yuna628

A true delicacy to eat in this state. I don't think we will see them up in these parts, but we always see some stragglers every year along with the annual ones. I'm excited for the next big brood.. love those things.

I think a lot of people in the UK are accustomed to go to school, either by walking or on public transport. But there is a big difference between a child finding their way in many locations in the UK as completely normal vs places in the US. There is a different cultural mindset as well. In general, places in the UK feel safer to me, even if such a feeling may be overrepresented or not 100% accurate. If there was a different public perception in the UK of safety vs harm risk things may be different. My husband would not choose to let his kids do the same things he was accustomed to as a kid even in the UK (he was assaulted and robbed in the UK as a child). You would agree that in many areas of the US there is a higher chance for a kid to be assaulted, harmed, taken, shot, stabbed, or robbed. The 7 year old in the story was told not to talk to strangers but could not distinguish from strangers trying to help him (which is not his fault and is why a child that young doesn't have that kind of discernment), but was not taught to not run off from his siblings nor his siblings taught to keep an eye on him. The homeschooling parents also seem to have the inability to watch him. We can likely agree that when we were kids there were things we did that were thought of as safe, or not thought of at all, that likely are risky now. And every day there are kids who are walking through dangerous areas of their neighborhoods from school to get home - does that make it right though?

I cannot answer about sports betting. However, do you have a bank account and credit card? If you do you can add her jointly to those accounts. Getting an SSN beforehand is helpful in doing so.

Your options: Ensure fiancé has their SSN or you may have a hard time. 1)Find a plan through the affordable care act's marketplace (either state or federal marketplace whichever is available). If using this option you will need to also have the NOA1 for Adjustment of Status as an immigration qualifier. 2)Buy a plan out of pocket through any insurer available in your state. 3)Wait until new spouse is employed at a job that offers insurance. 4)Get off your parents insurance and use any of the above options including finding insurance via an employer to have a joint plan. Any of the above does not mean that those plans will be 'inexpensive'. Cheaper does not equal better quality insurance either, when shopping for insurance you will have to compare quality of the plan offered vs cost. The third option is not ideal as who knows when the spouse will be work authorized and then be employed. Immigrating to a new country and marriage are QLE (qualifying life events) which make a person eligible to use the marketplace outside of open enrollment. You will need to explore qualifying documents required. For me, I chose to buy a joint plan out of pocket with an insurer and used that until my husband was employed and offered us coverage which was far better. However that was a long wait and was quite expensive. How affordable it will be for you will be based on a variety of factors unique to you and your state.

I've been thinking a lot about this article ever since it popped up and it's just nuts. At first I thought it was going to be about kids using phones to goof off in class but no... it turns out it's the parents being all insane. This is not a healthy way to raise a child, nor is it a healthy state for a parent to be in either.

An odd one from Slate but a lot of schools are now going for cellphone free policies - either taking phones from kids or locking them in lockers for the day. Our local schools are planning to do this and it's causing a lot of uproar in parents who want 24/7 access, and some kids that are scared something bad will happen and will be unable to call their parents. But there are other reasons parents are demanding all sorts of uses for cellphones in class. Some notable snippets:

So, I'm of two minds about this. I was also a child that was frequently left unattended. Not out of any wanting their child to be independent or anything, but because there were periods of neglect in my life. I was left alone in cars and the house for hours. My siblings report a similar experience. Thankfully no one got into trouble, but we all had situations where we very much wished we had guidance and safety our parents hopefully could have provided. I have often told stories where tiny me balanced on a step stool over a gas stove around age 5 or 6 completely unattended. I would be left unattended outside my city home nearly every day and to be fair many city kids would have long walks off the bus.. and sometimes things would happen to them. My sister tells the story of being left in a car for hours, with no parents in sight and needing to go to the bathroom badly - so she ventured out and was helped by a kind but very concerned stranger. These days the cops would be called, and I don't blame them. I would never do that to my children. When I spent a good deal of time watching over my nieces/nephew I went with them everywhere and paid close attention to what they were doing. I'd never in my right mind dream of letting a 7 year old wander wherever he wanted because I remember being put into such a situation. I do recall my nephew's mother letting his father watch him around that age (I say 'let him' because he's not very reliable in that regard) and before you knew it he managed to wander through the streets to a bodega for food. Mom and Dad panicked of course when they couldn't find him. He was okay, grandpa found him safe and sound, but a little scared. My point here is the article frames these parents as just fine, and maybe they are, but we are no judge of that. These kids are all supposedly homeschooled, which means there's some parent that *should* be watching them at all times... but yet, aren't. Why? We don't know, but gone are the days where I think kids are safe to wander. I don't really think there was a time when kids were safe to wander. My dad will laud the times when he routinely skipped school and spent hours doing whatever he pleased and that included getting into 'trouble' as if it was some golden era of safety. I don't think he was necessarily safe, and if anything he was the one making others not safe. Having kids is a big responsibility and imo many problems we have today is because generations of parents have really screwed up that responsibility. Some parents overcompensate by being complete disaster case helicopters (I meant to post an article about helicopter parents, cellphones and school systems) and others just seem like they don't care.

