Lurker > adjl

I'm currently not playing it for $0.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

and that you can pause when you need to because your kids just spilled something or you need to do something else

Building on this, single-player games without pause are the absolute worst.

Revelation34 posted...

That argument can be used for the prison system in general.

Why yes. Yes it can.

Fundamentally, the US prison system is focused on punishment. Not rehabilitation, not protecting society, just the catharsis of making sure that somebody who did something bad has the bad time they "deserve." That... doesn't work. Emotional closure is fun and all, and there's some value in prison as a deterrent, but nothing about that approach actually seeks to solve the problem of crime, in many cases making recidivism rates (and therefore public safety) worse.

Revelation34 posted...

That only exists because of pro-lifers.

Not really. Even the staunchest pro-choicers will generally agree that somebody who stabs a pregnant woman in the uterus should be held liable for that fetus' death beyond what a simple assault charge would convey. Exactly how to do that without also making abortion illegal is a topic with plenty of room for discussion, but the core idea of "you can murder fetuses" is pretty widely accepted.

LinkPizza posted...

And even then, just because a load in manageable doesnt mean I want to carry it. Like kitty litter, and the pet food. Even just that can be heavy on its own depending on size and stuff

Defaulting to walking doesn't mean you can't take a car for trips where you need to get heavier stuff. Personally, I buy kitty litter in 40-pound bags, which is obviously a lot to walk with even if the store were within easy walking distance, but I usually buy four bags at a time, so car trips to do that are very infrequent. Same with their food: I typically buy about 7 weeks' worth of cans at a time (two cats, 24 cans of each of their foods, half a can a day), but Petsmart is right next to Costco (in a satellite mall that exemplifies everything that's wrong with car-centric design) so I roll those up together in a single trip instead of worrying about getting them with regular groceries.

It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing sort of situation. Shifting away from car-centric design just means making it feasible for people to choose other modes of transportation when they're preferable or appropriate, as opposed to making it pretty much mandatory to drive (or at least miserable/dangerous not to).

LinkPizza posted...

That said, if I was walking home, I dont think Id have the energy to shop, and definitely wouldnt have the energy to haul anything home

Again, I'd call that unfeasible to walk to.

Judgmenl posted...

It is to me.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you haven't updated your belief of "it's weird to be attracted to somebody 10 years younger than me" since you were in your early-mid 20's. At that point, yes, it is indeed weird. Even in your later 20's when you wouldn't actually be talking about minors and defaulting immediately to yikes, aging from 18-20 makes a pretty substantial difference in maturity for most people as they experience life on their own, so it's pretty typical for well-established adults to not be particularly interested in them beyond pure physical attraction (hence the preponderance of "teens" in porn).

By contrast, once somebody hits their early-mid 20's, they're pretty well-established as an adult and there isn't usually a substantial maturity difference between that and their early-mid 30's (aside from typically settling on what they want to do with their life in that time frame). As such, there kind of stops being a reason to balk at a 10-year age gap. Even if we take the lazy way out and go with the golden rule, 35/2+7=24.5, so 25 is fair game. If you've just stuck with "10 years is too much of an age gap," there's plenty of reason to reconsider that principle as you age.

I'm sure that's the whole story.

LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes, its not that its unfeasible to walk to But I tend to buy quite a bit at the grocery store Id rather not walk or bike with that much weight

In places that are designed to be walkable and/or have good transit, you tend to see a paradigm shift toward people making more, smaller trips to the grocery store, often stopping in to grab a few things on the way home from work instead of making a dedicated trip to get everything they'll need for the week. It works out to about the same amount of time spent (multiple smaller trips tend to involve a bit more total time in the store than a single large trip, but not having to go out specifically for groceries saves a good chunk of time overall), but that way you have smaller loads that are easier to manage on foot.

If the grocery store is far enough away that you have to make a dedicated trip there instead of incorporating it into your commute or whatever, and the time involved in doing so means you can't do it frequently enough to only buy volumes you can walk with, I'd call that unfeasible to walk to.

Muscles posted...

f*** cyclists they're always in the way.

Calm down. It's not going to kill you to drive slower for a couple minutes.

Muscles posted...

same goes for farm equipment that likes to go 15 in a 55.

Are you willing to pay the additional cost to install and maintain an extra road just for farm equipment to use? Because they have to get around somehow, and your choices are either to calm down because it's not going to kill you to drive slower for a couple minutes, or build a whole extra road to accommodate your impatience.

