Minor things that bother you

[US 89]

A similar annoyance is the practice in a lot of legalese of writing the words out then putting it in numbers in parentheses. That means the same thing is there two (2) different ways and it's irritating, because it looks like they were writing it for someone who is four (4) years old and struggles with numbers. I'm guessing this has something to do with keeping numbers from easily being altered on paper contracts, but it's two thousand and twenty-one (2021); the practice is archaic and should be dropped.

At my job, the only time I do it is this:

0 (zero)

And that's just because I want anyone reading it to understand it isn't the letter O.

That's what 0̸ is for.

[SSOWorld]

Some people have to be told that peanut butter contains peanuts, so there you go.

With that, I can at least imagine a person thinking peanut butter is only artificially peanut-flavored.

But someone buying a package of peanuts, on the other hand...

Well, that's just nuts.

The quoted posts contain hbelkins and kphoger

[kphoger]

Uh...  Yeah...  Am I missing something interesting about that?

[1995hoo]

Some people have to be told that peanut butter contains peanuts, so there you go.

Lawyers ruin everything (apologies to Oscar, 1995hoo, and other attorneys who are members here.)

Heh, never underestimate the ability of some attorneys to engage in utterly pedantic stupidity. I recently saw something where an attorney felt the need to use the "defined term" "U.S." in parentheses after referring to the United States: United States ("U.S.").....like a reader wouldn't know what "U.S." means without that utterly unnecessary definition.

I saw something else where a party's name was a single word, yet the name was "defined" in that manner anyway–like if it said, Forum member hbelkins ("hbelkins") argues [whatever]. The "defined term" was 100% identical to the term that appeared outside the parentheses. I think some people just think there's some requirement that they "define the parties" (there isn't).

A similar annoyance is the practice in a lot of legalese of writing the words out then putting it in numbers in parentheses. That means the same thing is there two (2) different ways and it's irritating, because it looks like they were writing it for someone who is four (4) years old and struggles with numbers. I'm guessing this has something to do with keeping numbers from easily being altered on paper contracts, but it's two thousand and twenty-one (2021); the practice is archaic and should be dropped.

That is exactly why it originated. It may serve a perfectly legitimate purpose in that context, but otherwise, you're correct–it's a pointless superstition some people have.

[hbelkins]

Uh...  Yeah...  Am I missing something interesting about that?

I think he's calling us both nuts. 

A similar annoyance is the practice in a lot of legalese of writing the words out then putting it in numbers in parentheses. That means the same thing is there two (2) different ways and it's irritating, because it looks like they were writing it for someone who is four (4) years old and struggles with numbers. I'm guessing this has something to do with keeping numbers from easily being altered on paper contracts, but it's two thousand and twenty-one (2021); the practice is archaic and should be dropped.

Probably the same reason that you both write the numerals and spell out the numbers on a check. I once had a check returned because the amount and the "guarantee" amount didn't match. I think it was just a matter of my writing being hard to read, but it's been so long ago that I don't remember the exact circumstances.

I think it's done to make sure there is no misunderstanding as to the number you mean. When I place legally required ads in newspapers for public meetings, comment periods, and the like, I always make sure in my message to the newspaper ad department to run the ad two (2) times. That way, if they accidentally run it three times, we don't have to pay for the extra insertion, and if they only run it once and we get grief from the feds, we can point to the insertion request and note that we designated a certain number of times and the paper didn't comply.

[Scott5114]

Probably the same reason that you both write the numerals and spell out the numbers on a check. I once had a check returned because the amount and the "guarantee" amount didn't match. I think it was just a matter of my writing being hard to read, but it's been so long ago that I don't remember the exact circumstances.

This must be something that varies from bank to bank. I once deposited a check from a friend who was repaying some money from a friend of mine. He had accidentally written a different amount on the written-out amount line than the amount written in digits. My bank said that in that circumstance, the written-out amount governed. The amount written was deposited in my account, and his check wasn't returned. Then again, his handwriting was perfectly clear on both amounts, and there was clearly no attempt to alter either of the amounts.

