domain:putanumonit.com
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
21hr ago
I'm an early adopter for man-made horrors that are, unfortunately, entirely within my comprehension.
AvocadoPanic
21hr ago
US.
After confronting her with the email and the screenshots of the transactions she agreed to go to a crisis counseling walk in service. They saw us right away, she was much more amenable to seeing a therapist / psychiatrist after talking through things with the crisis counselor. She goes back tomorrow.
I'd reached out to her brother several weeks ago. Unfortunately they were estranged when we ment and married. Didn't really reconcile until ~14 years ago, and we've only seen him in person once in the last 12 years.
I was really very surprised how supportive and engaged the local police department was when I reached out about options, thankfully I did not need to go down that path. Small town life.
She now says she knew it was a scam and sent the money anyway because they were nice to her and it was part fantasy. Though the money and bitcoin was very real and not fantasy.
I've a friend who's a psychiatrist in the UK. He and my wife did A&E rotations together in Ireland. He and I are talking tomorrow.
I really appreciate your advice, thank you.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
21hr ago
Everyone here needs to chill.
You read his statement as indicating that the crowd was trying to assault them, which is just wrong, so I provided another source clarifying that the civilians never posed a risk.
Yeah, sure, in the story he tells the crowd wasn't trying to assault him. Did I ever once claim that wasn't a war crime? I'm pretty sure I agreed it was.
If they deliberately shoot civilians who aren't fighting, yeah, that's a war crime. And he's alleging that has happened, fair. But the nature of the rifles is orthogonal to its status as a war crime.
But this is the quote we're talking about:
The equipment, the equipment that we were issued, fully automatic weapons, which, in and of itself, is not a violation of protocol. However, we were issued M855 green-tipped ammunition. That’s important, because green-tipped ammunition is a steel-jacketed copper round that’s designed to — specifically designed to penetrate armor. It’s designed to kill. It’s designed to shoot through reinforced objects, to kill someone on the other side of it. That’s what all the UG Solutions contractors are equipped with right now in country. Everyone carries a standard basic load of 210 rounds of M855 armor-piercing military combat ammunition. Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives, against an unarmed population? It’s inappropriate. That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.
Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives, against an unarmed population? It’s inappropriate. That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.
... even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives, against an unarmed population?
You quoted that yourself. You didn't bold it -- you bolded 'against an unarmed population,' which isn't relevant to the statute. (Being unarmed is not sufficient to claim protection under 8(2)(b)(i), as I explained. Maybe you disagree, but you haven't said so yet.) Was I to assume that meant you disagreed? Presumably not, given you also said, 'Hm, I don’t see a single error in his testimony.' But no, it's not an error, it's just that, taken holistically, his words mean something other than what he said. Fine. The tone of my last message would have been very different if you'd just pointed that out instead of saying:
This, as with any law, will be pursued with litigation and deliberation to work out details. The entire application of law is not based on a single sentence with no rational determination applying to it.
With no effort to clarify that I'd completely misinterpreted what you were calling a crime. I misread things sometimes, I won't lie. But it really doesn't feel like I'm the one who isn't trying to achieve mutual understanding.
But forget what he said. Here's what you said -- not off-the-cuff, not in a video:
We can surmise that this is what he means by war crimes, that using a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control is a war crime. This is a war crime under The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8 (Article 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i)).
The statute does not say that. It forbids directing any attack whatsoever 'against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.' The fact that attack is performed with a rifle with live bullets is entirely irrelevant. I'm not ignoring your point that the IDF uses rubber bullets in the West Bank, it just has nothing to do with the statute as best as I can tell. And what does 'deal[ing] with civilian crowd control' actually mean? Cause if you don't actually shoot any civilians who aren't taking a direct part in hostilities (or act in one of the other manners I described in my previous comment), it's simply not a war crime. Are you under the impression that civilian crowd control is impossible without attacking civilians who take no hostile action? If so, you believe that civilian crowd control is a war crime per se, since, again, the weapon used in the attack makes no difference. If not, then it's entirely possible to deal with civilian crowd control while armed with a rifle with live bullets and not commit a war crime.
Or am I taking you out of context too? I mean, it's a complete thought. In text. Is the fact you described an example of something else entirely ('starving children getting a little too close or not disseminating as quickly as the group wants, and then being shot with live ammo') afterward meant to clarify that you didn't mean what you said?