Muscles posted...

They should stay on the sidewalks and out of traffic.

Let's do a comparison, shall we?

Sidewalks
+Doesn't slow car traffic down
-Pedestrians can appear unexpectedly
-Pedestrians can stop/turn unexpectedly
-No defined direction of travel
-No rules defining right of way
-No protocols for indicating intent before turning/stopping
-No protocol for passing
-No physical protection for either party in the event of a bike-pedestrian collision
-No training requirements for anyone
-Illegal in most jurisdictions

Roads
+Controlled access
+Significantly more warning before stops/turns
+Defined direction of travel
+Rules defining right of way
+Protocols for indicating intent before turning/stopping
+Protocol for passing
+One party is almost completely physically protected in bike-car collisions
+Training requirements for the road users with the most potential to cause harm
+Legal in most jurisdictions
-Cars might have to add a couple minutes to their trips

This really is an absolute no-brainer. Obviously, the ideal is to have actual bike infrastructure that segregates them from cars and minimizes points of conflict as much as possible (which can include multi-use paths, but those avoid the problems of sidewalks by being wider and having passing protocols), but when that's not an option (usually because whiny drivers aren't willing to give up a dozen street parking spots for a lane that can move more people/hour than the entire road can), having bikes on the road is clearly the better option. Get over yourself.

Cruciferous posted...

OK fine but at least follow the traffic laws if you're going to do that.

Switching between roads and crosswalks is actually fully legal in most places, provided the cyclist dismounts in the crosswalk (unless said crosswalk is designated to allow bikes, as some are, especially if they connect legs of a multi-use path). In many cases, it's actually the preferred way for bikes to make a left turn, in that they stick to the right side of the road they're on, stop at the far right corner, then cross the road using the crosswalk and pull out into the crossroad they're aiming for. In heavier traffic, a pedestrian left turn is generally much safer than making multiple lane changes.

So long as the cyclist isn't just abruptly making left turns into crosswalks and cutting off traffic or endangering pedestrians (which are obviously bad ideas), the only real objection is that you don't think it's "fair" to be able to switch modes like that, and that really doesn't matter. Provided it's done safely and predictably, there's nothing actually wrong with it.

Dikitain posted...

I'm not trying to solve all urban planning issues, I am just saying why I don't walk to the grocery store every Sunday. Slow your role.

That's fair, but it's also still important to keep thinking about it in terms of "driving is better because my environment has been designed to make driving better at the expense of everything else," instead of accepting it as normal to have the nearest grocery store be unfeasible to walk to. You do have the power to vote to improve urban planning issues, but you have to recognize them and know what to look for in solutions to do so.

SeahorseCpt89 posted...

Ill never understand why the loyalty to Trump in spite of the evidence that he is pretty much guilty (the most damning evidence being the tapes) while also taking the tough on crime stance. What kind of dirt does he still have on them I wonder?

The narrative they're pushing is that he's not guilty of anything that's actually wrong. He didn't call for the election to be falsified against the will of the people, he called for falsified votes that would offset the falsification that the democrats did to steal the election in the first place. Their political position has been built entirely on appealing to people who think like this, so that's what they have to stick with.

darkknight109 posted...

Trump isn't ever going to wind up in jail - it would be a logistical nightmare to try and work that out.

Hell, that's one of the considerations that is being talked through right now - if Trump is convicted, how the hell does prison work? The Secret Service still needs to be able to protect him, which is almost impossible in a conventional prison. He could be sentenced to house arrest, but that hardly seems like a punishment commensurate with the crimes he's committed.

Turns out the justice system never thought it would have to figure out how to accommodate a felonious ex-president.

I mean, if the reason the secret service needs to keep protecting him is to avoid him being kidnapped and tortured into revealing government secrets, there are other ways to achieve that goal. The angle of protecting him from harm is a lot less compelling than it is for most former presidents, given the whole treason thing, so I'm okay with discounting that.

ReturnOfFa posted...

whoa whoa whoa we can't cross departments!

It's not so much crossing departments as it is insisting that it never belonged in my department to begin with.

Though, saying that, a sizable chunk of my department is specifically dedicated to defaulting to federal responsibility in the event of any jurisdictional disputes (Jordan's Principle, named after a young First Nations kid who died waiting for the provincial and federal governments to stop arguing about who was responsible for saving his life, so now we just default to paying for FN medical stuff and sort out jurisdictional issues after people's lives and well-being stop being on the line), so my attempt at being facetious doesn't really hold water. But that's not my team, so it doesn't count, right?