[kphoger]

Well, that was a strange post removal...

[renegade]

Well, that was a strange post removal...

Yup ... keepin' the mods busy 'round these parts nowadays.

[frankenroad]

Probably the same reason that you both write the numerals and spell out the numbers on a check. I once had a check returned because the amount and the "guarantee" amount didn't match. I think it was just a matter of my writing being hard to read, but it's been so long ago that I don't remember the exact circumstances.

This must be something that varies from bank to bank. I once deposited a check from a friend who was repaying some money from a friend of mine. He had accidentally written a different amount on the written-out amount line than the amount written in digits. My bank said that in that circumstance, the written-out amount governed. The amount written was deposited in my account, and his check wasn't returned. Then again, his handwriting was perfectly clear on both amounts, and there was clearly no attempt to alter either of the amounts.

Back in the dark ages (1977-78), I worked for a bank and my job was to encode the amount of the check on the bottom adjacent to the routing number and account number.  We were always taught that the  written-out amount (e.g., "Four Hundred Twenty Eight and 64/100 Dollars") was the legal amount, regardless of what digits were written.  Of course, to meet our items-per-hour target, we went by the digits when we encoded the check, unless we just happened to notice a discrepancy.

[1995hoo]

I suppose if I used our neighborhood's pools, this would be more than a minor annoyance.

But the frequency of this sort of problem is why I don't go to the pools. Normally they're not quite this specific, though–they just mention water quality without citing Code Yellow or Code Brown.

[hbelkins]

I suppose if I used our neighborhood's pools, this would be more than a minor annoyance.

But the frequency of this sort of problem is why I don't go to the pools. Normally they're not quite this specific, though–they just mention water quality without citing Code Yellow or Code Brown.

[kphoger]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

[GaryV]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

[1995hoo]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

While it represents added expense, I would strongly urge anyone who is asked to do that to get a separate phone for work purposes, if at all possible, and never to commingle personal and work e-mail on a single device. Reason: If you use your device for work purposes, it's subject to discovery in litigation involving your employer, and that means in turn that your personal data will likely be viewed (even though it's not likely to be admissible nor relevant most of the time). The same principle applies to using a personal PC for work purposes.

[zachary_amaryllis]

despite my sincerest efforts i am not able to disable capital letters on my phone. if i actually type on it, it obeys me. however, if i talk to it, or talk to my watch to reply, it capitalizes things. and the watch seems to capitalize random words.

[jakeroot]

despite my sincerest efforts i am not able to disable capital letters on my phone. if i actually type on it, it obeys me. however, if i talk to it, or talk to my watch to reply, it capitalizes things. and the watch seems to capitalize random words.

Do you not want capital letters at all? Or is it caps lock you are trying to disable?

[hbelkins]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

Two options here.

First is to say you don't have a personal cell phone. Second is to get a Google Voice number and set it to "do not disturb" so anyone who needs to get in touch with you has to leave a message.

[jakeroot]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

Two options here.

First is to say you don't have a personal cell phone. Second is to get a Google Voice number and set it to "do not disturb" so anyone who needs to get in touch with you has to leave a message.

I think the former is not worth the suspicion. Not if you're under 60, at least.

[renegade]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

Two options here.

First is to say you don't have a personal cell phone. Second is to get a Google Voice number and set it to "do not disturb" so anyone who needs to get in touch with you has to leave a message.

I think the former is not worth the suspicion. Not if you're under 60, at least.

It is none of your employer's concern whether you have a personal cell phone or not, should you choose that it doesn't.  However, if your employer then chooses to supply you with a cell phone, there's a certain amount of income tax liability that you would be expected to cover.  At this point, it might be less expensive to get a cheap flip phone and low-cost plan.  This is what I have, because my employer says that if I leave the company, they have the right to wipe the contents of my phone.  Can't wipe information that doesn't exist, and my cell phone is for my personal use, period ... not the company's.

