My house (built in 1916) was insanely over-provisioned. When we upgraded to a modulating-condensing boiler, we halved the BTUs and are still able to easily keep the house heated to any desired temperature even on the coldest winter days.
I/we have the opposite problem. My wife paid extra and got a REAL ID, I resisted. I just got a passport instead (as did she).
My wife, when she renewed her DL this time, got a drivers' license stamped "NOT FOR REAL ID PURPOSES" because she didn't bring in her identity documents AGAIN to the DMV.
Screw that. The passport lasts twice as long as a driver's license, and we're going to carry those anyway, so...why pay extra and have to remember all these documents? Passport renewal is easier.
When people we know are getting married ask us for our address, I explicitly reply that we are not to be addressed in that manner (I find it somewhat insulting).
I can tell if the couple is doing addressing themselves or if they're having an older relative do it by if our instructions have been followed.
My boss and I once justified a visit to one of the Autodesk conferences (which was, in my opinion, quite lavish and expensive) by my getting time with some of their API developers. It was maybe 15 minutes, but it was worth every second.
The way I heard it, the government used a specific language for "have sexual relations with" (hereinafter HSRW):
A HSRW B if the mouth, hands, or genitals of A touch the genitals of B.
Any hackernews regular would notice that HSRW is not associative - as in it is entirely possible for A HSRW B to be true, but B HSRW A to be false; in fact this was the case for if A's mouth touches B's genitals; A HSRW B but !(B HSRW A).
You can whine and plead and ask the question 4,000 times, but at the end of the day, if one don't understand logic, you might be a Republican Senator in the 1990's.
Clinton's claim was effectively that he believed the definition was not associative for that specific statement. There was also the later statement which he described Monica's statement about having not had a sexual relationship as true.
The trial court disagreed that these statements truthfully responded to the deposition, and fined him for his misleading answer.
