Benefits website


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    I'm trying to sign up for a website related to my company's benefits program. I try to register and am told my email is already in use. I try to recover forgotten password/username by email and it says no such email is registered. So WTF number one.

    Of course their helpdesk is no help:

    For online account access you must enter your last name and four digits of your Social Security Number (no space). For example Smith1525, this will be your member number for the portal account. Please try to complete the sign up process one more time when you have a chance.

    Okay, I did that, but I guess I can try my maiden name instead-- nope, no such member number. I let them know.

    I re-checked our records and your married name is correct. Also, the message of the email is because your email address is in our records, so if someone try to use your email to create another account the message will appear. Can you please send me the last 4 digits of your ssn?

    At this point I'm beginning to suspect a phishing scam >.>

    Bonus points: I have to enter both my current weight AND my "goal weight", as well as selecting via radio button whether I want to gain, lose, or maintain weight. I cannot leave the goal weight blank. I don't friggan care about my weight, I just want to buy a sleep tracker at a discount! Can't you derive some of that info anyway?



  • Put in negative (min) int weight?

    Sounds like a good candidate for those shenanigans.

    Bonus points if you do the same for current weight.


  • BINNED

    @Matches said:

    Put in negative (min) int weight?

    Or a zero, and, if asked about it, say you're signing up for the space program.


    Filed under: Editing won't allow you to change who you're replying to, I know that usually makes sense, but with Discourse's reply-and-quote shennaningans...



  • Do things in space actually have 0 weight? I don't think that's how it works, but I could be wrong.


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    Weight is a measure of the force of gravity on an object. So I guess if you're in deep enough space, your weight rounds to 0.


  • BINNED

    @Yamikuronue said:

    Weight is a measure of the force of gravity on an object. So I guess if you're in deep enough space, your weight rounds to 0.

    Close enough for government work anyway. You could get it to perfect 0 if you mess with velocities as well, but ain't nobody got time for that.



  • @Onyx said:

    Close enough for government work anyway. You could get it to perfect 0 if you mess with velocities as well, but ain't nobody got time for that.

    If you're in orbit (or equivalently, free fall), you'll have zero weight.


  • BINNED

    @Keith said:

    If you're in orbit (or equivalently, free fall), you'll have zero weight.

    I was just thinking about the "vomit comet" as I saw the notification pop up.

    You're correct, of course.

    And every time I remember that orbiting is just constant falling I get that tiny bit of irrational fear triggered. I mean, I know that the Earth won't suddenly slow down and switch from orbiting around the Sun to straight up falling (or degrading orbit), but damn, that shit's scary, yo!



  • I'm almost positive this is effective weight, not actual weight though? You still have mass, it just effectively weighs nothing. But I don't do maths and I don't do space, so what do I know.



  • @Matches said:

    I'm almost positive this is effective weight, not actual weight though?

    What’s the difference? Or, when you say “actual weight”, do you mean “mass”? In which case, the difference is that one is weight and the other is mass.



  • @Matches said:

    I'm almost positive this is effective weight, not actual weight though?

    Weight is what you are thinking of as "effective weight"; mass is what you are thinking of as "actual weight".

    EDIT: and looks like @Gurth beat me in getting in the clarification of terms.



  • @locallunatic said:

    Weight is what you are thinking of as "effective weight"; mass is what you are thinking of as "actual weight".

    Yup. Also, I never fail to be impressed by how fast a topic can be derailed here.



  • As in, going to space doesn't actually make you weigh less, if you were to go to space, and come back, you still weigh the same (assuming a relatively short trip)

    So unless you plan on getting your weight taken every time from space, you still weigh the same. So to Onyx's point of an astronaut, it doesn't actually change your weight to 0 - so it's an implausible explanation.



  • She won't be lying as long as she jumps up in the air and submits the form while airborne.



  • @Keith said:

    Yup. Also, I never fail to be impressed by how fast a topic can be derailed here.

    Technically, weight and changing weight was part of the OP.


    Filed Under: Flag me for pedantic dickweed



  • @boomzilla said:

    Filed Under: Flag me for pedantic dickweed

    Done:

    Pedantic dickweed. He may need a badge.

  • BINNED

    @Matches said:

    So to Onyx's point of an astronaut, it doesn't actually change your weight to 0 - so it's an implausible explanation.

    The form asked for a target weight. Nowhere did it say that it's required to stay at target weight after it's been reached.


    Filed under: Pedantic dickweedery Olympics



  • Sure, but you started it by saying an explanation was required, I started it by being a pedantic dickweed.