[jakeroot]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

Two options here.

First is to say you don't have a personal cell phone. Second is to get a Google Voice number and set it to "do not disturb" so anyone who needs to get in touch with you has to leave a message.

I think the former is not worth the suspicion. Not if you're under 60, at least.

It is none of your employer's concern whether you have a personal cell phone or not, should you choose that it doesn't.  However, if your employer then chooses to supply you with a cell phone, there's a certain amount of income tax liability that you would be expected to cover.  At this point, it might be less expensive to get a cheap flip phone and low-cost plan.  This is what I have, because my employer says that if I leave the company, they have the right to wipe the contents of my phone.  Can't wipe information that doesn't exist, and my cell phone is for my personal use, period ... not the company's.

Depends on your line of work. Maybe your employer doesn't need to know about your personal phone, but your fellow employees might find it useful. How do you intend to tell one but keep it from the other?

[SSOWorld]

I suppose if I used our neighborhood's pools, this would be more than a minor annoyance.

But the frequency of this sort of problem is why I don't go to the pools. Normally they're not quite this specific, though–they just mention water quality without citing Code Yellow or Code Brown.

Well, shit! 💩

Medical terminology!  Is a stool something you stand on, or something you drop in the toilet?

Are they hiding something?

Even worse with dental.

[zachary_amaryllis]

despite my sincerest efforts i am not able to disable capital letters on my phone. if i actually type on it, it obeys me. however, if i talk to it, or talk to my watch to reply, it capitalizes things. and the watch seems to capitalize random words.

Do you not want capital letters at all? Or is it caps lock you are trying to disable?

when typing 'informally' i don't use capitals at all, it's just a .. personal style. i would like the option, in case i'm typing/dictating something 'formal'

[on_wisconsin]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

While it represents added expense, I would strongly urge anyone who is asked to do that to get a separate phone for work purposes, if at all possible, and never to commingle personal and work e-mail on a single device. Reason: If you use your device for work purposes, it's subject to discovery in litigation involving your employer, and that means in turn that your personal data will likely be viewed (even though it's not likely to be admissible nor relevant most of the time).

IANAL, but it might even be advisable to have that cellular device on different carrier that's not connected to the one you use for personal stuff. 

[hbelkins]

However, if your employer then chooses to supply you with a cell phone, there's a certain amount of income tax liability that you would be expected to cover.

Huh? I have a work-issued cellphone, and income tax liability has never been mentioned. Since I am basically on-call 24/7, why would the phone be considered as income?

I also have a personal cellphone. Both are iPhones, and I use the same Apple ID on both devices. Since I had my iPhone long before they transitioned from BlackBerries to iPhones at work, I had the advantage of already having bought a few apps.

[kphoger]

Things at work that require you to use a personal something-or-other.  For example, needing an e-mail address other than your work address when setting up an account on a program you use.  Or needing a two-factor authentication app but your company doesn't provide cell phones.

Even worse, being expected to supply your personal cell phone number so everyone can always get in touch with you.  Or being expected to link your company email to your phone so you can always answer messages.

Two options here.

First is to say you don't have a personal cell phone. Second is to get a Google Voice number and set it to "do not disturb" so anyone who needs to get in touch with you has to leave a message.

I think the former is not worth the suspicion. Not if you're under 60, at least.

Until somewhat recently, I had a co-worker who not only dropped cell phone service to save money, but he also dropped home internet service.  Our boss literally had no way to reach him outside of work hours.  But what's wrong with that?  About the only bad thing I can think of is that our boss wasn't able to call him in on short notice to cover a shift when someone called in sick–but I'm betting my co-worker actually considered that a benefit.  For two-factor authentication to log into a work program, he elected to have the access code robo-called to our boss's desk phone rather than texted to a cell phone.