Grats on the job!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The correct answer isn't "aliens exist" or "aliens don't exist". The correct answer is "We don't know."

I'm pretty comfortable settling on "aliens probably exist." We can't be sure until we actually find some, certainly, but in terms of the impact it has on my life I'm happy with believing that it's more likely than not. That's not really such an impactful belief that I feel the need to be definite before settling on an assumption.

If there's a question block, must there also be an answer block?

That's not that uncommon. Depending on what the specific allergen is, it can sometimes be destroyed by cooking, thanks to how much proteins get denatured when heated.

Entity13 posted...

And there's no possible way this can backfire on any of them, I'm sure.

Probably not, actually. The people that have voted for them will love it, because it's completely in line with the sort of behaviours that got them elected in the first place. The people that don't like it already didn't vote for them. They can't not vote any harder.

Cruciferous posted...

Certain folks out here get in their car to go get their mail literally 60 yards from their front porch. It's super sad.

To be fair, a lot of subdivisions are so designed around cars that even if the mail is only 60 yards away as the crow flies, there are fences, yards, and other obstacles that mean walking there is significantly more circuitous than that, often walking on roads with no sidewalks because everything has been designed around the assumption that everyone will drive everywhere at all times. Sure, some people are just lazy and will make a drive they could easily walk in the same amount of time (on that scale, you spend about so much time getting into the car, pulling out, parking, and getting out that it nullifies most or all of the time savings walking would provide), but thanks to living in an environment where driving is the default because everything has been designed to be hostile to any other mode of transportation, people tend to only ever think about driving places.

Heck, even just psychologically, the norm of only ever travelling from your house to your car to your destination without ever being outside for a meaningful length of time makes people uncomfortable with the idea of just walking around their neighbourhoods. Car-centric infrastructure fundamentally fosters a sense of isolation because you so rarely see people out and about, which in turn fosters a sense of distrust and misanthropy.

Dikitain posted...

But spending 30 minutes walking somewhere when I could drive there in 5? That is 25 minutes I could be spending doing chores, working, playing games, or anything else besides walking.

Give me a way to walk 60-75 mph and I will walk everywhere.

If you're in an environment where you can go 60-75 mph at any point during a 5-minute drive, that environment is a major part of the problem. Car-centric developments connected to other car-centric developments by highways are fundamentally at odds with getting around any other way, thanks to how much space has to be taken up to move large volumes of cars (significantly more than just about any other option, especially for single-occupancy vehicles), the amount of parking space that's needed when nobody can get anywhere without driving (commercial lots with parking minimums are very often comprised of more driveway/parking than actual store), and the danger inherent in trying to mix high-speed car traffic with any other mode. Build around something other than cars, and that 5-minute drive becomes a 10-15-minute walk instead, usually a much more pleasant one because you're walking past actual destinations and not parking lots and drive-thrus.

Cruciferous posted...

why is america so bike unfriendly
i HATE it

Most of it is just a natural consequence of being car-centric. Going back as early as the 1910's-20's, car companies ran a propaganda campaign to shift then narrative from "streets are public places that belong to everyone" to "streets belong to cars and everyone else needs to work around that" (this is where the term and concept of "jaywalking" came from). That narrative has stuck, and it's extremely common for drivers - having spent their entire lives being told that streets are for them and them alone - to resent having their driving be inconvenienced by anyone else using the road. It's made even worse by the ubiquitous fantasy that drivers are the only ones paying for roads and are therefore entitled to every square inch of asphalt in the city.

Of course, the reality is that driving-specific fees and taxes only cover about 10% of road costs in most American cities/suburbs, with the remaining large majority coming from other revenue streams that everyone pays regardless of whether or not they drive. Car-only infrastructure is also by far the least efficient way to move people around if you look at it on a scale beyond "me drive to work with no other cars around," but the auto industry's propaganda has taken very deep root in American society, and those are difficult lies to untangle.

Shrek posted...

bike riders either act like they own the roads and everyone needs to bow down to them, or they act ultra cautious and rarely actually go anywhere

there is no inbetween

There's plenty of in-between, you just don't notice it because we only consider extreme experiences worth remembering. It also doesn't help that "bikes act like they own the roads" often actually just means "bikes are using the road like they're a car and I don't like going a bit slower for a few minutes," which in many circumstances is the only way bikes can actually be safe. Trying to make passing room in a situation where safe passing won't be possible either way just invites unsafe passing. In those cases, they should occupy the full lane to remove the option.

