As someone else mentioned, you probably hit snooze without realizing it while still mostly asleep. Snooze is 9 minutes. On this clock, the "snooze button" is literally the entire face of the clock. When the noise initially went off, if you rolled over and tapped the clock it would have reset the alarm.

I have this exact same clock. Are you positive it's not going off? You may have it set to be quiet in the beginning and ramp up to being loud over 15-30 minutes which is supposed to wake you up gradually. So perhaps you only noticed it going off at 10:46.

For instance, I want to be awake at 7, so I set mine for 6:30 with a 30min gradual wake up (sounds and light gradually go up for 30 min).

That setting is not required and you can have it just wake you up, but then it defeats the point of a sunlight alarm in my opinion.

There was a big push a few months ago, a year ago, who knows, Internet time is weird, when McDonald's updated their terms of service on their app and added a clause like this. There were a lot of posts on social media, Reddit, fedi, etc to make sure people didn't agree to the new terms or download the app if they never had it.

There are people that pay attention to it, and even research papers done on it. A lot of the common apps started doing it at the same time. Venmo has it, Pinterest, Facebook, etc. things you wouldn't think of that would have cases like this. But certain ones stick out because of the seemingly more real world complications (I mean, venmo could have fraud, Facebook could have cyber bullying, etc), but McDonald's could have health issues, Disney clearly this is the case.

As soon as I read the title to this, I thought "here we go again", but I'm amazed there are actual helpful comments and only one reference to the arms broken/mom bit

Lucky for you that you've never been in that position. You don't get to decide "I'll just remove it later if it doesn't work out". That's considered an elective amputation and a cause to send someone to the psych ward - yes, even if there's pain resulting from a severe injury and subsequent surgery. When given the option of restorative surgery that may repair it or may leave you with no function and lifelong unbearable nerve pain, or the option to amputate which will remove functionality but at least have predictable results, you need to make your decision at that point. Once you have one of them done, you can't go back and say "ya know what, this isn't working, I want you to go the other way instead". I have lived with the unbearable nerve pain and zero functionally after reconstructive hand surgery and have begged for decades to go back and do the amputation instead. Enough nerve pain that I have threatened to self-amputate, that I have attempted to take my life. None of that matters, the pain is dealt with medically, not surgically, no matter how much you tell them the medical options don't help.

When this athlete says he made an informed decision - I know that means he found out what the potential was and that he asked if he would be able to make a new decision if he first tried to repair it.

I've known many people that had similar surgeries that it worked just fine, and many others that live in constant pain. There's no formula to know which way it will go, and we still know so little about how the brain interprets pain, especially nerve pain, that there is so little we can do for it.

Completely disagree. If this had happened at any other time other than two weeks before the games and he made the same decision, would you also be saying there needs to be an investigation?

This was such a severe injury that looking at it caused him to pass out. It's not like it was a simple fracture and the time to heal would have caused him to miss the game so he strong armed someone into amputation. This was such a severe injury that amputation was a viable option, and that's what he chose.

Please read my other comment, as someone with actual first hand experience in hand injuries that result in the choice between restorative surgery or amputation.

You make that choice when deciding which way to go initially. It's not a painting that you can decide "ya know what, this isn't working out, let's go back to the other way we thought ". Once you go down the restorative surgery route, that's your route. And any pain you experience gets dealt with medically. Believe me, I've tried telling every doctor I know that the nerve pain I experience is to much to much to bear and to please go back and amputate instead, but at this point it's considered an elective amputation.

Just because he's explaining that a benefit of this choice is that he can play doesn't mean it was the complete reason for his choice

Completely disagree. I had a hand injury as an infant that resulted in my parents being given the same decision to make - repair the fingers and hope for functionality or amputate. They chose to repair, of course they did. It has lead to 20+ surgeries, unbelievable nerve pain my entire life, and zero functionality. I have consistently asked for the fingers to be amputated, but at this point it's considered elective amputation and worthy of a call to a psych to have me checked out, despite the pain. I would give anything to go back to that time and have my parents choose amputation. But of course, not knowing the pain, I would probably be upset with them for choosing that option as well

It may seem like this player is "choosing" to forego restorative surgery just so he can play in the Olympics, but this article is probably not presenting all of the information that he was given by his doctors, and his choice may have nothing to do with playing right now, but rather the longer outcome of his health. Just because he's explaining that a benefit of this choice is that he can play right now doesn't mean that is the complete reason he chose it.

https://i.imgur.com/qbib2Fc.png

Exactly! If I am calling customer support, it's because I have exhausted all other options of finding a solution to my issue, and I have a feeling I'm searching more extensively than the options that this AI is being fed. If I've reached the point of calling, I need someone that can think of a creative solution.

Here's a taste of the GOP view:

I used to be a government employee in the state of Florida (when Rick Scott was governor) as an environmental educator. One day, we received a memo that for all government employees the phrases "climate change", "global warming", and "sustainability" were now banned from our official duties. How was I supposed to teach about the environment in Florida without using those? I was still allowed to say "unusual weather event".

I left this role, and Florida, and heard that this policy had been repealed.

Wouldn't you know it, I heard from some of my colleagues still there that DeSantis just went ahead and did the same thing, while also making sure the new law impacts the energy grid.

So not only is their plan to ignore it - but they want to force no one else to talk about it either, or make any improvements on their own of their own volition.

But Alabama, specifically, was very against the use of ai and facial recognition and passed a bill to limit it's use. Now they are willing to use it to have a record of exactly when and where they buy ammunition and exactly which caliber? Cognitive disconnect when it's about convenience, huh