Brought to you by my discovery that some people think that “the customer is always right” isn’t the slogan of a long-dead department store, but rather it’s an actual call the cops law.
I used to work in CS for a cell phone provider. The most memorable call I had from that experience was a woman who spent over an hour yelling at me because her daughter had ordered a $1200 phone upgrade without permission. She was absolutely sure that it was illegal for us to charge her for that, because her daughter was not authorized to use her card, and because her daughter was under 18.
She didn’t want to return the phone, because she didn’t want her daughter to hate her. She just didn’t want us to charge her for it.
That sounds like an improbable attempt to leverage the notion that minors can’t enter into a legally binding contract into a loophole to get anything for free by simply having your kid order it.
This one simple trick will get you any product for free! Retailers hate it!
Indeed, retailers do hate this one.
If the kid can’t enter into the contract surely the phone wouldn’t belong to them though?
I see where the daughter got her intelligence from.
No, I don’t have to accept a digital photo of your license as ID. No, your birth certificate is not proof of identity; it doesn’t have your picture.
But the absolute worst one: Not only is this a beat-up photocopy of a foreign ID card with no photo; it also clearly states that you are 19 and even if I accepted this document as valid identification, which I can’t, I still could not legally serve you alcohol.
During my very brief stint as a security guard at a casino I ran into that last part way more than I ever would have expected. It is astounding how many people do not understand that the laws from their home country do not apply in the country they are visiting.
The foreigner in question almost certainly did not know the age was 21. This happened to me in the US. Sitting with my mum and sister in the hotel bar, having a quiet beer. Then I get asked for my ID and it all gets very confusing. “But I’m 18, what’s the problem?”
Takes the drink away and hands you a gun and car keys.
I often think living in the UK is boring, then I remember this kind of thing and feel a whole lot better about the situation
boring
Boring is good. I too would like to live in a boring village, Just loaf around and watch leaves fall or something.
What an earth would be the point in going to uni if you can’t drink?
Old enough to kill but not for drinking.
Wait, you can‘t drink in the US even with permission from your parents?
in some places it’s legal to drink while underage if it’s in your own house and with a parent’s permission
Very few states allow it, and none of them in public. It’s only ever allowed in a private residence (usually the residence of your parent/guardian) while under the direct supervision of your parent/guardian. Even then it can become a crime if somehow the law gets involved and they feel like pressing charges.
What I take from this is that birth certificates should have photographs.
Exactly. But before they can issue it the photograph needs to be submitted electronically and allow a 3 week processing time prior to birth, with a passport style photo…
They are good for life. If they had a photo, the image would become outdated and therefore they’d likely need an expiration date. I don’t want to periodically pay to renew something else.
Oh I don’t think it should be updated. People can look at the baby picture and make a decision if it looks like you or not.
Lmao I work for a bank and people try to pass off so many random documents as valid ID. In fact, it’s becoming harder to even depend on physical IDs considering how good and ubiquitous fakes are getting
Was working retail in an area that had a local bag ordinance that required businesses to charge customers for bags. A man came up to the register and when I asked him if he wanted a bag for a few cents extra, he looked at me like I was crazy and was like, “You charge for bags?” I explained that it was required by the government and he just kinda scoffed. I thought that was it, but as he opened his wallet to pay, he flashed what turned out to be a police badge at me from another city some ways away, gave me a look, and said something along the lines of “I think I know what the law is.” I just finished up the transaction and got him going asap, blown away at the insecurity displayed. It was such a bizarre powermove over what was only a few cents extra for something completely optional.
I work in law enforcement and this is called “tinning” when you show your badge unnecessarily. My personal rule of thumb is if I’m dealing with you and you tin me then I am 100% giving you a ticket now.
I appreciate that there’s a word for it.
ACAB
American police: they think they know what the law is.
If cops had to pass the bar to be a cop, there wouldn’t be any cops.
ACAB
Had a guy tell me he was going to sue me, personally not the store, and financially ruin me because I told him to put on a mask in like April 2020. He didnt do either. I’m sure anyone who worked with the public during that time has some story lol.
I still can’t wrap my head around why certain political factions latched onto not wearing a mask as a political rallying cry. Like…why do you want to kill the people you need to vote for you? I can’t understand.
