I did a quick Google search, and I’m guessing miso is the ulcer treatment misoprostol that you shouldn’t take during pregnancy. A d and c is a dilation and cutterage, an invasive surgical procedure that removes something from the uterus. In this instance the something was a nonviable pregnancy that went awry from possibly the medication (or other factors).

Admittedly i was also confused about miso, and immediately thought soup? I was extremely incorrect

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.

To be fair, about that women’s world cup team, if i recall correctly it was a PR move to play an exhibition match with those kids and they were not trying very hard to win. I don’t think they would truly lose to U-15 if it was, for example, a tournament.

Your overall point has merit but i think that specific example gets overused a bit.

Half of all marriages, which include people who have been married multiple times. For example, if you have 5 married couples, 4 are on their first marriage and the last couple is on their 6th marriage, then on average 50% of the marriages in this scenario failed. But it doesn’t apply to everyone in the same way. Some people even remarry the same person.

The median is much lower.

Not a reddit fan anymore, but this makes me think of r/portugalcykablyat

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.

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 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.

Good call, i forgot about that one! Also i just looked up stills of walking tall and the rundown, and he had hair in the rundown, and a buzzcut in walking tall, so add another movie that could be just like the ones pictured.

I would guess the rundown and walking tall. Both are actually decent

Not to spoil it, but edward norton does a good job of playing an unlikeable main character. It was silly but fun and worth the watch i think.

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.”

While i can agree that this encounter needs some work (would’ve been cool if the dragon could try to persuade you to mess with the required NPC), but i don’t know if it’s significant enough of an interaction to call a true fumble. Larian also isn’t above going in and fixing things or making things better, as they’re continuously adding and improving content.

Also, from my perspective, this game is supposed to be a baldurs gate storyline, not D&D 5e, the motion picture the video game. So for me, i was really glad to see them going hard into the lore, and this one felt pretty good to me.

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

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that a more detailed logo is going to automatically be good in this context. People can complain about lack of detail, and also be disappointed if more detail is poorly executed.

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.

His goal was to point out that it wasn’t worth it to mess with him, he’s going to fight back hard and take you out. It was about deterring him from wanting to ever pick on him. Right, his goal wasn’t to permanently disfigure him, but to establish a permanent idea that it isn’t worth it to pick on him