit the fastest speed at which most people feel comfortable anyways, rather than just obeying a sign. So a 20mph road should be skinny and not straight. A 70mph highway should be wide and straight. Back to the point, though, in a traffic jam, all the cars are slow and therefore the speed differential is small already and therefore no reason to ticket anyone.

view more: next ›