My guess is it was part of a two-pronged election strategy. First, make COVID denial part of the GOP’s political platform, so that they’re more likely to be performatively reckless, including waiting on line in crowded polling places where no one is masked (which goes further to scare people away that were actually taking COVID seriously), while people taking precautions like voting by mail or by voting early when it’s less crowded would be disproportionately likely to vote Democratic.
Then, pass unreasonable regulations like “mail-in and early votes can’t be counted until all votes cast on Election Day are counted”, while pressuring election workers to post results as early as possible, skewing votes in their favor, or, failing that, point to the fact that the votes against them were counted later as evidence of fraud.
Ok that actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
point to the fact that the votes against them were counted later as evidence of fraud.
It was stated in some documents or something that were released that this was the plan. I don’t know about the entire anti-mask plan, but they absolutely knew early/mail-in would skew Democrat, because it usually does and covid made it worse, so they knew they could sell the narrative that the sudden increase in Democrat vote averages must be cheating somehow. I don’t know how Fox News still exists after they sold this lie. Hopefully the people who fell for it eventually realize how wrong it was. It’s going to keep being true (probably not the the same level without covid though), so they’ll either belief every election is fucked or that they were manipulated.
Making a loooot of assumptions here. Like that conservatives know how to think for themselves, or that right wing fanatics have any understanding of how reality works.
Have you ever seen that movie Don’t Look up? It’s a great watch. Even in the face of a planet destroying comet heading for earth, the conservative were all “You know what, I’m FOR all the jobs the comet will provide! Don’t look up! Don’t look up!”
Not really. They were told by their talking heads that they should be against masks but that doesn’t make sense. The powerful people need the votes right? We haven’t descended fully into fascism yet, just mostly…so why would they push that narrative knowing it would kill people who would vote for them? Was it a calculated risk to attempt to kill more of the other guys? I’m just confused about how that worked in their minds, and why they wouldn’t have looked for some other narrative that wouldn’t endanger their voters so much. I get that they don’t care about the people who cast the votes, but they do care about the votes.
They thought that cities, which lean heavily blue, would be more affected. This was the case at first, until we got a handle on things, particularly vaccines. Then their strategy backfired and killed more reds.
From all the things to make political why mask? Is taking care of your health a leftist move
Caring about other people is leftist and woke, and no god fearing american patriot would ever give a fuck about another person, ever! Thats communism! /s
Honestly I think some of this stuff is a way to filter out people with critical thinking skills the same way scam emails are often deliberately spelled wrong to filter out people who wouldn’t have fallen for the scam to begin with.
I think the logic goes something like this…
Masks are annoying and a hassle and everyone hates them.
But you also hate democrats and every major or minor inconvenience in your life is always their fault.
Since wearing a mask is something one might choose or not choose to do, it is therefore a choice issue and therefore a freedom issue, which is guaranteed to you by the constitution. And hence it’s a political issue.
Very simple.
Buddy I think you just cracked the code of why it’s political
Also freedom of choice but only for this specific thing ONLY nothing else
Funnily enough, I think watching “The Last of Us” made me understand what these people were afraid of.
Personally, my mind doesn’t go in that direction when I see the government doing something, but I guess for some people that is their first thought. They think that when you’re temporarily not allowed to congregate in public, it’s a slippery slope into a permanent lockdown state.
The government isn’t supposed to tell them what to do, they are good people.
In order to consolidate power the Trump allies multiple factions of right wing nut jobs. I one of which is the anti-vax group. Most of the covid knee-jerk reaction was to appease this group. The leaders need to keep the loyalty of the groups, so when a pet issue of a group comes up in the main public discourse the sub-group demands the leaders act, the leaders then tell the rest of their followers what to think and do.
At one point I worked for an electronics repair shop fixing mostly phones, laptops, and game consoles. We actually had a great manager and we all just enjoyed fixing things, so we really weren’t out to rip people off like they usually came in thinking. Our store policy was even if we didn’t fix it, we didn’t charge you, and we stood by it.
One day a lady drops off her laptop with a cracked screen. Part of the screen was still working, but the majority was non functional and would surely worsen over time. We diagnose the laptop and give the customer a quote and she agrees to the repair. I let her know that once we start the repair, the previous screen will be destroyed during the removal process since it has no more integrity from being broken, she’s fine with that. We get the part in a few days later and I start the repair. At this point the woman’s husband calls - literally while I have the cracked screen half out of the laptop - and says stop the repair and return it how it was. We were like, we’re happy to give the laptop back, but unfortunately we’ve already started the repair and while removing the old screen it broke more so it would end up being returned in a worse condition.
