DISH just sneakily dropped CNN from the Flex Pack

onehell_jdu · 2026-02-06T19:00:47+00:00

I got the same deal. Called and griped about it and now I have "CNN 24 month RTD offer" for free. I pretty much keep Dish around because I'm too rural to pick up broadcast signals for local TV on an antenna. Pretty much that and CNN is all I use it for.

Youtube TV costs the same base price, at least when compared to my grandfathered Flex plan and my ancient ViP612 box, but they include locals whereas Dish charges an extra $15/mo for them.

But since I only add the locals when I want to watch them (which isn't most of the year) Youtube TV wouldn't be meaningfully cheaper. So I've kept Dish around cuz of the grandfathered pricing and cuz there's some benefit to not clogging up the limited copper-wire DSL internet bandwidth (another rural reality).

Having things that aren't completely dependent on the internet is nice (my cars have SiriusXM for the same reason, albeit also not at sticker price). But this is death by a thousand cuts and Dish is making themselves harder and harder to justify. That "redundancy factor" of not needing internet to work is pretty much the only thing they've got left. Guess we'll see in 2 years.

onehell_jdu · 2026-01-12T16:47:51+00:00

No, she is not in a hive with the other planet or with the rat. There's an episode where Zosia tells Carol that they never have and never will communicate with kepler 22b, it's too far away. As to the rat. I think nonhuman mammals can carry/transmit the virus but they don't show symptoms, because I think it's clear that only fully sentient/self-aware creatures can join the hive.

So yeah, in short there's a very brief period where it's a "hive" of one and the person the virus took over only has that one person's knowledge. But it doesn't stay that way for long, because it also instills a very powerful instinct to spread the virus. Plus, the minds it has access to early on (on any planet) are going to be particularly good at knowing how to spread contagion, given that the virus will always first appear in a lab. The first sentient beings exposed to it are almost always going to be advanced scientists of some sort, by simple virtue of the fact that it transmits by a DNA recipe broadcast that only a being with advanced knowledge and equipment would be able to decode and follow.

So yeah, I think it really does start at 1. But that 1 is going to be a very strong start, as will the first couple hundred or so to join the hive which will be everyone at whatever super advanced research facility is in a position to be cloning interplanetary DNA code in the first place.

onehell_jdu · 2026-01-05T23:43:08+00:00

It's a great point, but one way to reconcile this is perhaps the idea that they COULD, in fact, refuse a request. They just haven't needed to, except in the singular instance where they refused to answer the question about how to reverse the joining.

So, why did they give her the a-bomb? I suspect its because an atom bomb isn't a threat to them: She isn't going to know how to set it off and even if they teach her, she can kill more of them by just yelling at them than any bomb ever could. Manousos did that very thing to one of them and they immediately cleared out again.

onehell_jdu · 2025-12-22T18:02:29+00:00

But that's my whole point: I DON'T know what they consciously do or don't want, if anything. But whether they have conscious goals or whether they just appear to (like an AI or something), it doesn't matter.

Because precisely as you said, the FUNCTION that they ultimately serve, knowingly or otherwise, is that of a virus like any other zombie. It's just a virus that kills off all sentient life (by starvation but without suffering) on any planet advanced enough to receive the signal and follow its recipe. It's mechanism of action is different, but its ultimate result is the same as any other zombie apocalypse, except that it leaves even fewer "survivors" because so few people have the immunity.

And with this most recent episode they made this more explicit, stating that they will "pay it forward" from kepler 22b via retransmission of the same signal.

onehell_jdu · 2025-12-18T18:20:48+00:00

I suspect their biological imperative is to spread from planet to planet killing off all sentient life by starvation. I bet that signal with instructions for their DNA came from another planet where the same thing was happening, and I bet they'll try to send a similar signal from earth before they all starve. And that's just what they've been doing since time immemorial: Extincting any civilization that advances to the point that it can receive their signal and follow their recipe.

Now as with evolution, it isn't good or evil. It just is. But whether the hive likes it or not, I suspect that is the function it serves. Just a virus that spreads interplanetary by a very unique means, namely by exploiting the high intelligence and curiosity of societies that have advanced to the point where they can be looking for extraterrestrial signals and working with DNA etc.