    Filed Under: Your pedantic dickweedery is smaller than mine.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    I cannot leave the goal weight blank. I don't friggan care about my weight, I just want to buy a sleep tracker at a discount! Can't you derive some of that info anyway?

    ~Buuuureau cra-cy

    dunna dunna dunna dunna

    Buuuureau cra-cy~


  • BINNED

    @Matches said:

    Filed Under: Your pedantic dickweedery is smaller than mine.

    We need a name for this... Like e-peen, but for pedantic dickweedery level.



  • If we had a badge for it that could be awarded by the community, we could have public measuring of our pedantic dickweedery.



  • @Onyx said:

    I know that the Earth won't suddenly slow down and switch from orbiting around the Sun to straight up falling

    Your physics homework for today:

    How much time would it take for the earth to fall to the sun? You may ignore complex gravitational interactions for the time being. Assume the earth will be disintegrated and become part of the sun when it exits the inside of the corona.


  • BINNED

    @Matches said:

    If we had a badge for it that could be awarded by the community, we could have public measuring of our pedantic dickweedery.

    Screw the badges! I want this:

    ▣▣▣□□ Pedantic dickweed Level 3

    But, apparently, karma-like systems are a barrier to reading...



  • ¤¤¤¤¤


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Matches said:

    As in, going to space doesn't actually make you weigh less, if you were to go to space, and come back, you still weigh the same (assuming a relatively short trip)

    Oh yes it does. Leaving aside the fact that you're in freefall when orbiting, when you're higher up because you're in space, you're in a less-intense gravitational field (i.e., the local magnitude of the field is a smaller value). If you were somehow able to stay still relative to the earth's surface, you'd find that you indeed weighed less, and in a way that is approximated very well by Newton's theory of gravitation (once you've allowed for the radius of the Earth at your starting point). Normally this isn't noticed because spacecraft tend to be orbiting when at the sorts of distances where this is meaningful, and that (as our General Relativity tells us) makes the whole concept of (locally observed) weight a bit meaningless.

    Of course, you'd only be weighing less while up there. Come back down to earth and you'll gain all the weight back (depending on any mass changes you experience while up there).



  • @Onyx said:

    The form asked for a target weight. Nowhere did it say that it's required to stay at target weight after it's been reached.

    For darts? I have a dartboard at home, and target weighs about a couple of pounds (about a kilo).



  • @Onyx said:

    Screw the badges! I want this:

    ▣▣▣□□ Pedantic dickweed Level 3

    <meter min="0" max="5" value="1" low="2" high="4"></meter> 1
    <meter min="0" max="5" value="2" low="2" high="4"></meter> 2
    <meter min="0" max="5" value="3" low="2" high="4"></meter> 3
    <meter min="0" max="5" value="4" low="2" high="4"></meter> 4
    <meter min="0" max="5" value="5" low="2" high="4"></meter> 5



  • @Matches said:

    As in, going to space doesn't actually make you weigh less

    Yes, it would. You’d weigh (say) about 80 kg when you’re sitting in the rocket waiting for it to lift off. Your weight would rise to 250 kg or so during the launch, and by the time you’re in earth orbit, you’d weigh 0 kg.

    Your [i]mass[/i], however, would stay the same (about 80 kg) during that whole trip.



  • I suppose to be truly pedantic, kg is a measure of mass, so you'd have to use a force unit like Newtons to measure weight, at least if you wanted to be unambiguous.



  • @Onyx said:

    You could get it to perfect 0 if you mess with velocities as well, but ain't nobody got time for that.

    Erm, no. velocities don't come into the equation it's acceleration that causes "weight". And you can never get a perfect 0 as gravitational pull is everywhere. Very, very weak, but everywhere.

    Filed under: I wanted to be a pedantic dickweed too, for once



  • @faoileag said:

    Filed under: I wanted to be a pedantic dickweed too, for once

    Mission accomplished. :thumbsup:

    On a related note, I read a very interesting book that suggested (amongst other things) that gravity is actually a repulsive force which affects us roughly equally from all sides. Matter shields other matter from the gravitational push (more massive objects doing so more effectively), so the objects are pushed together. It also offers an explanation for why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The overall effect of the gravity is to push everything apart, even though locally, it seems to be attracting things together.

    I don't know how it stands up to scientific scrutiny, but I like ideas that challenge our most basic presumptions.