It's not like it's not important. Whether Israel is in fact having its forces 'us[e] a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control' is trivial to establish; the details of any particular incident are much, much harder. And there's number of violations, and the fact that it is (allegedly) policy; policy in violation of international law is much more damning than bad behavior from individual soldiers.
If I didn't bother to check the cite and replied, 'Oh, wow, and Aguilar says every contractor is using a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control! That must be hundreds or maybe thousands of violations of international law right there!' would you have corrected me and clarified the war crime is actually just using those rifles to shoot non-violent civilians? Would you have said, 'Aguilar's remarks were off-the-cuff, you can't take his words at face value?' Or are you just retreating to the motte after I've challenged the bailey?
It does not matter that Israel has not signed on to the first Additional Protocol, because it’s now customary international law, making it binding to Israel (and to everyone).
It's interesting that you accuse me of hostile misreading. Here are the three things I said on this subject:
Israel hasn't signed this statute, but I'll concede the point if the behavior is a war crime by any international standard with substantial support.
and
Especially since this is the infamous ICC which the US and Israel refuse to subject themselves to.
and
But instead of committing to one or offering your own interpretation, you just pushed it aside and baldly asserted that this behavior will be found to violate the statute once it gets to trial (which you know will never happen).
And your response:
Now, again, it doesn’t matter that Israel isn’t a signatory whatsoever, and even their opinion on what constitutes international custom isn’t determinative of anything
I'm pretty sure Israel's opinion on this question matters a great deal for whether the trial is ever going to happen. Or is there a date set for Netanyahu's ICC trial? It's gotta be pretty soon, they put out the warrant for his arrest ages ago. I never said that Israel wasn't subject to the ICC's jurisdiction -- a topic on which I have no strong opinion and am not particularly interested in arguing about, because it doesn't matter when I already said I'd concede if the behavior is a war crime by the Rome Statute regardless. I certainly didn't indicate I thought the ICC (and the ICJ, and the Red Cross, and whoever else) accepted Israel isn't subject to it. It's impossible not to hear them shouting that it is.
I said:
-
That Israel hasn't signed it (True)
-
That the US and Israel refuse to subject themselves to it (Only 98% True! Israel contests that some or all of the First and Second Additional Protocols do not reflect customary law (they name specific articles, but say explicitly the list is non-exhaustive), which does not conclusively rule out the possibility that they accept at least one provision somewhere in the document is customary! They've never surrendered any of their citizens for trial by the ICC, though, and there's no indication that's going to change. Mea culpa.)
-
the trial is never going to happen (True). Well, no, to be fair I said you know the trial will never happen. If you don't know that, I apologize.
So I’m providing you another example, if you’re for some reason intent on disagreeing with Aguilar because he didn’t talk about munitions neurotically enough or something, or if you think he meant the starving children were threatening his life.
I'm intent on saying true things on super important topics and not saying false things, even if those false things holistically contribute to a true impression. I'm not perfect on that score, I know... for which I've apologized and retracted my erroneous claims.
FtSoA
21hr ago
Goddamn thanks for letting me know about that fun new infohazard I can generate on demand.
FtSoA
21hr ago
The M7 Rifle and M250 Automatic Rifle are currently being fielded across the Close Combat Force (CCB) to replace the M4A1 Carbine and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) respectively.
It's a limited amount thus far, yes, but at least one operational unit has them in hand. Perhaps the Army will back out of its planned purchase of 100k+ of them, but there's no indication of that presently.
Do Not Render Your Counterfactuals
There is a particular kind of modern madness, so new it has yet to be named. It involves voluntarily feeding your own emotional entrails into the maw of an algorithm. It’s a madness born of idle curiosity, and perhaps a deep, masochistic hunger for pain. I indulged in it recently, and the result sits in my mind like a cold stone.
Years ago, there was a woman. We loved each other with the fierce, optimistic certainty of youth. In the way of young couples exploring the novelty of a shared future, we once stumbled upon one of those early, crude image generators - the kind that promised to visualize the genetic roulette of potential offspring. We fed it our photos, laughing at the absurdity, yet strangely captivated. The result, a composite face with hints of her eyes and jawline, and the contours of my cheeks. The baby struck us both as disarmingly cute. A little ghost of possibility, rendered in pixels. The interface was lacking, this being the distant year of 2022, and all we could do was laugh at the image, and look each other in the eyes that formed a kaleidoscope of love.