This fucking guy screamed at me over the phone about how what we were doing was illegal, how we never got proper authorization blah blah. We offered to even do the repair at cost, but no that wasn’t good enough. When the husband and wife finally came into the store to pick up the laptop, he left screeching about how he was going to sue us. Unsurprisingly we never heard from him again.
how we never got proper authorization
Why do I feel like this is a domestic abuse situation. Husband broke her laptop in order to reduce her attempts to communicate with others? She goes to get it repaired, he finds out.
I think it’s the belief that the wife can’t authorise the repair…
My thinking was that there was something in that computer that he was trying to hide.
One thing I learned from working in customer service is the amount of people that have a lawyer on retainer. Better be careful!
We developed a very effective strategy for this at a furniture store I used to work at; the moment the customer makes any suggestion of legal action, all our employees were trained to immediately say “I understand. Have a good day” and end the conversation on the spot. The unhappy customer immediately tries to press the issue, because what they want is for us to magically teleport a couch here from China or whatever, and at that point the employee says “I’m sorry but as you’ve notified us that this issue is now the subject of a pending legal action any further communication will have to go though our legal team.”
Repeating this a couple more times would inevitably lead to the customer admitting that they were bluffing.
This is my favorite thing to do.
Second lawyer is mentioned, shut down all communication and offer only “Due to your pending litigation, Please direct all correspondence to our lawyers as we are not authorized to discuss legal matters.”
I’d hate to work directly with customers, but pulling the rug from under idiots sound really satisfying.
Is the number close to zero?
Damn I’m sorry you had to put up with that. And I feel bad for the wife for being married to him.
Worked in bars as a supervisor for 3 years, almost everytime I decided to cut a patron off (usually for being too drunk, or for being an arsehole) I would be met with “you can’t do that, it’s illegal, you HAVE to serve me”
No, I don’t. Service is at my discretion, and it wouldn often be unethical for me to continue to provide you with more alcohol, endangering yours and others around you further.
Funny because it’s really quite the opposite in most places. You’re legally required not to serve intoxicated patrons. If you overserve people and they go off and kill someone, you could be liable in my state. I think that’s pretty bullshit but it surprises me that folks would argue to the exact opposite. Of course, why should that surprise me?
Ehhh, I think it’s probably more likely that you can’t discriminate on specific factors like age, religion, sex, skin colour, etc.
I just can’t see “most places” having laws that force you to deal with any and all aholes in customer service. Could I have a source on that, please? I have never heard of that before.
Being legally required to not serve intoxicated people is pretty much the standard across Australian states and NZ.
I misunderstood based off of the first sentence of that comment. My mistake.
What are you asking for a source for? They didn’t say that the law requires you to serve people.
They said the law requires that you NOT over-serve people.
Yay! I have one. We had a customer grab a product from a spot on the shelf next to where it was normally stocked. The spots have labels indicating the price of the item. This person argued that because the product was in the wrong spot they should only have to pay the price of the item that should have been there. The prices also include the name of the product. The reason the the product was taking up space in the next spot was because we had sold out due to the item being deeply discounted because we were discontinuing it. When we explained that they began accusing us of false advertising and threatened to call the better business bureau. They admitted that they knew it was the wrong product but insisted that because it wasn’t shelved in the right spot that was some kind of loophole. I gave a firm no and then they asked to speak to a manager. I fucked off it was taken care of.
I also work front end, I’ve had sooo many people give me this shit.
#1 Not advertising. Advertising is what you see before you enter the building. Some stores don’t even have shelf labels.
#2 Do you think someone can walk up to your garage sale and slap their own sticker that says $1 and demand you sell them a TV for $1? No, you can refuse to sell your own shit whenever you want. It’s YOUR shit. You can burn it in front of them if you felt like it.
Not really the case in most of the EU.
It doesn’t count obviously if it’s a misplaced item and the price is clearly labelled for another item. However, if a store leaves discount stickers on some product late, or mislabels some price, they are obligated to sell at that price. There is caveat that it only works if the price is believable, but I managed to get a ton of shrimp that just arrived at a Lidl 90% off one time. Family was eating shrimp for weeks.
