mcherm

Actually, banks are a heavily regulated industry and they have to comply with strict non-discrimination requirements including making all reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.

If you know someone who uses a screen reader and is therefore unable to use HSBC's app, encourage them to file a complaint with the appropriate regulator (in the US, try https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ ).

Banks are very attentive about listening to their regulators.

(Of course, it's possible that what HSBC did still works with commonly used screen readers for the blind because they actually thought of this.)

Because Donald Trump is above the law -- laws simply don't apply to him.

(Or at least that is how much of the country is acting, INCLUDING the US Supreme Court.)

The answer is different in different states. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/counting-absentee-ballots-after-a-voter-dies

Hear hear! Whenever society picks out a particular minority group and says, "THESE are the ones it is OK to look down on and mistreat" it just makes me want to defend and support that group.

These days I am a strong supporter of furries, never-Trump Republicans, and trans folk.

Interesting. The way I work, variable naming is one of the key areas that I would never want to outsource to an AI -- careful choice of variable names is a key part of code quality for me: unimportant things should have neutral, non-distracting names while mportant things often cause me to break out a thesaurus for just the right word.

LOL -- good point. I guess the correct answer is zero. 😃

One.

I'm thinking of a comic made to tell the story of a relationship, culminating in a wedding proposal.

The definition of success is different for different cases.

If two states disagree, what alternative would you suggest? "Flip a coin and move on" or "Just give in to the other side" are solutions that are likely to be abused: one rogue state can wreck havoc by making unreasonable demands. Going to war over it seems worse than spending millions in court. The courts ARE our inexpensive, fair way of resolving disputes (even if they aren't as inexpensive as we might like).

Interesting. When I have sized a wedding ring (something I have done several times because of a combination of not fitting, and of me losing a ring twice over the past 28 years) I obviously had to work to get the right size. Like you, I chose rounded edges which made it easier for me to get the ring on and off my finger. Originally I had a width of 4 mm, and moving to 3 mm worked much better for me. (My fingers are particularly narrow and long compared to most men's hands.) But I have never been asked what "height" to use.

I would speculate that it affects the weight of the ring. (In my experience, too heavy a ring can be a problem. For instance, a heavy ring May vibrate against the steering wheel on long drives and make my fingers sore.) No one can really see the "height", so why not go with the thinnest that makes the ring still sturdy?

That's the common gag, but ACTUALLY the difference is in whether the recipient of the comment was open to hearing it and whether the speaker intends merely those literal words or has other implications.

I carefully read through the article and did not find a link to the study. Would you be willing to share the link here?