Life, as it does, intervened. We weren’t careful. A positive test, followed swiftly by the cramping and bleeding that signals an end before a beginning. The dominant emotion then, I must confess with the clarity of hindsight and the weight of shame, was profound relief. We were young, financially precarious, emotionally unmoored. A child felt like an accidentally unfurled sail catching a gale, dragging us into a sea we weren’t equipped to navigate. The relief was sharp, immediate, and utterly rational. We mourned the event, the scare, but not the entity. Not yet. I don't even know if it was a boy or a girl.
Time passed. The relationship ended, as young love often does, not with a bang but with the slow erosion of incompatible trajectories. Or perhaps that's me being maudlin, in the end, it went down in flames, and I felt immense relief that it was done. Life moved on. Occasionally, my digital past haunted me. Essays written that mentioned her, half-joking parentheticals where I remembered asking for her input. Google Photos choosing to 'remind' me of our time together (I never had the heart to delete our images).
Just now while back, another denizen of this niche internet forum I call home spoke about their difficulties conceiving. Repeated miscarriages, they said, and they were trawling the literature and afraid that there was an underlying chromosomal incompatibility. I did my best to reassure them, to the extent that reassurance was appropriate without verging into kind lies.
But you can never know what triggers it, thats urge to pick at an emotional scab or poke at the bruise she left on my heart. Someone on Twitter had, quite recently, showed off an example of Anakin and Padme with kids that looked just like them, courtesy of tricking ChatGPT into relaxing its content filters.
Another person, wiser than me, had promptly pointed out that modernity could produce artifacts that would once have been deemed cursed and summarily entombed. I didn't listen.
And knowing, with the cold certainty that it was a terrible idea, that I'd regret it, I fired up ChatGPT. Google Photos had already surfaced a digital snapshot of us, frozen in time, smiling at a camera that didn’t capture the tremors beneath. I fed it the prompt: "Show us as a family. With children." (The specifics obfuscated to hopefully get past ChatGPT's filter, and also because I don't want to spread a bad idea. You can look that up if you really care)
The algorithm, that vast engine of matrix multiplications and statistical correlations that often reproduces wisdom, did its work. It analyzed our features, our skin tones, the angles of our faces. It generated an image. Us, but not just the two of us. A boy with her unruly hair and my serious gaze. A girl with her dimples and my straighter mop. They looked like us. They looked like each other. They looked real.
They smiled as the girl clung to her skirt, a shy but happy face peeking out from the side. The boy perched in my arms, held aloft and without a care in the world.
It wasn't perfect, ChatGPT's image generation, for all its power, has clear tells. It's not yet out of the uncanny valley, and is deficient when compared to more specialized image models.
And yet.
My brain, the ancient primate wetware that has been fine-tuned for millions of years to recognize kin and feel profound attachment, does not care about any of this. It sees a plausible-looking child who has her eyes and my nose, and it lights up the relevant circuits with a ruthless, biological efficiency. It sees a little girl with her mother’s exact smile, and it runs the subroutine for love-and-protect.
The part of my mind that understands linear algebra is locked in a cage, screaming, while the part of my mind that understands family is at the controls, weeping.
I didn't weep. But it was close. As a doctor, I'm used to asking people to describe their pain, even if that qualia has a certain je ne sais quoi. The distinction, however artificial, is still useful. This ache was dull. Someone punched me in the chest and proved that the scars could never have the tensile strength of unblemished tissue. That someone was me.
This is a new kind of emotional exploit. We’ve had tools for evoking memory for millennia: a photograph, a song, a scent. But those are tools for accessing things that were, barring perhaps painting. Generative AI is a tool for rendering, in optionally photorealistic detail, things that never were. It allows you to create a perfectly crafted key to unlock a door in your heart that you never knew existed, a door that opens onto an empty room.
What is the utility of such an act? From a rational perspective, it’s pure negative value. I have voluntarily converted compute cycles into a significant quantity of personal sadness, with no corresponding insight or benefit. At the time of writing, I've already poured myself a stiff drink.
One might argue this is a new form of closure. By looking the ghost directly in the face, you can understand its form and, perhaps, finally dismiss it. This is the logic of exposure therapy. But it feels more like a form of self-flagellation. A way of paying a psychic tax on a past decision that, even if correct, feels like it demands a toll of sorrow. The relief I felt at the miscarriage all those years ago was rational, but perhaps some part of the human machine feels that such rationality must be punished. The AI provides an exquisitely calibrated whip for the job.
The broader lesson is not merely, as the old wisdom goes, to "let bygones be bygones." That advice was formulated in a world where bygones had the decency to remain fuzzy and abstract. The new, updated-for-the-21st-century maxim might be: Do not render your counterfactuals.