This perception also isn't helped by the fact that not feeling comfortable around cars is by far the biggest reason for people not cycling, which is a pretty understandable reason because gambling your life on the hope that the guy behind you isn't having a bad day isn't altogether appealing. Drivers do act like they own the road on a very regular basis (and will tell you as much if you suggest allocating any fraction of it to something that isn't a car, despite the aforementioned reality that their commute is heavily subsidized by everyone else), so the people that decide to cycle despite not having appropriate infrastructure are the ones bold enough to push back against that attitude. When you're used to feeling like all of this black stuff exists just for you and only you because you're a special little boy, it's to be expected that being told you're not special and you have to share it with other people is going to rub you the wrong way. But you're not particularly special and you do have to share it with other people, so you might want to get used to that.

hockey7318 posted...

Pass them when you can and when you can't just take a big deep breath and wait.

The number of people that blame cyclists for "forcing" them to pass unsafely is really kind of ridiculous. Unless they're like shooting at you or something, nobody ever "forces" you to pass them. If you pass them unsafely, that's a choice you and only you made. Either wait for an opportunity to pass safely or just accept that you don't need to get to the next red light 12 seconds sooner and don't pass.

1507, but that's just since 2013. I've visited the site 3564 times in that time frame, so I guess I vote in a little under half of the polls I see.

Currently, Prime and Apple TV, though Apple TV's just for the month because my girlfriend's watching Foundation as it comes out. I did have Crave (Canadian, the one Bell launched after spending a few years trying to make Netflix fail by buying distribution rights to as many popular things as they could so they could keep cable running as long as possible), but we didn't use it for much and we recently ran into a paywall for one of the things we did use it for, so I cancelled on the spot and that'll be expiring in the next day or two. We mooch off of my sister's Disney+ account, and we used to do the same for Netflix but can't anymore.

SilentSeph posted...

Enough money to survive > Time > Luxury money

Pretty much this. If I don't have enough money to survive, free time is just spent suffering and is therefore useless. If I don't have enough free time to actually use it, money beyond subsistence is useless. Time and luxury money kind of flip back and forth depending on how much of each we're talking, since the ideal is to have enough free time to make use of luxury money and also enough luxury money to enjoy my free time, and having too much of either makes me want the other more, but that's the rough hierarchy.

Are you suggesting that my furniture isn't people?

A mix of the two. Open concept works well for areas like kitchens, living rooms, and dining rooms where it's more typical for people (guests especially) to be socializing, but spaces that benefit more from being segregated (bedroom, office, tv/game room) are better off being separate from that open area.

agesboy posted...

RF5 on the switch is REALLY rough. Like, it'll only cache one zone back, so if you teleport from one house to another and then go outside, it has to slowly load like the entire overworld

PC version basically fixes the game's performance issues, it's a good game (albeit lacking in content variety compared to 4 thanks to the jump to 3D not letting them reuse bosses)

I didn't really mind the performance that much. It wasn't good, by any means, and it just felt cheaply made across the board, but it wasn't unplayable or anything. The underlying game, though, was pretty thoroughly disappointing compared to RF4. RF4 set a very, very high standard, so perhaps that isn't the fairest comparison, but I just drifted away from RF5 shortly after beating the game (which happened in the first week of summer because the story pacing is pretty wonky) instead of feeling any drive to delve properly into crafting (not helped by it being exactly the same crafting system I'd already min-maxed in 4), get serious about farming, or to even start dating anyone. I still got 60-odd hours of decent fun out of it, but it just didn't hook me enough to compel me to really explore the full breadth of the game, which is a stark contrast to RF4 (where I spent over 200 hours milking it for everything it had to give).

Shrek posted...

has he actually even been arrested once

surrendering yourself isn't exactly the same, especially when you aren't actually arrested when you do it

This is basically how white-collar arrests work: You pay the courts some money as a commitment that you won't flee the country, then you agree to show up later to face the actual charges. Unless somebody's a massive flight risk or is doing something so harmful that they need to be stopped immediately, you rarely actually see police chasing them down and physically taking them into custody.

Smoking_Hamster posted...

All the charges in time to disrupt presidential race. USA is no better than Russia.

Would you prefer they convicted him without due process so it could move faster? Or just let him deliberately undermine the democratic process for personal gain?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Some of them are.