  • BINNED

    @PJH said:

    <meter min="0" max="5" value="1" low="2" high="4"></meter> 1
    <meter min="0" <max="5" value="2" low="2" high="4"></meter> 2
    <meter min="0" max="5" value="3" low="2" high="4"></meter> 3
    <meter min="0" max="5" value="4" low="2" high="4"></meter> 4
    <meter min="0" max="5" value="5" low="2" high="4"></meter> 5

    Well, fuck. I didn't even know progress and meter are two different things. And while progress is blacklisted, meter is not. Dafuq?

    @faoileag said:

    Erm, no. velocities don't come into the equation it's acceleration that causes "weight". And you can never get a perfect 0 as gravitational pull is everywhere. Very, very weak, but everywhere.

    If you mess with velocities it's acceleration, isn't it? Or is there a definition of "messing with" that equates to "don't change" I'm not aware of?

    @faoileag said:

    Filed under: I wanted to be a pedantic dickweed too, for once

    Two can play that game. Let's :dancer:



  • @Keith said:

    if you wanted to be unambiguous.

    who ever told you that was a requirement?



  • @faoileag said:

    And you can never get a perfect 0 as gravitational pull is everywhere. Very, very weak, but everywhere.

    Yes, but you can counteract it by accelerating in the direction opposite to the one of the net force vector.

    @Onyx said:

    We need a name for this... Like e-peen, but for pedantic dickweedery level.

    Pedanis?



  • @Keith said:

    Yup. Also, I never fail to be impressed by how fast a topic can be derailed here.

    I'm also impressed by how well a derailed thread can remain true to it's surrogate topic. I think, after two or three posts, when a thread deviates from its original subject, we should just rename the thread to the new topic.



  • THEN it would derail from the new topic, and after two or three more posts a new title would be needed.



  • @presidentsdaughter said:

    THEN it would derail from the new topic, and after two or three more posts a new title would be needed.

    Hmm, you may be correct. I mean, we've only mentioned changing the topic title here and have already managed to change the topic to a discussion about changing topic titles.



  • @dhromed said:

    Your physics homework for today:

    How much time would it take for the earth to fall to the sun? You may ignore complex gravitational interactions for the time being. Assume the earth will be disintegrated and become part of the sun when it exits the inside of the corona.

    Hey, for once my introductory physics is not totally useless - things are approximately spherical and in vacuum.


    Filed under: [Radiation pressure](#blah)

  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    I would re-rail the topic with an update but they haven't got back to me yet. I give them until noon before I alert HR to a possible phishing attempt.



  • CS let us modify the post topic title which I thought was cool



  • See guys? We're just providing thoughtful relevant conversation until the op has more for us to <Derail>discuss



  • @Gurth said:

    Yes, it would. You’d weigh (say) about 80 kg when you’re sitting in the rocket waiting for it to lift off. Your weight would rise to 250 kg or soduring the launch, and by the time you’re in earth orbit, you’d weigh 0 kg.

    And if your rocket were doing the Kessel Run then your weight could drop as low as twelve parsecs.



  • @faoileag said:

    And you can never get a perfect 0 as gravitational pull is everywhere. Very, very weak, but everywhere.

    Assuming you are referring to |Δv| = 0, you're discounting the possibility that there may exist points in space where |Δv| = |Δx0 + Δx1 + ... + Δxn| = 0 where |Δxi| > 0 for all i.

    Oh, and you're also discounting all points that are unobservable from all (other) gravitational sources due to cosmological expansion.



  • You aren't getting flagged for pedantic dickweedery badge



  • That's fine. You're missing some punctuation, though.



  • That's what I like this community for - postulate something and within 24hrs you are told where your argument lacks support to a depth you are out of your depth understanding! :-)

    Filed under: no, not tongue-in-check, I really mean it.



  • @faoileag said:

    That's what I like this community for - postulate something and within 24hrs you are told where your argument lacks support to a depth you are out of your depth understanding!

    Stay away from the XKCD forums. You only have to wait 5 minutes there...



  • @Matches said:

    You aren't getting flagged for pedantic dickweedery badge

    @Faxmachinen said:

    That's fine. You're missing some punctuation, though.

    I couldn't not flag that response.


  • BINNED

    So, the conclusion at this point seems to be that @Yamikuronue shouldn't even be concerned with "target weight", she should put in "I don't even know anymore! :sob:" in current weight field.

    Yes, trying to re-rail a bit. This is the first time I managed to de-rail something this badly, in second reply no less, so I feel kinda guilty.


    Filed under: Next time, it will be intentional


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Is it www.myviverae.com? I had issues with them also. They also would not let you select a birth year before 2000 for a while, but would let you select a birth year up to 2025. The entire site and service is one big WTF.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.