Our lives are a series of branching paths. Every major decision: career, relationship, location - creates a ghost-self who took the other route. For most of human history, that ghost-self remained an indistinct specter. You could wonder, vaguely, what life would have been like if you’d become a doctor, but you couldn’t see it.
The two children in the picture on my screen are gorgeous. They are entirely the product of matrix multiplications and noise functions, imaginary beings fished from nearly infinite latent space. And I know, with a certainty that feels both insane and completely true, that I could have loved them.
It hurts so fucking bad. I tell myself that the pain is a signal that the underlying system is still working. It would be worse if I stood in the wreckage of could have been, and felt nothing at all.
I look at those images again. The boy, the girl. Entirely fantasized. Products of code, not biology. Yet, the thought persists: "I think they were gorgeous and I could have loved them." And that’s the cruelest trick of all. The AI didn't just show me faces; it showed me the capacity for love that still resides within me, directed towards phantoms. It made me mourn not just the children, but the version of myself that might have raised them, alongside a woman I no longer know.
I delete them. I pour myself another drink, and say that it's in their honor.
(You may, if you please, like this on my Substack)
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
22hr ago
Indeed, irreconcilable differences of opinion here
I'm sorry, do you have any real-world experience with the impacts of this administration's policies or are you just judging this based on what you hear from the internet. Because if you did have actual real-world contact, making a judgement that the damage is solely at the level of the FAA scandal and some awkward interviews and media quotes is completely absurd.
Do you have any idea how many grad students are deciding to only apply to postdocs outside of the US? How many people from outside who would've a year ago loved to come here deciding not to apply to any schools in the US? How many people are leaving research because of 60-70% funding cuts to hard sciences and the subsequent hiring freezes? The rumors in my field are that young people shouldn't even try applying to Canada because all the openings are going to be taken by senior researchers leaving the US. From anecdotes on the ground, literally hearing what people are saying at conferences, the destruction of the scientific research infrastructure in the US is unmatched by any event in a western country since Nazi Germany.
Yes, I don't give a damn about whatever stupid ultimately superficial nonsense you can pin on the woke if the other choice is this! Seriously, most of you're examples are quotes and words, it's obnoxious how much you're ignoring actual material impacts.
EDIT: and as you can see from the responses below, it seems that some prominent posters here seem to think that this is a good thing? Do you understand now why I would pick the woke?
FtSoA
22hr ago
One gun had an issue that has not been confirmed as the same issue for others, this FBI testing was using protocols that significantly modified the gun. Per Sig, further FBI testing did not find the faults.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/fbi-report-sig-p320-uncommanded-discharge/
They mention, buried in the 31 page report, that the cop’s keys were in his dominant hand at the time of the discharge and they state the keys were able to fit into the holster and the trigger well and pull the trigger with effort. Further, they have a photo in the report of there being a large gouge in the trigger well from the cops keys. While they don’t directly say that it’s the cop’s fault, they do directly state in the conclusion that there is not definitive evidence that a uncommanded discharge occurred or could be reliably recreated without extensive modification to the FCU.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/1luobo5/protraband_posts_fbi_file_on_p320m18/
I had the discussion with friends recently about what being an adult is, and my position was kind of close to yours, it's that an adult has agency and initiative. If an adult sees that something has to be done, he will take into consideration that he can be the one to do it. He doesn't have to always do it, but he is confident he could and sometimes will. A child will only do things when asked or encouraged to do it, or by following others. An adult will plan a vacation trip unprompted, a child will wait for friends or family to invite them. If someone doesn't do it for them, then they will complain that their life is boring, even though they will not do anything to improve it themselves.
There are many old children. Some even elderly. And there are some very young adults.
Throwaway05
22hr ago
Health systems do sometimes try and figure this stuff out and help patients but its complicated because insurance companies make a full time job out of causing issues here - one of the classic is the way that COPD/Asthma inhalers change every year because insurance companies change what they will pay all the time.
The insurance company has no desire to clear things up with their staff for the obvious reasons.
With respect to diseases like this you will absolutely get the best possible care in the U.S. because no socialized system will spend the money involved. It will just cost you an arm and a leg in the process.
Throwaway05
22hr ago
Bribing a prison guard doesn't take that much money. In my state, quite a few are caught every year smuggling drugs into facilities for paltry amounts of money, and certainly paltry amounts when compared to the pension/benefits they're losing for the rest of their life.