My dad and I were shopping at Home Depot one December and found a small Christmas decoration I wanted. When we got it to the register the cashier couldn’t find a tag or sticker on it. Normally I’d go get another one with a tag but this was the only one they had. The cashier tried looking it up through the computer system but still couldn’t figure it out. She handed it to us and told us it was free because it was the store’s fault that she couldn’t find the price.
We’ve been enjoying that decoration for years, my mom still puts it in the middle of her kitchen display. And we always remember how nice that cashier was to us.
Where in the EU would that be the case?
AFAIK a legally binding contract only happens once you actually exchange money for a product. That should be true pretty much all over the world as long as there’s actual laws/customs regulating this process.
Any prices/offers or whatever else you might see in or around a store are in no way legally binding no matter how believable the prices are.
Otherwise anyone can just run around with a 10/20/50% off sticker and force any store to sell them whatever they want for much cheaper.
At least in Germany that’s the case.
Every contract is legally binding in Germany, even verbal contracts or in this case price tags (to some degree). Obviously other laws may invalidate them and verbally is hard to prove. For example if you advertise onetime off prices for a week to lure people in the store you have to have a reasonable amount of these items to be available through the week, otherwise people are eligible to get the offer or compensation.
Adding your own sticker would probably be fraud and easy to prove for the store (not matching sticker, no plans to reduce prices, …).
Every contract is legally binding in Germany, even verbal contracts or in this case price tags (to some degree).
This seems to be contrary to what I can find. A price tag is not a contract but an “invitatio ad offerendum” so an invitation for the customer to make an offer at the checkout. Then a contract is created when the cashier accepts this price after scanning it and matching it with the price in their system. Therefore it’s not the price tag that counts but the price in the cash register. I could be wrong or the law has changed in the last 1-2 years, but I found this information here (sorry they are all in german):
https://www.mdr.de/ratgeber/recht/preisbindung-supermarkt-regal-kasse-100.html
https://www.test.de/Verbraucherrecht-Regal-oder-Kasse-welcher-Preis-gilt-5115345-0/
Yeah you’re right, looks like I’ve mixed up something.
Otherwise anyone can just run around with a 10/20/50% off sticker and force any store to sell them whatever they want for much cheaper.
Or they can just steal it, it’s just as legal. In my experience this is law in a lot of the EU, including Germany and a bunch of Eastern European places.
In my case, it wasn’t a misplaced 90% off sticker, it was just that the normal price tag on the shelf was printed with one zero less. It was also a “premium” item at the time, so the price wasn’t that much off, just cheap. It wasn’t just a bunch of shrimp, it was ready made, cleaned, arranged into a neat circle with dipping sauces in the middle.
On the other hand, I had a thing where Microsoft was introducing Skype to a country where the local currency was around 200:1 to the dollar. They messed up the currency conversion, and it defaulted back to 1:1, giving everyone a 99.5% discount on consumer electronics. It was obviously not honoured, and the law was clear, so no lawsuits either.
I used to work in a supermarket in the UK about 20 years ago. The store is not legally required to sell anything to anyone (as long as it’s not because they are discriminating against a protected characteristic), so the workaround for the store was to say that the item was no longer for sale and to remove it from the shop floor (presumably fixing the labeling, then putting the stock back out)
deleted by creator
Reminds me of a really old Saturday Night Live “commercial” for a supermarket price gun. They showed a person shopping for all sorts of premium goods (steaks, etc) and re-labeling them all as something like $0.79, and the cashier blindly ringing them up for that price.
Granted that was from probably 30+ years ago now…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=k1S6UMhQKkc&pp=ygUYU25sIHByaWNlIGd1biBjb21tZXJjaWFs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Here’s example language from New York City law:
All consumer commodities … shall have … a sign at the point of display which indicates the item to which the price refers, provided that this information is plainly visible at the point of display for sale of the items so indicated.
So it is a question of whether the product spilling over to an adjacent shelf still has a “plainly visible” price tag. If it were on a wrong shelf entirely it would not, and here there is some ambiguity, but city inspectors can be pretty strict and demand items stay within the lines. If it is decided the price was not plainly visible, the store may be fined $25-$100 per violation per day. In any case, the customer would not be calling “better business bureau” (which is just yelp from before the internet), but the Commissioner of Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. And the customer would also not get to pay the lower price for the other product if it is clear it is a different product, as the customer admits they knew. (The question would be different if there were ambiguity).
