I play an intense competitive sport which burns easily 5000 calories a week, keep a reasonable diet, and do stretches/cooldowns according to my Dr and physio. Then at home I do a pretty basic routine of squats, push-ups, sit-ups, and stretch band exercises. I don’t smoke and barely drink anymore either.
I’m 38 and that keeps me in great physical condition, healthy weight, nice muscle tone; plus I’m energetic, and mostly injury free. I’ve also noticed I’m aging significantly better than my stagnant friends and colleagues.
kind of. It has “view context”, which doesn’t show the parent, but it also has “more context”, which will. So between the two you can get what you’re looking for in 2 clicks
well yeah for the most part but it has been tough as some of my communities have are non existent here or little activity so i still go through old reddit and look at some subreddits.
I really wish movie makers would drop the ‘smoking is {cool,badass,…whatever} trope.’ I’m happy whenever I find that a whole cast never touches a cigarett on camera (think, How I Met Your Mother or The Big Bang Theory)
How I Met Your Mother literally had an episode only about smoking, revealing that everybody in the main group has smoked at one point, and they all do in that episode.
Besides that, isn't the "smoking is cool" phase in movies a thing of the past already? Most movies don't show anyone smoking, and if, I would say it's most often not the hero, but often some shady guys.
They are eating sandwiches when they are smoking weed. They are smoking actual cigarettes when they are smoking cigarettes. Ted's kids are shocked when they learn this, I don't remember them reacting to the sandwich stories.
I know that episode. And the message, in red bold face across the screen for the entire episode is “Don’t smoke.” That’s different from the on-screen smoking I’m talking about.
Characters can be shady without smoking. Just because they’re not the hero, the appeal of ‘being shady’ and the incentive to look to them as a role model doesn’t vanish.
If I had to guess, I’d say lemmy.ml is overloaded and to try again. I think I uploaded an image a few days ago via Jerboa but I’ve been testing different clients and it’s possible I used Liftoff which is another popular android client you could try to see if it behaves differently.
Also, this is the wrong sub for support questions. See rule 2 in the sidebar.
Logout via Home -> Hamburger menu -> accounts are at the top, click there and sign out. Try signing in, did you win?
If not, sign out again then long-press the app icon from your android launcher screen and select App Info, or find another way to get to the android settings screen for Jerboa and Clear Cache and Clear Storage. Try to log in again, did you win?
If not, sign out again and sign back in. Did you win?
If not, cry because I’m stumped. You could also try liftoff, which if you weren’t logged in prior to yesterday shouldn’t have a cached broken session. Or install the PWA from lemmy.world via Firefox mobile. Or use the brand new Voyager setup at m.lemmy.world again as a PWA via Firefox mobile. Of those, I like Jerboa and liftoff best.
If I’m not asleep by a certain time of night, “hour of the wolf”, then I find it very hard to sleep without something in the background. Usually I use the sound of a babbling brook that I recorded while in Iceland.
Working in a financial call centre, a certain type of person considered us to have stolen their money if they sent us an funds for an investment and refused to send anti-money laundering documents with it, because we also couldn’t return the money without them. Sorry, buddy.
That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.
No, since people can just wire you money. Then, if you return it, they can attempt to use that transaction to prove dirty money is clean. If it is clean in the first place, they should be able to provide documentation.
I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.
If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.
OK, well I disagree that it ‘doesn’t obfuscate anything’. Additional transactions are in a launder’s interest.
But also consider that If unknown monies can just be returned, then a launderer can keep trying, with multiple institutions in multiple ways, until they are successful in investing it.
Speaking for the UK, that’s every financial institution. The whole point is that everyone is required to complete checks to make sure you are who you say you are, if you refuse them then that is an indicator of money laundering. Even just receiving and returning money helps a money launderer establish a paper trail and assists in layering to legitimise the money they gave you. That’s a big no-no, obviously, so it can’t simply be returned without risking significant legal implications from the regulator. All expectations are set up front on this when beginning transactions.
I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.
It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.
Okay, do you work in the UK financial services industry, or an associated regulatory body? Because this was an infrequent circumstance that came as a result of the inattentiveness and belligerence of specific customers. There’s no industry wide issue and this was whilst working for one of the largest investment platforms in the UK.
If you don’t like how things work, then that’s fine, but it was working as intended and would have been no issue if the client had just followed the required, and explained, process. I feel it goes without saying that it is very important to maintain anti-money laundering processes in our financial systems, both legally and conceptually.
I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.
I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.
However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.
If you receive money without verification and return it no questions asked, then you are opening yourself up as an avenue by which people can launder money. Every receipt and retransfer of that money legitimises that money further and makes you party to the crime. The money is in limbo and can be returned as soon as the regulatory needs are met, but to do otherwise just voids the whole process.
At this point they are depriving themselves of the money by refusing to verify themselves, it’s a basic identify and address check. This is an investment company, they weren’t sending us their rent money, they wanted to invest it. They were just pissed that we expected them to follow the same process that every client needs to follow when investing.
It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).
Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.
What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.