Some of them are getting their tattoos for somebody else, possibly including their romantic partner. None of them are getting their tattoos for TC.

I guess that's one way to solve people complaining that Chris Pratt doesn't sound enough like Mario in the movie.

As a federal government employee, I suddenly feel compelled to dump as much of my workload on you as possible.

Isn't it a typhoon when it's in the Pacific?

Count_Drachma posted...

I admire your highly-selective outrage, although I wonder where it was during higher-profile doxxing incidents, like when leftist groups doxxed SCOTUS members and literally advocated rising up against SCOTUS.

Have you ever considered expressing an opinion directly instead of relying exclusively on spurious whataboutism?

Revelation34 posted...

Doxxing is posting personal information like addresses.

For those of us that are capable of understanding the world beyond what the dictionary tells us to think, doxxing is publicly posting information that an individual would prefer to keep private, especially in a manner that leads them to fear for their safety. Telling a violent mob where individuals said mob wishes to harm are hiding absolutely falls under the umbrella of doxxing.

hockey7318 posted...

Jesus christ, I've not heard about that until right now somehow (typical American not paying attention to international news). That is so fucking awful and horrific that the hospital tried so hard to keep it under wraps instead of properly investigating. Those fuckers better have to deal with some kind of fall out for their role in it.

I think 13 counts of accessory to murder for everyone involved in the cover up seems reasonable. And then feed them their own tibias.

GTurtlte posted...

that damn eel and piano in super mario 64

To add to that, Dorrie, of all things. I read the sign saying she was dangerous, and I avoided her at all costs until subsequently learning that she's totally harmless and you actually need her to get a star or two (at least, a normal person needs her, since I wasn't talking about parallel universes when I was 8).

papercup posted...

r/conservative has been having a meltdown for the past like 24 hours over Trump tricking them. Not the first time its happened, just wait until the talking heads give them their talking points about how Trump being a conman and a traitor is actually a good thing, and it won't be the last time they have a moment of clarity, but it's so satisfying to see these people angry at their orange messiah.

That, or some new conman will come along and capitalize on those feelings of betrayal to rally them.

Zangy posted...

But baked Mac and cheese is always just a big glob of the same texture.

That's why it's good to have a salad or something similar with it. Also a bread crumb top, but that's a relatively minor textural contrast.

So yeah, presenting your opinions poorly and making people want to dunk on you.

And it's my favourite price!

agesboy posted...

it's had more concurrent players than overwatch 2 since it launched last night lol

Big oof.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

if chipotle gives you diarrhea you should see a doctor

Or at least eat fibre more than once a month.

papercup posted...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66529579.amp 43 year old texas woman arrested for threats against judge Chutkan.

Catching a felony charge to own the libs.

Her outright saying "I'd never go to DC to hurt her, but she'd better watch out if she ever comes here" is just so insane.

Yeah, the number of responses along the lines of "maybe the conservatorship wasn't such a bad idea" to her enjoying not being enslaved anymore was pretty disgusting.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Don't politicians more important issues to concentrate on?

Than cybersecurity? Not many. That's a big deal and neglecting it can cause some very serious problems.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

Is the actual game as impressive as the name?

From the trailer on Steam, it looks like a knock-off Etrian Odyssey. It's not out for another month, so who knows how it ends up comparing?

I wouldn't hold your breath. By and large, those are IPs that haven't been cultivated because ABK didn't expect them to make as much profit as they could make by directing their development efforts elsewhere. That calculus isn't going to change with the MS acquisition. What might change is that MS now has an incentive to develop games that might not be as profitable but can help drive system sales by being exclusive (this is why first-party exclusives are generally a good thing, since they promote making games that are good instead of just maximally profitable), but even then it's a bit of a long shot to expect them to revive obscure old IPs for that when they have much bigger names to focus on.

It's not impossible, and it's more likely than it was with ABK as an independent publisher, but it still doesn't seem overly likely.

keyblader1985 posted...

The part of being an archer that nobody talks about

I do really like being able to retrieve arrows in TotK, at least when they aren't inside somebody. It's a nice little bit of immersion.

"A 30-year-old making friends with 14-year-olds is creepy"
"I don't know why you have a problem with 21-year-olds making friends with 19-year-olds"

It's like disingenuity 101.

All apps that collect data should be banned from government phones. TikTok is a particularly egregious example, but the security concerns around TikTok also apply to many other apps. It's also not like government employees don't have their own phones to use recreational apps on.