However, the point that I specifically object to is the opinion that it was preposterous for the customer to claim some legal right in this situation, the implication that no such right exists. The language of the law does exist (at least in some jurisdictions), and violations do carry legal penalties.
Lots of people buy Emotional Support Animal vests online and think that means they can bring them into restaurants. Nope, FDA is very clear about it: trained service animals only. ESAs actually have almost no special privileges over regular pets. Basically the only exceptions they get are against pet policies/fees on leases.
I watched a guy get kicked out of the Costco food court area because he kept saying his dog was an “licensed” ESA. The Costco manager busted out a little card with the relevant federal laws for a service animal and listed all the rules the dog was breaking by lunging at people, not staying under the table, and barking it’s head off at a real service animal that was just sitting calmly under it’s owners table like nothing was going on around it.
Even if your dog is truly a licensed and trained service animal, but you’ve allowed it to continously break all the rules it’s supposed to follow in a private business. They can still kick you out if your dog doesn’t behave like it’s supposed to be behaving. That’s why it’s a big no no to interact with working animals with their vests on and for owners to let their working animals to break the rules repeatedly by misbehaving and never correcting them.
People who do that I find so annoying and honestly pathetic. It’s like they think they’re better than everyone else and can do whatever they want.
I once had a b2b customer (store owner) tell me that having different pricing for wholesale and retail customers was racist.
I’m pretty sure meant discriminatory but even that doesn’t make much sense.
It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.
The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.
He’s absolutely correct.
He said it was racist, so I’m gonna stick with he’s not correct.
The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad.
I am aware of the formal and common uses of the word.
You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.
If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?
The customer called it racist. The person you were responding to said that discrimination would be a better descriptor, but also that the customer was still silly for thinking they had a case because of it, regardless of what words the customer used.
It takes a certain kind of person to get upset that a store isn’t treating you like an employee. What’s next, demanding access to the private areas? Wait, people already do that too :(
The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.
Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.
Some people just like to argue.
I use the word like that too. But not as a customer arguing with a business. Just with friends and family as an in joke.
Funny to hear it used that way but for srs.
Wholesale customers buy in bulk. I’m sure the customer could get a discount for buying in bulk as well but they would end up spending way more money
Also, appart from the obvious restrictions, businesses can structure their prices however they like.
There are, in fact, no products in that empty drawer. I promise I’m not hiding them from you, ma’am.
could you just check the back please?
Sure, I can go play on my phone for 5 minutes while “checking the back”.
Karen look, ‘the back’ only has things we don’t have space for, it isn’t a secret second store we hide stuff from you.
Does working as a security guard and having the company that contracted your company trying to get you to basically be their own personal police force count? I worked for a security company hired by Longs and the loss prevention manager of the Longs kept trying to get us to do things that, in California anyway, are illegal as a security guard. Such as digging through someone’s personal belongings. We can ask to look inside, but not touch, and we really can’t force them to comply. We could not arrest people. We couldn’t have weapons (not even allowed to carry a pocket knife while on duty with our guard cards). Little Napoleonic complex motherfucker didn’t care. He would insist that it was legal and we would just tell him to talk to our boss because he isn’t our supervisor, manager or even part of our company.
I used to work retail loss prevention and had several of the exact opposite- we’d get contract security to supplement our staff as a visual deterrent and they would then think they were given carte blanche to hassle whoever the fuck they wanted. It really didn’t take long to realize that as long as I treated shoplifters with respect, more often than not they would come with, take care of the paperwork, get their ticket from the real cops and then be on their way unless the jurisdiction required they get booked. But there would always be that one fuckhead trying to steal thousands of dollars worth of shit and then act like we had no right to stop or detain them . I know it varies by where you live, but we were fully allowed to make citizens arrests and would do so daily. In 21 years I got subpoenaed four times and testified once. Never lost one case.
I don’t think my customers were dumb but I was regularly accused of breaking the law in a previous job. This was back in 09-10, I worked for a mortgage company in the insurance escrow department processing homeowner insurance claims. The way my job worked: If a homeowner has significant property damage (fire, flood, fallen tree) and the home is under a mortgage, the insurance company will make the check payable to the homeowner and the mortgage company. If it has both names it cannot be cashed unless the mortgage company endorses the check. I was the person responsible for determining if we would sign the back of that check so the customer could cash it.