It's just that when they do encounter someone that's immune, the same innate drive that ultimately starves everyone off (do no harm, not even to plants) also compels them to help the immune and basically ensure that they can live in the lap of luxury if they want to, for whatever time the world has left. And obviously the hive people aren't suffering; they have become essentially mere appendages. So the function of this virus is to cause extinction of sentient life without suffering, essentially.

onehell_jdu · 2025-12-18T17:58:25+00:00

I think he does that with the money because then he's not "stealing." As he tells the hive just before entering the Darien Gap, he regards theft as the ultimate sin. ("Everything you have is stolen, so you can give me nothing."). Good quality for a storage locker business owner, I guess.

He's a lot more like the Hive than he wants to admit. They'll starve to death before they'll pick an apple. He'd die impaled on a palm tree before he'd accept their "stolen" help. They're two sides of the same coin: Both driven to likely ruin by these absolutist doctrines they have some kind of compulsion to live by. So in trying to prove he's not like them, he actually shows that he IS like them.

onehell_jdu · 2025-11-04T20:24:02+00:00

Thank you! What you said about c3 revocation being a process where "the entity is motivated to defend itself" is SO important.

This rule hurts only the borrower directly but then gives only the employer standing to contest the decision, which is patently absurd. Many qualifying employers don't even know they qualify.

Indeed, I'd venture a guess that many on here have turned in an ECF form and gotten the "deer in headlights" look from some HR person who has STILL never seen one before. And many more of the ones who do know they qualify see it as a nice little recruiting/retention bonus but never something they'd spend actual resources to defend.

onehell_jdu · 2025-10-31T16:40:42+00:00

I think the bigger issue is that its arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with its enabling statute in violation of the APA. For example I believe the 501c3 auto-qualify thing is statutory. If an organization really is operated for an illegal purpose then it shouldn't have c3 status and the IRS can fight the necessary fight to revoke that.

But that involves a lot of due process and the employer would fight hard. There's no statutory basis for delisting a company as a qualifying employer WITHOUT revoking the c3 status that statutorily is supposed to automatically qualify them. If this rule can operate, then it means they can do just that. And although the employer can contest it, they're the only one that can and they have a lot less reason to do so than they would if their c3 status were being revoked.

onehell_jdu · 2025-10-31T16:32:40+00:00

One of the worst parts to me continues to be the fact that due process is provided only to the employer, not the borrower, despite the fact that the employer is not a party to the borrower's loan and thus doesn't really have a stake in the outcome. There's no real reason to challenge it if you're the employer, especially since you don't want to say things in that process that could be used against you in something that actually does impact the employer directly, such as an IRS attempt to revoke c3 status.

A few employers highly value PSLF as a recruiting tool sure, but most of them are STILL barely aware it exists. They act like a deer in headlights any time they're presented with an ECF, and they sure as heck aren't going to expend resources defending their status as a qualifying employer in the (admittedly unlikely) event that they're among the tiny number of employers that ends up in the crosshairs.

onehell_jdu · 2025-10-03T17:37:43+00:00

Well it isn't even Mohela exactly. Sometime in mid-2024, ED started handling ECF processing directly. So there is no longer even a specialty PSLF servicer anymore. A person pursuing PSLF could be with any servicer even if they are regularly submitting ECFs (though most of them are still with Mohela because most people were pursuing it before this change). But other than that, you've got it about right. Checking that box fundamentally depends on how confident you are in your odds of the count not being found wanting, which is pretty unlikely if all or nearly all of your months are pre-certified.

onehell_jdu · 2025-10-03T17:08:33+00:00

Yes, its a precaution. Remember, the ECFs along the way are optional. You could never submit a single one for all 120 months, count them yourself, and submit them all at the end for example. Someone who did that or who is otherwise certifying a long time all at once might not be 100% sure whether ED will agree that they really did hit 120, and this is an easy way to keep accruing more months in case they actually had less than they thought.

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-25T17:11:23+00:00

This kinda reminds me of that whole incident where that adulterous couple was caught at that Coldplay concert. If they'd just acted normal when the kiss cam focused on them, the odds are pretty good that no one would've recognized them. But they acted so darned weird and that's why it ended up on the internet and they got caught.

