I appreciate your reply and question. I think it comes across rude because the correction wasn’t really necessary to understand the context of what was said, and it’s even less of a correction and more of a personal preference. It doesn’t add much to the conversation, which makes it seem more like grammatical pedantry. The fact that it wasn’t entirely correct made it seem even more out of place.

For the record, I’m not accusing you of being rude, just identifying how the comment came across. I’m not assuming intent with your original comment and apologize if it seemed like I had.

I actually don’t think this is correct. Whom is used when the unknown person is the object being impacted (to whom did you sell your car). In this sentence, “who” is actually referring to a person performing the action (the sentences “who questioned him?” And “where are those who questioned him?” Would use who, not whom. You wouldn’t say “whom questioned him,” but whom could be used to replace “him,” such as “he questioned whom?”).

As I alluded to above, you can usually see if it’s who or whom by changing it to he/she (who) or him/her (whom). You may need to adjust the sentence slightly, but it will normally work. Above you need to remove the “where are those” portion to find the answer.

So I believe that your correction came across a bit rude, and I’m fairly certain it is also wrong.

Compared to the other Uber wealthy, he at least seems to have some sort of a code of ethics from what i can see, which is obviously limited. He’s still in it to make money (obviously), but his actions seem to suggest that he won’t go to the extreme of hurting everyone else just for money.

I started liking Mark more when he opened cost plus drugs. It’s a pretty decent endeavor to try to reduce pharmaceutical costs for the consumer

They’re saying that allegedly, Christians are not big on voting, and this statement is meant to encourage those non voters to come vote just this once and everything will get better. Then you can go back to being a non voter.

I think.

Horrible wording no matter how you slice it, though.

Some companies give stock as a primary benefit. Some of those companies may provide stock in lieu of some or all of a salary. That doesn’t mean it’s necessary valuable - they typically give you some amount of stock equal to a part of your salary (or some other normal monetary amount), and you would be hopeful the value increases substantially over time.

Just the fact that the other person has stock from their time being employed by Disney is no indicator of their wealth. You can own partial stock as well. It could be worth $50. We don’t know.

I feel like the wealthy people you see are the ones who either get excitement from flaunting it or from lying about it (for example, mtv cribs was all fake). There are plenty of stories (yes i know they’re just stories) about multi millionaires who drive the same old truck, wear regular blue jeans, and have a nice quiet (albeit larger than average) home.

It’s not crazy at all. I just think we see the outliers more frequently than not because they want us to see them.

I appreciate it, thank you. Yeah fair points

I disagree with it being heroic, but i really appreciate the sentiment. I imagine more people would do it if it was more affordable. I’ve gotten some flack from my family for it being costly (minimal flack, more like a double check), but it’s worth it (and they understand once i explain it).

I spent a lot of money to install solar, got new efficient windows, and got a heat pump to reduce gas usage. I’m thankful to have the financial freedom to make these decisions, as well as to have referrals for affordable options.

We’re trying to be better about plastic usage and waste in our household.

I did these to reduce my energy usage. They’ll save money long term eventually, but not enough to be worth it monetarily. I can’t control much but i can at least try to do what i think is better.

Right, i think he’s asking if there’s some culture where the inconsistency is designed based on unit. So, for example, period for years, comma for weight.

I think it’s simply an error. Maybe AI generated?

I don’t think it’s fair to flatly posit that since the CDC has been wrong at some point in the past, they can’t ever be trusted. While i understand the concept of don’t blindly follow words regardless of who said it, the sheer amount of research and dedication from an organization such as the CDC should count quite a bit more than the folks who have done none.

I don’t have the means to do such research, and as such i will more heavily weigh the words of the applicable research team than i will the words of someone who has no knowledge on the topic.

I think the question really should be not “have they ever been wrong,” but instead, “do i think they’re wrong on purpose.” A lot of research teams are funded by one side of an argument, which is cause for concern. The CDC is most likely not, and it would be fair to say they could be wrong, but likely not on purpose. Therefore i would say in this instance they are the more qualified experts who are also trying their best to be objective, and therefore, they likely have the more reasonable statement on this topic.

I’m not the other commenter, but I’m fairly certain they’re making a play on the title of this post, which just ends with “They.”

There are plenty of insurance companies that are like this. They’re significantly cheaper than the nationally advertised insurance options.

Cocaine’s a helluva drug

This is how I’ve always understood it as well. The two spellings are homophones so it’s a pretty easy mistake to make.

I disagree, “should’ve” and “should of” sound virtually identical when spoken (at least in some regions, can’t speak for all pronunciations). I can imagine why a non english native speaker would have trouble with this, though I’m not disagreeing with it being a common issue amongst native speakers as well.