Mortgages have a clause that allows this, because it’s in the best interest of the mortgage company to make sure the property is returned to the way it was before the claim. If the claim was over a certain amount (I think it was $5k) we required a whole process of holding the money in an escrow account and doling it out in increments using property inspections to verify the work was being completed.
It was honestly a whole annoying process to have to go through, especially if you are already dealing with a traumatic situation that requires the claim in the first place. I got yelled at a lot.
Oftentimes it would start with the customer calling in to figure out why the check was made payable to the mortgage company also. The mortgage company I worked for was part of a large bank, so if the homeowner called the 800 number they were often frustrated by the time they finally found their way to me. Then as I explained that they couldn’t just have the money, we needed them to select a licensed contractor and get our approval, then we would provide 1/3, then we would do an inspection at 50% and release the next 1/3, then a final inspection at 100% and release the remainder. I would get yelled at and told it was illegal. But I would just point them to page 18 section 5 of the mortgage. I could access people’s mortgage docs and I was often asked to send the relevant pages.
Eventually people would accept their fate because they had no choice. I tried to be very sympathetic because it did suck for them. And I had customers tell me a lot of sad stories about fires and floods and tornadoes. It was a super interesting job though. I loved looking at the home inspection reports.
We do not have to keep a register open just because there is a customer in the store. We’ve been making closing announcements for almost an hour and the store closed 20 minutes ago. You had more then enough time to buy whatever you wanted. Come back tomorrow.
People not knowing the difference between a cash register and a voting booth kinda makes most election results of the past few decades make a lot more sense though 🤔
Had a similar thing when our internet and phones went out in a retail store. We processed cash transactions for as long as we could before closing a couple hours early. Asshole stuck his foot in the door when the manager was trying to explain why he couldn’t come in, demanding that we let him shop. He was clearly drunk, to boot. Ugh.
"Actually, in the terms of service you signed with DirecTV, your NFL Sunday Ticket was set to auto renew after the first free year.
Also.
We’ve billed you for it for two months, and is now past the point where we can remove it. You have 5 additional payments.
This is in fact also not illegal apparently. Since it’s in the terms of service.
If you’d like to sue DirecTV please have your lawyer contact our TEAM of lawyers and we’ll be happy to address it."
Worked that soul sucking job for five long years while going to college. Sucked.
Could be a UDAAP violation if they didn’t know what they were signing up for.
Whilst I don’t follow US law, quick Google suggests one of the conditions is “the injury is not readily avoidable by consumers”. In other words the business isn’t liable for the customer not reading the documents they signed up to.
It’s not always so simple. I’m in Fintech so have to take the UDAAP course every year or so and the law is more consumer friendly than you’d expect, at least for the US. The deceptive bit is probably the most relevant. If the person signing them up for it told them “you won’t be charged” but failed to mention that they would be charged later that is an example of a deceptive practice.
I work collections at a bank. The only thing UDAAP doesn’t protect consumers against is their inability to read their account terms and their sense of entitlement.
Not exactly to the title but I was alone with a coworker and explaining my precancerous cells I was being checked up on and a customer walked up as I was explaining.
He said, “that sounds like bullshit and I would know because I have a PHD.”
he was an idiot.
I know lots of very stupid people with PhDs
I have a PhD, for one
I have a buddy who’s about to get his PhD in math. He’s probably one of the dumbest guys I know. Don’t get me wrong, he’s incredibly smart and a very hard working. But also the guy can’t open a baby gate, even if show show him 3 times. We play a lot of non-voice acted video games together where you need to read stuff, and he mispronounces pretty much every word. Like, he isn’t even close on most of them.
As a PhD student you pretty quickly learn that everyone is barely holding it together. It’s the kind of work where you learn and discover the edges of knowledge and then forget how to eat
Gotta make sacrifices to be able to know shit when you’re under 30
What does being under 30 have to do with it
Yeah if anything when you’re over 30 it’s even worse, as then you have to dedicate some brain power in dealing with all the body ailments you suddenly start developing.
I have a BSC… Bronze Swimming Certificate.
Obligatory Red Dwarf love!
I would know because I have a PHD
Also “I’m an engineer”. People with specific vocational training (EE, MD, whatever) think because they know one thing well enough to get a professional license they know all things well.
I think some people don’t even realize PhD and MD are different things.
Philadelphia and Maryland?
Not going to ask a Chiropractor anything even if they are an MD. At first I was going to say they all specialize… but chiropractors… nah just going to play it safe and tell them I’m fine.