Gesundheit.

shadowsword87 posted...

Nonono, he just gave people information and never directly suggested what to do with that information.
Clearly it's different, like on J6 when he-- ooooooooooooh.

It wasn't actually Trump that posted the names, in this case. Just people cultishly devoted to the lies that Trump has been disseminating since 2015.

"We don't want you to convict him of undermining democracy by inspiring his followers to violence in defense of him, and as a result we, his followers, are going to threaten you with violence to defend him."

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

17 and 24 really aren't very different either, that's potentially the same generation in fact.

You mean to tell me that if you - as a ~24-year-old - were expecting to hang out with a bunch of friends of similar ages and one of them brought along their 17-year-old coworker, you wouldn't find that odd or off-putting?

This is, of course, saying nothing about the fact that you've still just picked the most extreme values you think you'll be able to get away with without being accused of deliberately picking the most extreme values possible. "20s/30s" generally implies late 20s/early 30s, not early-mid 20s.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Acting like people reform entirely every 5 years or whatever is weird,

Every 5 years? Of course not. That 5 years? Yeah, they kind of do. The difference between being a high school student and being out of high school for even just a year or two is massive in terms of overall maturity and understanding of what it means to live as an adult. As has been said, that's not to say that an adult can't have a friendly relationship with a high school student, but to be close friends or especially "best friends" is pretty odd, given how little they have in common in terms of fundamental day-to-day experience.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

I wonder if people who act like that's the case actually talk to young people.

Well, I did a two-year community college program from 29-31 in which I was mostly surrounded by 18-23-year-olds when the program started (at least the domestic students, the international ones were more around my age). I still made friends among them, but the age and maturity gap was very apparent at times with the younger ones, even despite the fact that I was relatively stunted from having mostly wasted my 20's and matured very little since finishing my undergrad. I also watched that change going into the second year, after the younger ones had the experience of being out on their own and working for a living. And that was people who had graduated high school, which are generally significantly more mature than those that haven't.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Well it kinda does since there's no reason to suspect anything sinister happened during this woman's marriage, either.

When I say "something sinister," I mean "the adult befriended the child because they were attracted to them." He married her as soon as it was legal. That strongly suggests that he befriended her because he was attracted to her.

Again, maybe that's not the case. Maybe it's more legitimate than that. But at face value, this looks like dude groomed his wife while she was a student in his care, and there's been no evidence presented to suggest that that's not the case.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

That's a really weird hangup. 21 and 19? Lol, sooooo different. Essentially a different species.

Ah yes. Specifically choose the lowest possible value for "20s/30s" and the highest possible value for "teenager" to pretend you didn't understand the point being made. A brilliant strategy.

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

Wonder if you feel the same about a 50 year old and a 30 year old being friends

That met as adults? Whatever. That met when the 30-year-old was a minor, found common interests, and that resulted in a friendship that continued into adulthood? I'd be a little leery of the 35-year-old wanting to hang out with a 15-year-old, especially if they met in a context where the kid's parents weren't involved at all (not that friends of parents can't abuse their children, but parental involvement at least helps to mitigate the risk) and/or whatever activities they did together didn't allow for third-party supervision, but with appropriate scrutiny that can be okay, especially where you've presented it as them being friends 15 years later with no reason to suspect anything more sinister happened.

Of course, that example has absolutely nothing to do with marrying said friend as soon as they graduated high school. Using an example where the potential harm obviously didn't occur to discredit an example where the potential harm could have occurred doesn't exactly work. Those simply aren't analogous.

slacker03150 posted...

So, the lawyer said specifically to not sign the HIPPA release allowing them to see his medical history. Now the insurance company says they will not cover workman's comp without the release and told him if he doesn't get the paperwork back to them right away they can't pay the hospital or give him workman's comp amd the bill will be sent to collections where it will hurt my parents credit and they will be stuck with the bill. My parents want to sign and send the paperwork so they don't risk any bills and they dont think they can do much with it since he has a mostly clean history. I think they should go to the nice lawyer they found and got a free consultation from and pay him to handle everything. If he specifically said not to sign a full release there must be a reason for it.

Lawyer up yesterday. If a lawyer specifically told them not to sign the full release form, they don't have to sign the full release form and the insurance company is banking on them not knowing that so they can be intimidated into a smaller payout. Any further communication with the company and/or insurance should be through a lawyer at this point.