The main benefits to paying for certs are

• as many said, getting more than 90 days validity for certs that are harder to rotate, or the automation hasn’t been done.
• higher rate limits for issuing and renewing certs, you can ask letsencrypt to up limits, but you can still hit them.
• you can get certs for things other than web sites, ie code signing.

The only thing that matters to most people is that they don’t get cert errors going to/using a web site, or installing software. Any CA that is in the browsers, OS and various language trust stores is the same to that effect.

The rules for inclusion in the browsers trust stores are strict (many of the Linux distros and language trust stores just use the Mozilla cert set), which is where the trust comes from.

Which CA provider you choose doesn’t change your potential attack surface. The question on attack surface seems like it might come from lacking understanding of how certs and signing work.

A cert has 2 parts public cert and private key, CAs sign your sites public cert with their private key, they never have or need your private key. Public certs can be used to verify something was signed by the private key. Public certs can be used to encrypt data such that only the private key can decrypt it.

That would still technically be a math problem. I’m not sure if it falls in combinatorics, statistics/probability, or scheduling, but I’ve had problems like this on math and cs exams.

I’ve been dealing with lawyers and court recently, they may be above average in terms of intelligence and drive but most wouldn’t be extremely above that average. I’ve had to explain fairly basic math, with easy numbers (fractions like 1/2 and 1/3 regarding pay structure), several times already. Ie

• base = 100
• bonus = 1/2 * base
• total = base + bonus.

Still had to explain that bonus is 1/3 total not 1/2 total.

Taxes on $300k in a year would make it impossible. Would probably have to make $400k in a year to have a chance with expenses and living frugally or 2-3 years @ $300k/year.

There was no reference to alamony or spousal support in the post, but I tend to see that “taking all my money” phase because of un-equilal division of assets. The post implies they feel there was an un-equilal division, but suggests they are in a better state now that the ex is out of their life despite that, which is a relatively healthy expression for what they are going/have gone through.

Where I am, non-financial spousal contributions are taken seriously and is seen as important as any other form of contribute to the marriage. I know that isn’t the case everywhere and if you experienced your non-financial contributions being downplayed, I am sorry.

Telling people to stop, is sweeping issues under the rug that should be, and need to be talked about. I do agree non-financial contributions get downplayed, it’s shitty that it still happens.

Never said venting was an excuse or the way this venting was happening was perfectly healthy, but that it is necessary to allow people to vent and telling people to stop isn’t healthy.

Being in a divorce currently, I have noticed a few things that aren’t talked about that I think lead to these memes being so popular.

Divorce laws vary a lot from location to location, in the US they are all state level laws. Not all state level divorce laws are fair to both parties, it seems to get worse if children are involved (some states have recently been adding laws that state 50/50 custody must be the assumed starting point because it hasn’t been).

Even if the divorce laws are written to be fair to both parties in theory, at least in my state, the judge has the flexibility to rule in ways that may seem or even be unfair (what is equatable is complicated).

Even if the judge would or does rule fairly on all issues presented to them, the lawyers (if the parties can even afford lawyers) may be perpetuating gender biases in divorces as well. So the issues may never even reach the judge and just be settled by an “agreement” between the parties pushed by the lawyers.

Most divorces settle, maybe even on terms that heavily favor one party, because going to trial is a lot of money. Lawyers know this and have “games” they can play. like 60%-70% of assets to one party is still cheaper in theory than going to trial for the other party, so they hold that line in negotiations and your own lawyer will push for you to agree to terms like that as a cost/benefit analysis exercise.

Even if none of that happened and it was fair the whole way through, it is a very complex emotional time, and men often don’t have the same level of social support to vent to.

Telling people to stop unless they are in some level of extreme situation is really toxic. People need to vent and be able to talk about what they are going through.