The thing with guards getting bribed is that they are convinced they aren't going to get caught, which is one of the reasons they are cheap. Getting involved with something like Epstein is a 100% bad idea and even idiots guards would know it.
SSCReader
22hr ago
As per hydro who is I believe right wing, that is not my experience.
I think people heavily overestimate what people get from teachers and the like compared to family and nowadays social media.
GeneralElephant
22hr ago
My sister a physician sometimes tells me about the trainings she goes to.
The most recent one the lecturer claimed “if I took a blood pressure cuff to Wakanda there wouldn’t be hypertension because blackness isn’t under attack”.
It might not yet be as woke but not for lack of trying especially given the demographics of new physicians.
birb_cromble
22hr ago
Is this the FBI report where they cut the slide prior to testing, or a newer test? I'm unable to read the PDF in the article well on mobile.
SSCReader
22hr ago
It's almost certainly true that solving it by aiming at Academia alone won't be sufficient, but that doesn't mean that it isn't necessary.
This is a lot more in depth than I was planning, and I am not sure how much time I will have to reply in the next couple of days, but I didn't want to just give you a "You're wrong" answer. Changing academia itself is not only not necessary but probably counter-productive. Academia does not create the Blue Tribe, it is in its current form created by the Blue Tribe. It doesn't matter what you do to academia, it will return to doing Blue Tribe things. Academia also thinks it is more important than it is. Buying into that framing will not get you a solution. Blue academia prepares you for Blue office life. This is how it should be. No point in preparing Blue Tribers to be farmers with Red Tribe values(generalization of course). Academia is a Blue Tribe pursuit that prepares you for Blue Tribe roles. This is not because the Blue Tribe is smarter or whatever. It is because Red Tribe and Blue Tribe are different.
There is a reason the Blue half of my family all became professors and teachers and the like and the Red half of my family all went into trades, and this is 50 years ago. Blue Tribe and Red Tribe are different, they have different values and different preferences. Definitionally the Blue Tribe cares more about academia for its own sake than the Red Tribe (but see below!). Ergo academia will always be governed by Blue ethos and rules. You can't change them to operate by Red Tribe preferences, because the actual Red Tribe doesn't want them (again we're operating in generalizations here) and if they did they would no longer be recognizable as the Red tribe. Do not confuse Blue Tribe conservatives with Red Tribers. They are not the same. Which is why when the Red Tribe relies on Blue Tribe conservatives (such as all the Catholics on the Supreme Court) it ends up not getting what it wants re gun control et al. There is some overlap in goals, but they are not the same. This is a crucial point.
The issue is that Red Tribe roles are always (but see below!) going to be harder and more physically demanding and therefore less prestigious than Blue Tribe roles. Miners want their kids to go to college so they can get an office job. They want their kids to sit in an air conditioned office and only have to worry about office politics and not a mine collapse, or fire, or black lung or losing fingers. This is where the American Dream collides with Tribal identities.
This is the fundamental issue the American Red Tribe has. The economic compounding effects of cities means high paid "easy" jobs are in cities and because cities make Blue Tribe people, that means Red kids need Blue Tribe education to fit in. Which means their kids have to go to university so they can qualify for Blue Tribe roles in Blue Tribe places.
So it's no good complaining Blue Tribe places teach Blue Tribe values. If they didn't they would be no good for getting Red and Blue Tribe kids into Blue Tribe jobs! Blue Tribe places do Blue Tribe things.
Or to put it another way, you can't make cities Red Tribe, because the Red Tribe largely does not want to live in big cities. That's part of what makes them definitionally Red Tribe in the first place. So it is with academia. In trying you would have to destroy what makes the Red Tribe the Red Tribe in the first place.
If there is a solution it is the economic re-distribution of value from cities to more rural areas, so that Red Tribe kids don't have to be taught how to be Blue Tribe to get a "good" job in the American Dream framing. This will rebalance the importance of academia fundamentally. It also hopefully stops the hemorrhaging of young people away from rural towns and therefore reduces "conversion" rates. Notably it can be accomplished with political power alone. Spending that political capital on changing academia is again a distraction (though you could fine/tax/defund them as part of a way to pay for it, this is going to be redistributing wealth from Blue to Red after all).
The other possible solution is time and AI. The Blue Tribe model is a better fit economically for current modernity. An AI revolution that substantially devalues white collar work may also tip the scales such that more manual tasks once again become economically dominant perhaps even over and above the compounding effects of cities. At least temporarily until we are all replaced by robots or nanites or something.
