partial_accumen

because they think they’ll be there someday.

Sadly, I think its even worse than you’re describing. They think they are at that higher station now and its rule #1 that is preventing them from actualizing it. As in “I’m not experiencing a luxurious lifestyle because Group X is taking my share”.

Thats built into #2. If your station is low enough, you should expect to endure cruelty. Its your station after all…is their implied position.

We aren’t officially married and we keep separate bank accounts.

There’s nothing wrong with having a family without being married, but what were the ground rules you established when you became a family? Has she been interested in marriage, but you weren’t? Were you interested in marriage and she wasn’t? You both decided on something less than marriage, but what were the terms you agreed to?

Recently she has been working more and there are positive signs that we will be able to improve our financial situation as kiddo transitions to regular school.

Up until this time, what were her sources of income? If she was staying at home full time raising the child, was she dependent on whatever money you decided to give her at any point, or did you have an agreed amount you’d give her for her bank account to spend however she liked without any knowledge/approval from you? If the former, then she could have been financially insecure this entire time and fearful that if your favor changed, she’d be out on her ear possibly caring for her child without anything to support herself on. That would be terrifying for any human, but even more so for a mother.

It feels like she assumes I’ll put my hand in her pocket, which hurts given how generous I’ve tried to be.

…and…

I don’t see why I should continue shouldering 80% or more of the household expenses without an honest conversation where all the chips are on the table.

The first statement says you won’t put your hand in her pocket. The second statement sounds like you want to put your hand in her pocket.

I also want to be transparent with her if/when I get an inheritance (unfortunately I am likely to be in this scenario within the next few years) but how can I do that when I’m kept in the dark on this? Am I just being greedy or something here? This seems like basic trust/ transparency stuff, and points at major structural issues…

If neither of you laid out expectations for one another years ago before you got together, you’re in a tight spot now. Doing so now will appear to be influenced by her inheritance. What do you want for your future together? What does she want for your future together? Do those two things match?

The only possibly way I can see forward, and you’re going to have to be okay with it, is to say:

“Honey, here’s what I want our future to be like, and what I want our relationship to be including financial transparency with one another. However, I recognize I didn’t say this from the start, and I want you to know that your inheritance can’t influence this. 100% of your inheritance is yours forever for whatever you want to spend it on, and nothing needs to change with our previous financial arrangement as long as it was working for you before. If you need it to change for your benefit completely separate from the inheritance, I’m open to your thoughts on it. I want us to be on the same page building a future together as a family, and I won’t let that be in a position where you feel vulnerable or uncertain.”

The lengths people will go through to stop something that hurts nobody, but helps many always astounds me.

I have to credit some rando Redditor for the insight that helped me understand why these people do this. I’ll paraphrase because I can’t remember the exact prose.

Nearly all actions of Conservatives can be explained by their two implied core principles:

1. All policies are zero sum. For you to gain something means I am losing something.
2. There is a naturally occurring societal class-based hierarchy system, and you are required to stay at your level, never rising.

So the reason conservatives oppose student loan relief applies to both rules.

1. If student loan borrowers are having debts forgiven (they are getting something) that MUST mean the conservative is losing something.
2. If they had to take loans for school because they couldn’t afford to pay for it outright, then they should stay in their economic station. Forgiving these loans may allow them to advance beyond their current class, which cannot be allowed.

Future Martian geologists. “This rock has no business being here. There must have been a glacier at some point that moved it here.”

“What the name of the guy that created this? Eannatum Bronze? Thats a horrible name. We certainly can’t use that”.

I didn’t know that. I looked it up and saw you’re right source

I will say that my worst experience was in Dehli India, which is currently twice as worse as Tehran! The air pollution in Dehli was so bad you could visually see hanging in the air, indoors at the airport. It was surreal to be walking around the terminal with the heavy smell of diesel exhaust as though you were surrounded by heavy trucks idling around you.

Could this be a use great use case of an LLM?

All the Sovcit logic stuff is bullshit anyway, it just sounds like something that might be real. So build an LLM and feed it all the Sovcit shit you can find. Then ask it a question that contradicts a Sovcit position. Yes its going to be a garbage answer it returns, but it will sound like something a Sovcit would say.

Sovcit: “You can’t take my car because I issued an international statement of payment with receipt on my account!”

LLM answer: “Oh, I’m sorry. International statements of payment are only valid in registered districts of independence. You clearly haven’t executed a notice Promissory Estoppel, and its too late now so I have to take the car.”

Cool picture. Is there a filter on this, is there smog, or are the Persians really into Sodium Vapor lighting to make it that orange?