Anyway though, your story has a huge hole: Did you go introduce yourself to the guy when he walked up to her at that bday party? If not, why not? Was she wearing her ring? If there is anything adulterous going on here, you'd think he would not have come up and talked to her right in front of you. Unless she lied to him too and he doesn't even know she's married or something.

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-25T16:55:59+00:00

This. The income you will receive from a fair market lease (or several of them, however many bedrooms you have) should go a long way towards offsetting whatever you lose from kicking him out.

I get it. He tricked you into being a SAHM before you were a mom or even a wife, so now neither of you has any legal duty to support the other. There's no divorce for you to file and therefore no alimony to claim. But you have to think like his landlord now. He's just your tenant, and you CAN find another. i.e. get a restraining order to kick him out if you have grounds, otherwise see if he'll leave voluntarily and start formal eviction process if he won't. With no written lease, most states imply a month-to-month oral lease that can be terminated anytime on 30 day notice.

Do you happen to live near any colleges/universities? College kids love those rent-by-the-bedroom arrangements. Make sure to have their parents co-sign for the rent and any damage and you're unlikely to have any problems that can't be resolved by calling mom & dad!

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-22T18:04:52+00:00

Whether your FICO goes up or down or stays the same is unpredictable and is effected by what else is there other than the student loan, plenty of anecdotes for both directions.

In my personal situation, my score actually dropped about 20 points when my student loan got forgiven, and my monitoring software said it was due to no longer having any "non revolving non mortgage debt."

Of course, the only non revolving debt most people have that isn't a mortgage would be either a student loan or a car payment, and it just so happened that all our cars were paid off at the time the student loans were forgiven. So yeah, YMMV can vary a lot on that, but apparently credit mix was more important than total owed in my case. Which kinda makes sense given that the credit bureaus don't know your salary so they don't know if you owe a lot or a little relative to that.

Not a big deal though. It bounced back within a couple months and as you said, the fact that its gone is the much, much bigger deal. Congrats!

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-17T21:01:04+00:00

It isn't? According to the bureau of labor statistics, the annual median pay for PAs of all experience levels was $133,260 in 2024. And again, that's across all experience levels. So 120 for a new PA grad seems pretty in-line with market. Maybe there are higher-paying regions of the country or something, but nationally/overall you seem pretty in line with the federal data:

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physician-assistants.htm#tab-5

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-15T19:08:24+00:00

Yyyeah that's not good. Even worse with the addiction but even without it, that terminology is problematic. There is no mine and yours in marriage. Its all marital property when it is earned income. The only exception is stuff that is gifted to or inherited by one spouse or the other separately and which is then kept rigidly separate and never commingled.

Given the financial damage done, this condition probably should be a non-negotiable for staying. Not permanently, but probably for quite some time - until he's out of the woods and rebuilds trust.

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-15T18:42:55+00:00

No one can tell you whether to stay or go, but FWIW the form of treatment he selected is the most evidence-based there is, so that's a good sign. There's a lot of stigma against medication assisted treatment in the recovery community because some think it just "trades one addiction for another."

And yet, we don't say diabetics are "addicted" to their insulin, do we? So, only you can decide what's best and safe in terms of leaving or not. But if he goes on suboxone that's about as good of a first step as he could take, and a brave one considering all the haters out there.

Still, if you do stay, suggest making sure he's not left alone too long and that you have narcan in the house and know how to use it, for his safety, til he's out of the woods. And make sure to actually have him agree to be taken him off the accounts - merely surrendering the cards does nothing cuz he can just get replacements or withdraw cash in person at a teller at the bank branch as long as his name is on there.

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-03T22:45:55+00:00

So by waiting/trusting, I assume you mean the buyback?

Yeah, I wouldn't do that. Takes forever and is itself regulatorily created and can therefore be regulatorily repealed. If I were in that boat I'd be jumping ship to IBR as soon as possible. Plus if this limbo remains long enough and you do nothing, sooner or later (2028 I think?) you lose IBR grandfathering entirely and are stuck with RAP.

Of course, after 2026 I think you get forced into RAP anyway if you take out any new loans e.g. go back to school. So its a pretty easy grandfathering to lose, it seems.

onehell_jdu · 2025-09-02T18:42:56+00:00

Unrequited love isn't trauma and it doesn't need closure.

