I’m a Data Scientist 🧑🏻‍💻, driven to create love as inspired by my God & my Autistic Brother 💙, and I’m way too caffeinated 🤪

  • 3 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2023

help-circle
  • I would also add at this point, I’d be hard pressed to say there are going to be massive changes in the price you’d get. A phone tends to decline in value the most for the first few years it’s been released, sort of like how new cars depreciate the fastest in its first three years. So I suppose to answer your question: yes you’d maximize your money if you gave it up today, I just don’t know how much more you’d be making.



  • So I’m someone who has to use an orthopedic shoe because I have (really bad) flat foot. So to add more flavor text,

    • It is true, orthopedic isn’t really a regulated term, so it gets thrown around pretty aggressively with little meaning.
    • Some shoe companies genuinely are creating orthopedic shoes for people with actual foot problems. For me personally, I use Orthofeet brand because I find them to straddle the very weird intersection of shoes with extra wide toe boxes/foots, and terrible arch support, and flexible + lightweight materials. They didn’t pay me to say this, I’m just really really happy with them after nearly a decade of jumping between brands.
    • Sometimes orthopedic shoes are not enough… like in my defective case. In my case, I have Orthopedic Insoles which are NOT the same things as the flimsy things in the supermarkets. They’re actually custom molded to my foot, to prevent my skeletal structure from collapsing more under the horribleness of my flat foot. Between my shoes and my insoles, this is literally the difference between me being unable to walk and me being able to run a bit.






  • I think in addition to the other points on this page, the thing that keeps coming to me is because I think deep down inside, Biden knows where the fault is.

    The Supreme Court’s primary role is to decipher existing laws, existing precedent, and figure out how it should be interpreted in a different era. Yes, I know due to how politicalized everything is, sometimes questionable outcomes come from the Supreme Court. But at the core, their job is to interpret existing law and precedent.

    Congress’ role is to actually pass new laws for a new era. It can be argued, they’ve done a terrible job at that because they’re busy trying to appease their base. Because they’re so divided, very little acts, with any substance, are being passed at the federal level.

    Expanding the court might result in the outcome you want today, it may not result in the outcome you want tomorrow.

    But expanding the court also continues to give Congress a way out of making tricky compromises and laws, so they can continue fundraising on outrage, and yet do very little about things by blaming the other side.