Actually... those fees are outdated. It jumped to me because for the first time in years I got a fine for "parking on grades" - Somehow I was distracted and turned my wheels the opposite direction.
So I found the fees for July 2025[1]. My fine was $108 and not $68
But also they made errors in publishing their fees, they claimed it didn't increase this year, but it did [2] - and asked the AI to find all the other inconsistencies.
So now I wonder if I should ask for $40 back. That's a dramatic increase, and seems like the intent was it to stay at $68
Not on the list: "Oh, it's just my OCD" -- Either you have been diagnosed (and consequently suffer from OCD) or you have an obsessive personality (sometimes a quality).
But OCD is a diagnosis, abusing it do describe a personality trait doesn't serve the many many people impacted by the disorder.
There’s a great episode of the Australian TV series You Can’t Ask That which interviews a group of OCD sufferers about their lived experience. It really opened my eyes to just how appallingly cavalier it is to refer to one’s minor neuroses as “OCD”. An excerpt from the show: https://youtu.be/tkrFgKW5LvY (Australians can stream it on iView)
I see how it can be perceived this way, but I think it's because of the novelty of the condition (so people aren't used to it being casually used as much).
For more established conditions, we don't really feel that way, e.g. like, how:
"Turn the flashlight off, I'm going blind!"
"This jump scare gave me a heart attack!"
"Monday's make me depressed"
Are not really considered an insult to the blind, people with heart conditions, and the clinically depressed...
Being blinded is something many people temporarily experience without being “visually impaired.” Feeling depressed is something that everyone experiences, while they may not be clinically depressed. Heart attacks are similarly common; they are hardly a misunderstood phenomenon.
These things are not the same as misunderstood conditions suffered by a small minority.
There's also self-diagnosis though. Which in some cases, and for some types of conditions, can be as or more accurate than a professional one (where the professional might only see a facade)...
I thought that was odd too. Maybe the middle one was a practice swing?
edit - I watched it again more closely. Looks like he threw down the second ball and the middle shot was either a practice swing or he missed it altogether and it wasn't counted (which I think is fair given he was wearing a thick space suit in low gravity swinging one handed with a fishbowl on his head).
edit 2 - Just seeing child post. Guess I gotta watch it again :)
edit 3 - Yep, child post is correct. It's sort of weird how confusing this short video is. The second ball kind of appears out of nowhere, as if he was doing a practice swing and dropping the ball at the same time.
A ball is clearly visible at 46s. Watching it again, he swings 4 times. I don't see a ball for the second swing, but they are clearly visible for the other 3.
I imagine the analyst found where 2 landed and the write up misunderstood that to be the number of shots.
As an aside, I know this simply from experience with taking drugs recreationally. Chewed or otherwise ground up pills hit you faster, and I've found dissolving a ground up pill in hot water is the winner, as far as time to kick in.
Pharmaceutical pills have all sorts of additives intended to delay the release of the active chemical, recreational pills have an obviously less rigorously tested version of the same.
My mother, a (retired) cardiovascular pharmacologist, taught me that the quality/effectiveness of those additives is often what differentiates brand name drugs from generics (sometimes significantly, admittedly she's been retired for quite a while now, so that information might be out of date, but she actually did some professional research on the subject back in the day).
I'll never forget the time when I, at about the age of 11, was sent in to the store to buy a big bottle of Aleve that my mom was going to "smuggle" across the border to Canada for her sister (Naproxen was prescription only at the time in Canada, but available OTC in the US - amusingly, Tylenol w/codeine was the inverse). I bought a generic naproxen sodium instead (thinking I was so clever for saving about half the money I'd been given), and I got chewed out and sent back into the store to replace it. That was what she got for teaching me to actually read the active ingredients of drugs on the label ;)
So I found the fees for July 2025[1]. My fine was $108 and not $68
But also they made errors in publishing their fees, they claimed it didn't increase this year, but it did [2] - and asked the AI to find all the other inconsistencies.
So now I wonder if I should ask for $40 back. That's a dramatic increase, and seems like the intent was it to stay at $68
[1] https://www.sfmta.com/media/42628/download?inline [2] https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/3330732a-2bd1-497d-ab...