Your rates go up is the best case. More likely you’re dropped as a client.

I know exactly what they’ll do if OP takes this offer. They will cover OP’s damages per their collision policy, and promptly tell OP that they will need to find a new insurer, because they will no longer do business with OP.

Well, your contractual relationship with your insurance company says that as part of your contract with them you agree not to accept settlements on their behalf. They’re encouraging OP to essentially take $500 so they don’t have to pay their deductible, and then go to their insurance filing a claim with the caveat of “I have already accepted a settlement regarding this matter and as such you cannot pursue the opposing party’s insurer for compensation”

And so your insurer will then cover your damages per your collision policy, but then they’re going to go ahead and raise your premiums (or just drop you).

They’re not encouraging OP to commit insurance fraud. They’re encouraging OP to break their own contractual relationship with their insurance company, but that isn’t fraud.

It’s not illegal. They have no contractual relationship with you, they have a contractual relationship with their client. Their interest is in paying as little as you will accept to absolve their client of further liability. Their client has damaged your property; if there was no such thing as insurance, you would be filing a lawsuit against the person who damaged your property, seeking a judgement against them. When their insurance offers you a payment, they’re offering to settle your claim of damages against their client; you’re agreeing not to seek further damages.

On further thought I am betting that they have looked at the damage and estimated that it’s more than their client’s policy limits, or they decided to drop them as a client previously but this happened before that became effective.

They’re trying to get you to settle with their client for $500 and waive further claims to his policy. The aim of this is to attempt to limit their liability to $500.

Yep, they offer them as well. I’m less familiar with their rate schedule though, and I know Fidelity won’t give just anyone a CD, you have to be a brokerage client and that entails a minimum $5k account balance on the brokerage side (you can’t count the CD balance towards that), and they charge a $20 commission in some cases. They also have to be multiples of either $100 or $1000, where traditional CDs can be down to cents if you wish. On top of that, the interest does not go into the CD, it goes back into your brokerage account, where with a traditional CD it would go back into the CD and compound.

So it’s a bit of arbitrage on which is the better option for you. For most people that do not already do business with Fidelity, a traditional CD is the better option.

JP Morgan Chase uses them as sort of variable term financing devices for themselves, so the rate offered depends upon duration and amount of money you’re locking up. The rate is basically zero unless it’s what they want you to do, which right now at least in NY is: 2% for 3mo <10k, 3.5% 3 month 10k-100k, 4% 3 month 100k+, 3% 12 month <10k, 3.25% 12 month 10k to 100k, 3.75% 12 month 100k+.

They go all the way out to 10 years, but they don’t want you doing that and that is around 1%.

Even if you don’t want to buy the product, it’s an interesting portal into what america’s largest bank thinks its short, medium, and long term cash needs look like.

The current setup of rates indicates they think their short term cash needs are greater than their medium term needs, that they’ll still need cash over the medium term, but they think that maybe in 3 months they’ll have less need for short term cash.

That’s an annualized rate, it’s $90 for 3 months.

Additionally the rate is variable based on the amount you put in; I don’t remember the table off the top of my head but I believe the 3 month CD only has the 3.5% rate up to $25k.

If you’re wanting a CD; Chase has a 3.5% rate on a 3 month CD if you deposit >$10,000 right now. Good balance between long and short term IMO.

Sure, because they deal with things that are considered taboo/unfit for human consumption (like blood)

Farmers waste loads of water through a combination of dogma and resistance to change

That one’s not true. Champagne can also come from California, legally. Part of negotiations over trade labeling ~18 years ago. Producers in California that were already labeling their product Champagne were/are allowed to continue to label it as such indefinitely.

Apple has billions and billions in net profit running a ~24% margin on their flagship products. Dollar General nets about $29k per store per year. Apple makes that selling 100 phones.

That’s not an issue of defense spending, the Federal Government already spends more on healthcare than any other country does, but only covers seniors and the abject poor. The main problem is the layers of bureaucracy that take money the whole way down, from insurance to billers etc.

If we reformed the system to not waste our money paying insurance companies and all sorts of black holes that money disappears into, Medicare could cover everyone without much additional cost. Think about how much extra money people would have in their pockets.

Maybe it’s a euphemism for people living there that they could steal food from. “Look guys it’s totally just falling from heaven”

I think AR has a stronger value proposition for planning.

There’s 570 of them. It’s way, way more efficient to just raise domesticated donkeys as livestock than poach them from the wild lol. In Central Asia you can buy one for 80 bucks a head.

Blood Quantum is a BIA thing.

Well, that’s the thing, jurors with strong opinions about the defendant or prosecution, even if justified, aren’t supposed to be empaneled anyway, so it’s a nonissue. The prosecution could use the same tech to boot people who hate cops, for example.

Yep. And to expand on this, the justice system largely operates on trust, but you can’t just decide to randomly introduce your own video into evidence. If the prosecution though the video/audio could be faked (based on their own evidence that has a proven chain of custody), there would be an evidentiary hearing to figure out whether the jury should even be allowed to see it.

And will take a decade to build up to the point that we can actually do this. My point though still stands. While in theory coal plants are not profitable to run compared to building wind and solar, realistically speaking it’s not possible to simple turn them off and replace them with wind and solar right now. You have to just build wind and solar while closing them gradually as capacity comes online.

The issue I have with the take in the article is that it’s only on paper. It’s currently cheaper, but if everyone tried to build it at once it would not be.

Missing: the industrial capacity to actually construct all of the turbines and/or panels required.

What? Electric Arc Furnaces are the main way of recycling steel lol, that’s Nucor’s whole business. Most profitable steel company in the world.