Fiddling inside academia is a smokescreen for the Red Tribe. It's not going to help. It can't. It's buying into a Blue Tribe framing of the Red Tribe problem.
And just to be really clear. The Red Tribe is not worse than the Blue Tribe, it's not overall any dumber or more backwards or ignorant or any of the other insults that are often flung by some Blue Tribers. Individual Red Tribers can and do excel in academia. Some of the very smartest people I know are Red Tribe through and through. Academia is not its forte not because of a lack of intelligence or curiosity but because of different values. Different desires. You can't change those without fundamentally destroying the Red Tribe as it exists. And it goes way beyond just academia.
The Red Tribe has to find its national political representation from Blue Tribe conservatives for the same reason. Hence the RINO tag et al. It's not about interlocking systems of control, it's about tribal identity, and what that means when those tribes actually have different values and preferences. Or perhaps to rephrase the problem with academia is not that it is Blue Tribe heavy, it is that it has become so dominating above the Red Tribe equivalents due to the way the modern economy works. You can't fix academia to be more Red any more than you could make a farming trade college more Blue without fundamentally destroying what it means to be Red or Blue. But you can put a finger on the scale if one is becoming too powerful.
Which is the irony of Trump of course, he is arguably a Blue Triber who shares the values of Red Tribers, even if he isn't actually all that conservative. Which means hopefully he will meaningfully work to shift economic value to rural Red areas. That will do far more to solve the academia problem than anything else I think.
And now I have written Red and Blue Tribe so much that I will probably be seeing it in my dreams tonight.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
22hr ago
The students with those ideas coming in got them from their prior teachers, who got them from a previous generation of leftist academics.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
22hr ago
You're going to have to spell it out. The Smithsonian poster correctly noted some things about white culture (or rather, certain white cultures), but implied that their value were arbitrary. They got jeered at because the people jeering thought some ofthe things on the posters were good things for non-arbitrary reasons, and ascribing their value to "whiteness" was ridiculous.
FCfromSSCs complaint is simply about indoctrination. There doesn't seem to be much relationship.
SSCReader
22hr ago
Thanks for responding! I wouldn't support cutting doctors salaries I don't think. Not that I am in charge of that sort of thing anyway! I also don't think it is the doctors job to be able to know all the costs. But I think it should probably be someone's job (probably at the insurance companies end) so that patients have transparency up front. It's hard to know what treatment to choose without knowledge of the costs as well as the benefits.
Enjoy your vacation!
hanikrummihundursvin
22hr ago
I'm inclined to agree with you. There is 'hatred' in many nations regarding past wars. But that's between nations.
To change perspectives, how one can say they are part of a group with a righteous feeling of anger, fear and vengeance against another national group whilst still claiming to be an equal national to that group strikes me as peculiar. Similar to how some advanced progressive/liberal/leftists manage to order their politics in such a way that brown people can do no wrong.
It is necessarily the case by dint of these emotions that there is a difference. How one would categorize or order that difference is up for debate, but that's where it starts.
Throwaway05
22hr ago
-
Congrats that it seems to be helping.
-
I am on vacation and absolutely obliterated right now but I'll respond because I don't want to forget about this.
-
U.S. system is bonkers, it has its advantages but it is still bonkers. Lots of wealthy companies invest in not paying or making things as confusing as possible.
-
For the most part doctors are employed cogs who have no control, authority, or influence (these days). Usually your contract gives up your right to be in charge of coding and shit. We have enough to do unfortunately and limited ability to help so we don't know and can't do much. Understanding billing is a full time job.
-
I support attempts to fix or simplify things as long as you don't throw the baby out with the bath water but 90% the first step is cut doctor salaries and I'm out.
I spoke to an attorney last week. It was sad and depressing. I completed the documention exercises he recommended before I blocked the the extremist content from the network. This is a non-perfered option.
Being a suspicious sysdmin I was already viewing flows in real time with ntop. I'm blocking tor, outbound VPN from the VLAN her devices are on and also run several domain block lists in DNS. I also trap and force all DNS though my DNS servers and use a block list to block all the well know DNS over https servers. Opnsense firewall.
After I confronted her with the emails and transactions she agreed to go to a crisis counseling service. She now agreed to engage with a therapist / psychiatrist. She goes back tomorrow. She says she knew it was a scam but sent the money anyway because they were nice to her. I don't understand.
White well-being / nowhiteguilt.org is the bailey I'm sure you can imagine the motte.
More options
Context Copy link