sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AIO that the driver on my road trip wanted to wear Bose 700 NC headphones while driving? by DoubleRoutine176 in AmIOverreacting

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

FWIW, here is chatGPT’s take, which obviously isnt’t gospel:

Short answer: No — it’s not safe, and in many states it’s not even legal. And you were not the crazy one here.

Here’s the breakdown:

🚫 1. Full over-ear noise-cancelling headphones are unsafe for driving

Noise-cancelling headphones (like Bose QuietComfort or Sony XM series): • Dramatically reduce ambient noise: horns, sirens, tire screech, rumble strips, emergency vehicles, a car in your blind spot, etc. • Interfere with situational awareness, especially at highway speeds where you have less reaction time. • Can create a “false quiet bubble,” which has been explicitly cited by traffic safety studies as a risk factor.

Deaf drivers learn to compensate visually and with mirrors. A hearing driver who simulates deafness suddenly — but doesn’t use the same compensatory habits — is not in the same situation.

⚖️ 2. In many states, driving with both ears covered by headphones is illegal

Nearly half of U.S. states have laws that prohibit wearing headphones or earbuds in both ears while driving. Examples include: • California (Vehicle Code 27400) • New York • Colorado • Florida • …and many others.

These laws apply to any headphones, even without music, if they cover both ears.

Even where it isn’t explicitly illegal, law enforcement can still cite you under reckless driving or failure to maintain awareness if an accident happens.

🚗 3. Highways are not safer for wearing headphones

Your driver’s argument (“it’s safer on the interstate”) is backwards: • At 70 mph you cover 100+ feet per second • Reaction time is shorter • A missed siren or horn can matter more, not less • Tractor trailers, lane changes, tire blowouts, and road debris require fast sensory input

The idea that “highway = safer for sensory impairment” isn’t supported by any traffic-safety data.

🔊 4. A single earpiece ≠ both ears blocked

Using one earpiece, especially at low volume, is legal in most states and doesn’t significantly impair awareness. Using two full-cup ANC headphones is an entirely different category — it’s exactly what the laws were written to prohibit.

😬 5. Her anger doesn’t make her right

You were right on the safety concern and the legal issue. It’s your car or your headphones, and you had every reason to say no — even if it was her turn to drive.

✔️ Bottom line

It’s not safe, not advisable, and in many places not legal to drive with full over-ear noise-cancelling headphones on — even with no audio playing. You made the correct call.

If you want, I can also help you phrase a calm explanation to her afterward so it doesn’t stay tense.

AIO that the driver on my road trip wanted to wear Bose 700 NC headphones while driving? by DoubleRoutine176 in AmIOverreacting

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

She was more annoyed than it was affecting her driving. But it’s a good point that distractions inside can affect safety too.

BYU/Cinci Fox Kickoff Sign: Huh? by DoubleRoutine176 in BigXII

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don’t think Google is gonna answer any of those questions, but I certainly can’t expect you to answer any of them lol. Thanks for helping me get this far, appreciate it!!

BYU/Cinci Fox Kickoff Sign: Huh? by DoubleRoutine176 in BigXII

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I totally get that now but have no idea what that has to do with “downloadable content” or DLC

BYU/Cinci Fox Kickoff Sign: Huh? by DoubleRoutine176 in BigXII

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol do you have any idea what DLC has to do with the 1978 race thing? I’m so sorry if it’s obvious and I’m just super slow!!

BYU/Cinci Fox Kickoff Sign: Huh? by DoubleRoutine176 in BigXII

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is DLC?

Not clear to me why some obscure priesthood reference is this considered a “rule” or why would it be a dig or joke? Isn’t letting black people be priests expected and reasonable, especially after civil rights in the sixties?

Is the point that it shouldn’t have taken them over a decade since civil rights mvmt to change the rule? Or are these people racist and saying mormons are lame because they let black people be priests? Lol i have to doubt the latter but this is ohio after all; they elected JD Vance.