I am not a democrat though? At any rate that has no bearing paying our taxes and on receiving a refund, which is the question that was asked as the subject of this thread. I know many republicans that also received refunds and have always received them.

Maritime law is complicated and weird. The company that owns the boat is responsible for whomever is piloting it no matter if it is a different pilot I think. Isn't that kind of like some state car insurance rules where the insurance follows the car and not the driver (that is how it is in this state)? In the incident where Ever Forward ran aground due to both pilot's negligence it was the owner of the ship that agreed to pay the state roughly $700,000 in damages. This is probably not the actual cost of the damage they caused, but it was the best we could get because it would have been too expensive to litigate. That money didn't actually go toward the habitat it destroyed, and there was a political fight which county was going to receive that money to build a new habitat. I have heard that the Dali's bow is currently stuck on the bottom of the river, but also on top of a gas line and potentially some sort of water supply structure.

Not sure what you're implying or what that has to do with receiving a refund, nor do I know what "super liberal" means.

The company has already filed paperwork to attempt to get out of paying for very much. I think we really need to overhaul our maritime laws. We managed to open a small channel today but it's not very deep. At least it was enough a few things were tugged through it.

We have always gotten a refund and this year is no different.

Updating your DL at the MVA and updating your SSN will require going in with the original certificate, but no other process except the passport to be mailed in that I can think of.

Some info from last night: Substance is leaking into river. There are 764 tons of hazardous material on board and some has also leaked. Conditions considered hazardous. Items washing onshore yesterday. Two bodies of the men recovered yesterday, further bodies are likely crushed beneath the concrete which was smashed through several decks of the ship. One vehicle is dangling from the wreckage. Legislature is considering bill that would pay port workers, but there are not many days left for our session. Key Bridge was on a list of potential bridges that would catastrophically collapse if struck. There are similar concerns about the Chesapeake Bay Bridge (which many people are so scared of they won't drive over). In Delaware last year such ship strike measures were taken to put 'dolphin cylinders' at the piers. It cost $93 million with a $22 million federal grant. Unlikely our state would ever afford that, and the cost would be even greater for our numerous bridges built in this way. The previous governor left our transportation fund nearly drained which has led to discussions of how the new governor would replenish this fund - arguments about higher taxes and tolls have been ongoing.

Yeah I have no idea either. I read they were being tugged around 1am ish and dismissed shortly after at 1:09am. The accident happened around 1:30am ish but that was after they had veered off course. The recent press conference just said there are 4700 containers on board and 56 are hazardous. Reminds me that in 2022 the Ever Forward got stuck in our bay due to pilot negligence. https://abcnews.go.com/US/cargo-ship-stuck-chesapeake-bay-freed-month/story?id=84133293 The local pilot was busy on his phone and the other pilot had left the bridge. Was a complete mess to get it unstuck, I can only imagine how long the cleanup for this disaster is going to take though..

Apparently, in a few states it's not mandatory for a tug to be used out past bridges, and some pilots don't want to use them because they cost money. There is an effort to change that. This bridge was built in the 1970s so piers were not used in this design. Back then, so they say, we were not hauling that kind of mega ship so it wasn't a concern. I saw some people pulling up old articles from back then that there were money/time issues. I do recall an old story my grandfather told me of a big ship in WWII that struck the Chesapeake City bridge (also a lovely bridge but in huge need of repair) and took it out back in 1942. They replaced it with the current bridge in 1949. That is one area which spans from Delaware's St. George's bridge up the canal to ours and you will routinely see tugs taking them past the bridges. I've seen some people say the piers may have helped but unlikely that it would have held up to that amount of force.

Local articles this morning stated they were offered a tug and declined, and that tugs had been used for the ship previously. Some are saying that tugs should be used in the future. https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/transportation/baltimore-bridge-dali-tugboat-rules-E4DIYO7MUVDOFHR7Y3YJOGOY3A/ The men died on the bridge were all workers on their meal break. It seems the men who survived were outside of their vehicles, and those who did not were inside. It's quite a remarkable drop.

