24 posts shown.
swiftbear86 said:Back in the day, you could really only pick up that kind of consumable alcohol at a Coca-Cola outlet. It might be worth giving them a shout to see if they still carry it. www.badel1862.hr
The main thing is making sure the label specifically says it's for consumption.
If you grab alcohol from a drugstore—even the 96% stuff—it isn't labeled for drinking; it’s strictly for external use. So, if you're mixing up a drink, you have to use food-grade alcohol. If you're just using it for something topical like rubbing on your skin, then the drugstore stuff works just fine! ☕
That 96% alcohol used to be easy to dilute—you could make your own 70% solution much cheaper than buying it at a drugstore. Plus, it’s incredible for sanitizing just about anything. But, for some reason, I haven't seen it stocked in stores for years now??
casuallynx8 said:There’s actually a whole discussion happening over on the politics board regarding this:
In any case, an exchange rate isn't something you can just dictate by executive order 😁—not here in America, at least, given how much our trade with the rest of the world is driven by open markets. Just because the Fed is attempting to use certain measures to nudge the dollar toward specific levels doesn't mean they’ll actually succeed. Think of a currency clause as a sort of insurance policy; it's how a bank protects itself against sudden shifts in the value of the dollar. Since most Americans tend to keep their savings in dollars, banks have to be able to pay those out reliably. If the value of loans issued in a different denomination were to suddenly plummet, the bank would find itself in a massive bind (and the savers wouldn't be far behind).
Thanks for pointing that out; I missed the thread over there.👍I'll head over there now.
I’ll be the first to admit—I’m a total amateur when it comes to economics. Still, I can't help but wonder about the logic behind these currency clauses attached to savings accounts and loans, especially when the exchange rate isn't even expected to shift. For instance, if those clauses didn't exist, I'd probably pull the trigger on an auto loan for roughly $25000 tomorrow. To be honest, the fear of sudden devaluation is what stops me. But here's my dilemma: if both the banks and the government don't seem to fully trust the stability of the dollar—given how they bake these currency protections into almost everything—how am I (especially as a layman) supposed to have any confidence 🤷? This kind of clause has been around for the last decade or so (if my memory serves me right), so it doesn't really feel tied to our upcoming integration into the European Union ☕
So, please, help me make sense of this—I know my way around macroeconomics is pretty limited 🙏
Angela Wright said:The doctors in my family have told me that a kidney removal is actually straightforward enough to be done as an outpatient procedure. Sure, people love to spin those horror stories about organ theft—you know, getting knocked out, having a kidney snatched, and waking up on a curb with nothing but a surgical scar. Of course that sounds crazy; obviously, anyone would aim for the most ideal hospital conditions possible. My point was strictly about the level of expertise and the facility where the surgery takes place.
Look, there's no reason to panic here; everything is going to turn out fine. They clearly had to move forward with the removal to prevent things from spiraling out of control. Rebecca Moore8, just try to get some rest.
Hmm, I always assumed that to ensure a kidney stays healthy and usable for transplant, you'd need an entire team of surgeons and nurses. And frankly, I don't think just knocking someone out would cut it—you'd need actual anesthesia. If someone were stealing a tooth, sure, they might just knock you out and you'd wake up missing a tooth, but this is different.