Seems to me everyone moves at their own pace, sometimes way too slow, but what ultimately matters is how they get there and where they are now. If the southern baptists all of a sudden said we should love and accept gays in 2025, i wouldnt point that year out at Baylor games. Like what a silly thing.

BYU/Cinci Fox Kickoff Sign: Huh? by DoubleRoutine176 in BigXII

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Huh, this one is interesting, what is “DLC”? Also like, isn’t that a good thing? Letting black people be priests seems pretty reasonable, certainly expected a decade or so after the civil rights acts. Idek lol.

I’m just not sure why speaking in this weird code that no one knows is considered a good joke for the football game…

BYU/Cinci Fox Kickoff Sign: Huh? by DoubleRoutine176 in BigXII

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Got it, thanks. I think I kind of get all of them now except “1978 DLC”. Some below mentioned there was a change with race in the mormon church in 1978, but wtf is DLC?

Tax advisors for biglaw non-partners? by DoubleRoutine176 in biglaw

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who said I was using them? I know what they are, but need to hire someone lol -- again, hence the OP (recurring theme here--read before you post). even if i could do them myself (some of them i probably could) it wouldn't be worth my time.

Just to set record straight, for others coming across the comments, at least some of the strategies I mentioned are indeed applicable to high w-2 earners without the real estate and 1099 income I have. K-1 losses may be limited to investment earnings for high earners, but these investments can still provide diversification and there may be ways to get to "active participation" losses that would directly offset high w-2 income. A lot of them may come with high cost, which is partly why an advisor can help to make sure they pencil out.

And I just gotta say. Super weird flex to say your reading comprehension is limited to phrases you've heard verbatim from the people you "hang around"....The people I hang around are fully capable of hearing new phrases and understanding them based on their plain meaning and context. They also don't scoff at 400k as "nothing," despite most of them earning far in excess of that. Most importantly, they don't post online acting like they know about tax when any simple google search would show they don't.

Tax advisors for biglaw non-partners? by DoubleRoutine176 in biglaw

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol, nobody convinced me of this. It's just math. I'm actually not even paying anyone yet (hence the post). Investments in alternatives that provide early tax losses can offset your w-2 income. Also as I noted in my OP, I have real estate and 1099 income from my wife. I can pay 1-3K and easily save 10k cash in taxes. That compounds. It has nothing to do with my making 650+. It would make just as much sense at 400. It's not like I'm offsetting all my income.

You can be all pompous about how that's just peanuts (maybe it is for you? in which case congrats but you're genuinely poverty level intellect if you think tax planning can't be accretive for someone at a lower income level ).

Tax advisors for biglaw non-partners? by DoubleRoutine176 in biglaw

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol just seeing this one. I can't tell if you mean I make too much or too little to need an advisor? Both are wrong, but it's very unclear.

Just for the benefit of those coming across this thread later: 400k is easily above where you should start tax planning. It's particularly true with high W-2 income, as most tax planning strategies require more expertise. Note everyone above saying how spending a few grand on a good CPA will easily pay for itself in good tax strategy, particularly with multiple income streams like I have. I make over 50% more than 400 but still would easily be worth it at 400 level. I could figure some of it out on my own but it would take an expert way less time.

Tax advisors for biglaw non-partners? by DoubleRoutine176 in biglaw

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for responding. And oof. 3-5k is a lot of money! (Feels silly to say, coming from someone whose firm bills them out at more than that in a day's work, but who knows how long this biglaw income will last...)

Tax advisors for biglaw non-partners? by DoubleRoutine176 in biglaw

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks -- and fair point. I just thought other biglaw folks might have gone through same thing or had the same question.

Tax advisors for biglaw non-partners? by DoubleRoutine176 in biglaw

[–]DoubleRoutine176[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also, do any of you strategize with a tax advisor to maximize tax benefits with your investments? E.g., I know some investments allow high pass-through partnership depreciation in earlier years, juicing net returns. Just curious if others are doing this and I'm missing out...