Big ships like this come through small eastern shore towns and it's required to tug them through the canal and out past many of our bridges, we walk trails along the canals all the time and see big Maersks being tugged, so I don't know why it wouldn't be here. From the way I've heard it, operators can request a tug if they are having problems, and they did not do so. The ship had problems in the port before they left. A friend saw thick smoke coming from the ship yesterday at the port.

Its been a heck of a weird day. Being woken up early in the morning to my husband mumbling "parents won't stop txting me... bridge has collapsed. they're freaking out!" and me half asleep being very confused. "which one? our county bridge?" "no no.. baltimore" "the bay bridge?!" "no baltimore or something" We appreciated the concern, but his family have no conception that we're really quite far from Baltimore, but I think his parents associate the key bridge with ANY bridge they've been on in this state at any given time. It was a beautiful bridge. So many memories, used to look on it from my house growing up. His first trip to the US, we took photos of it from Ft McHenry. https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/transportation/key-bridge-collapse-YDNMRSLMDREE7ADUZJQFQJ3WDA/ I really don't understand what the ship was doing there and why it wasn't being tugged. Lordy.. it's going to be so expensive to rebuild. Traffic will be a nightmare.

Kate says she has cancer. The statement of 'facts', timeline, continuing secrecy, and other particulars make little sense, but I hope she gets the help she needs, unlike others on the NHS who won't be told of their diagnosis or receive treatment until it's too late. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68641441 That makes it especially trashy of the Palace to photoshop her photo.

My assessment is similar to that of the Newsweek article. Some finer points: 1) if you want to use a VPN to get around content the government sees fit to ban - 20 years in jail or $1 million fine? I scratch my head at this because we got murderers and rapists around not getting those kind of penalties. 2) can apply to any content or website that the president sees fit at any time depending on what he feels like 3) There's lots of other provisions that are clear power grabs and it reminds me greatly of the early days of the patriot act. That being said: 4) TikTok does have a problem in that part of it is owned by the Chinese government. My argument here is that many things are owned by the Chinese government. We do not have evidence that the data being collected is being used in an appropriate way at least not in any way the government is prepared to declassify. However, pretty much every social media site is collecting data, using it, selling it, and may or may not be holding it securely. We have reached the point where there are class action lawsuits from artists because sites are selling images, data, and their words to big AI without consent. The government knows this. 5)Facebook and Twitter have active lobbyists who would love to see a major competitor driven into the ground.

The conspiracy is that either she is dead, divorcing, or critically unwell and that the Palace is hiding it. Kate has not been seen since December and the circumstances surrounding that are unusual. That being said, there are rumors and blind items out there that are very wild, but a few have been whispered for years. The man married to the daughter of the QEII's cousin, was found shot dead. The UK press twisted themselves into pretzels in an attempt to make it seem as if it was natural causes. It was not. This man was a former lover of Kate's sister and supposedly close to the family. This photo in particular, was not given to the press as normal. Media organizations require proof regarding certain alteration specifics. This is not a photograph that has just been 'retouched'. I can tell you the head has been taken from a magazine cover, the lower half has been altered, the wedding ring was missing (hands added came from somewhere else), the children have been placed in a variety of odd ways. The work done to the photo is obvious and sloppy. Now, they have done some sloppy edits before but something about how this photo was presented did not go through typical channels. The image of Kate in this photograph also does not match to one that was taken by paps a few days prior - one the Palace thought so unflattering, they ordered UK media to hide it. Today the UK media was allowed to pap a photo of someone in a vehicle purported to be her, but only the back of her head. No one knows what is wrong with Kate, some people have alluded, and it's not good. It is no way for the lady to be treated, and most people just want her to be safe and ok.

Laughed rather loud at the transcript of the online convos he would have with this person. Read like he was in a relationship with a bot. Indictment is here but does not describe whom this ''woman'' actually might be. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/air-force-employee-indicted-unlawful-disclosure-classified-national-defense-information#:~:text=“As alleged%2C Mr. Slater,Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen

We filed back in July, interview notice was around the end of September for the October interview date. Very fast, and we honestly think it was a fluke.

A person can self sponsor via London if they certainly are employed and make enough or have enough assets. However if the boyfriend is sponsoring you then they are the person to meet that percentage threshold provided they can. If they can't a co-sponsor can also be used.