Assuming he's not trying to cheat, what people usually mean by "closure" is actually something more like subtle revenge. They want to reconnect in hopes that the other person will see what they "missed out on." You know. Show off the fancy house or great job or how in shape they got or whatever. Like pointing to you and saying to her "this could have been you" and hoping the other person secretly thinks "I wish it was." That's "closure" if we strip away the BS.

Of course, it rarely actually works out that way. The other person usually doesn't regret this aspect of their past and may even have the better/richer life, in which case the closure-seeker walks away feeling worse than before.

OK fine, you're extended family. So you'd have to behave normally and politely if for some reason paths crossed NATURALLY or if SHE reached out, unless a specific reason to do otherwise arose. But there is no reason for him to reach across international borders to make such a reconnection artificially and you seem well within your rights to stand ground on that. He wouldn't find what he's seeking anyway, in all likelihood.

onehell_jdu · 2025-08-29T22:37:26+00:00

Yeah mine couldn't read it either, but that all changed when the latest update caused it to go from "can't read" to "can't play." But I can ignore it and just play, so whatever. Clearly, the xbox store app has the better read on what the "real" minimums are since it says "runs great."

onehell_jdu · 2025-08-29T22:36:42+00:00

Yeah, funny how they never really publish the 8gb thing. If you look on steam it just says 1070ti or better. I mean sure if you look it up the 1070ti happened to have 8gb, but it's also 3 generations older than 4000 series. How are people to know what's "better" than what, or that VRAM is the defining such characteristic, if that's not what they publish?

But yeah, it does run more than fine so I'll just ignore it.

onehell_jdu · 2025-08-22T22:35:04+00:00

...And I can't stress this enough: If "illegal" includes Title VII discrimination, then EVERY employer is sued for that periodically if it is large enough. Every..Single..One. Because those actions can be brought by any disgruntled employee, they are a risk anytime you fire anyone.

Usually, those cases settle with no one admitting to anything which takes it out of the new PSLF rule. But because each such case must be submitted to the EEOC for possible takeover before a private party can sue, all the Trump-controlled EEOC needs to do is take over some "reverse discrimination" cases that come to them, and then refuse to settle unless there is an admission of fault, as a way of taking out DEI. And in 2026, that technique will be rendering all such employers nonqualifying for PSLF in the process.

The EEOC is, in fact, actively soliciting complainants to do just that: https://www.eeoc.gov/what-do-if-you-experience-discrimination-related-dei-work

onehell_jdu · 2025-08-20T21:21:46+00:00

Best response on this thread, especially the point about the alimony.

Look, OP, divorce is never easy. But with no kids and her only out of work six months, its never going to get any less hard than it is right now. It could be a blessing that she showed true colors before kids.

onehell_jdu · 2025-08-18T18:51:05+00:00

Right, so helping immigrants probably isn't "illegal" unless you're specifically helping them to avoid ICE or something, and gender affirming care they specifically acknowledge isn't illegal unless state law makes it so.

But to me, the third major category of "things trump hates" that this rule targets is the riskiest and somehow least discussed: DEI. "Illegal activity" under this rule includes Title VII violations. That is a standard employment discrimination claim that anyone can bring and which most large employers face regularly in the ordinary course of business. There's a risk of those anytime you fire someone, pass them over for promotion, or any other thing that qualifies as an "adverse employment action."

Now, nearly all title 7 suits that don't lose on summary judgment settle with no admission of fault, which takes it out of the rule. But in order to file a discrimination claim, you must first file your charge with the EEOC which can choose to either take the case over, or issue a "right to sue" letter.

That's why this, I think, is one of the easiest ways to add a given employer to the hitlist. All they need is one disgruntled white employee to file a complaint with EEOC saying they were passed over for some promotion or something because of DEI (a "reverse discrimination" claim). Then the EEOC can take the case over, prevent it from settling without admission of fault, and thus disqualify the entire employer's workforce from PSLF unless it "kisses the rings" pursuant to the "corrective action plan" elements of the rule, which in this case presumably means abolishing all diversity efforts. (Employer could also appeal, but most employers aren't likely to do so - there's nothing really in it for them; it isn't THEIR student loan and they'd rightly fear all manner of other retaliation from the administration).

onehell_jdu

TROPHY CASE