aquafunkalisticbootywhap

Adventure

“somebody get this freaking duck away from me”

you didnt read my comment in the way it was intended:

everyone involved here- the doctors, the patients, the state medical board- everyone wants doctors acting in accordance with the oath they took. these doctors, while legitimately afraid of running afoul of the law, may have intentionally failed to help this woman out of that fear, and if they could have helped her, should have. the fact that “this law” exists is a question for another time and place, after she has received appropriate care.

if this law then causes a disciplinary hearing, thats how uts supposed to happen. the law can be brought into question. human beings with the requisite skills and experience to pass judgement on proper medical procedures can be consulted.

sorry, but people dont get to pass laws that cause doctors to withhold care out of fear, laws they only passed out of their beliefs surrounding conception and birth. if those doctors werent going to save that woman, who was? wasnt that literally what they swore to do? what they got that license from texas for?

you break the unjust laws. thats how it works.

im tired of oh standing up is hard

tell it to that womans family

ed to add: theres enough ire to go around. many people fucked up and they all share the blame

with matter devices, you can possibly do some fun networking, and block them from reaching the outside world completely. then you just need to trust your firewall

consequences for breaking an oath

arbitrary punishment

not the same thing

or would you rather to continue to let policy dictate standard of care? the law is wrong, and if a doctor isnt going to break it to do the right thing, they shouldnt be a doctor anymore

“bombshell”

shut the fuck up already.

I like to think collectively, as a whole, we want to?

Im guilty of giving up sometimes.

I could do more.

…thank whatever Im not an alcoholic, because I figure this is how you start

lets just sa theyve done a good job of creating an atmosphere where a lot of us who really, really want to do more feel slapped down before we even get started

:shrug:

hangintherecat.jpg

oh how nice it would be to see the world unite as one just to take us (the USA) down a peg. I feel like russia and china are really dropping the ball lately

oh, wait lol theyre also run by egomaniacal baffoons :shrug:

shoutout to USAA banking app that detected my root, but just showed a warning and allowed me to continue. that’s how it ahould be imho

because workers don’t collectively own the means of production.

not to be like that, but once some new hotness graduates from 2 people in a garage, the controlling interest is never the workers who have a vested interest in products, daily work (and a brand) they can be proud of, but investors with only short term profit on their mind. innovators- and inventors-turned-C suite executives jump ship when bought out, leaving the real meat and potatoes, the real work behind the brand, to be offshored, profit prioritized and picked clean.

buy from worker-owned co-ops. buy from local crafters and people deserving of the label ‘artisan’. flat out refuse to buy from brands that are a sad, hollowed out husk of their former selves. more importantly - most importantly - do what you can to keep your retirement investments away from quartly-profit mills who couldnt care less about workers or customers beyond raw sales numbers. and definitely, definitely never agree to work for them.

The DEA’s administrative law judge already said it shouldn’t be Schedule I, after a lengthy review, and (surprise!) the DEA administrator ignored them. What a genius system; leave it up to the person wielding power to be the one making the final decision to wield less power 🤦

D.A. and sheriff have argued their positions provide them immumity from civil lawsuits.

No! No, no, nonono, NO! FUCK YOU. “I’m just doing my job” is not a “get out of jail free” card, and certainly doesn’t excuse you from defending your actions. You use the courts to ruin other people’s lives when you deem it appropriate? You’d better damn well believe your conduct while doing so is subject to the same processes- criminal and civil. Forget the sheer arrogance of thinking differently -

if you’d think about it for half a second, you supposed justice system experts -

the whole damn thing doesn’t work otherwise! Who is going to bother listening to you, holier than thou police officers, when you say the rules don’t apply to you!? Are you somehow fucking stumped why people just mysteriously don’t like cops? THIS KIND OF BULLSHIT IS A BIG REASON WHY. When you plainly act like the expectactions we hold for each other don’t apply to you, you sound like you think you’re above the law. You’re not royalty, you’re not nobility; you are citizens, just like us.

these were choices y’all made. choices have consequences. own your shit. we DO NOT pay you to be mindless law enforcing robots- exercise better judgement next time. you want respect for the difficult job you do? rationally defend your actions OR as you’ve somewhat tried to do, apologize, and then show you’ve learned from your mistakes. this “I can’t deal with/the system can’t deal with the idea that people make bad choices so lets just act like everyone is infallable” is ruining, just RUINING any hope we have of continuing to be a functioning society pulls hair out in frustration

remember, it’s not just about making up the difference per user in advertising, it’s about getting and keeping as many people into their ecosystem as possible.

then they make some cash from selling data, and having more data to scrape to train their models and such. proton isnt making any off your data

it’d be great to be able to easily compare cost and expense, but companies obscure so much in the backend. rental car companies buy discounted in bulk, then sell the cars tens of thousands of miles later at a profit, and that’s before any income from rental

This is similar to to how the two major US political parties fail at effectively creating constant, essential evolution of laws in the name of representing ideals.

Candidates that can not, by the very foundational nature of their stated goals and beliefs, form coalitions with other candidates in order to ensure constant progress, create disfunctional governments that fail their citizens. Systems of choice should tend towards the choices that best represent the most widely agreed upon ideas. If those systems are in place, citizens who willingly choose extreme idelogical candidates that denounce compromise and coalitions are getting exactly what they voted for- a government that is doomed to fail.

We need moderate candidates focused on representing the majority of their constituents, and we need voting systems in place that favor moderate candidates. Any system that favors moderate candidates - say candidates that, while maybe not any majority’s first choice, but the second choice of a majority of the same people - is favorable to first-past-the-post, which has allowed exteremism and obstructionism to thrive in our legislative bodies.

The question becomes, do the citizens have that system in place, a system where moderate voices can thrive? If they do, are there those in positions of extreme wealth and power who would benefit from convincing the rest of us that voting for extreme, obstructionist candidates is best? Are those people possibly exploiting the system to create disfuntional governments that protect their wealth and power?

That’s whats happening in the US. Regulatory capture and mass media control, for example, are tools used to convince citizens the war is between us, distracting us from their benefitting from our disfunctional government. These few push the idea that obstructionism and extremism is our only choice, lest you be seen as the enemy. The true enemy is clearly those that care more about themselves and/or their espoused ideals than society at large, a society doomed without a constantly evolving goverment keeping corruption and consolodation of wealth and power in check.

can’t labels and artists pay for some kind of premium placement in discover weekly, release radar, and playlist recs?

ok, after some research, found this:

In some cases, commercial considerations, such as the cost of content or whether we can monetize it, may influence our recommendations. For example, Discovery Mode gives artists and labels the opportunity to identify songs that are a priority for them, and our system will add that signal to the algorithms that determine the content of personalized listening sessions. When an artist or label turns on Discovery Mode for a song, Spotify charges a commission on streams of that song in areas of the platform where Discovery Mode is active (Discovery Mode is not active in our editorial playlists). This signal increases the likelihood of the selected songs being recommended, but does not guarantee it.

so, at the very least, the recs you get are definitely not organic, and favor major labels, rich folks, and if Spotify can make any money off streaming the track in the first place

not saying the algorithm doesn’t get it right most of the time (they’d be shooting themselves in the foot if it was all sponsored), but if it’s favoring big labels and drowning out everyone else in the name of revenue for Spotify, I prefer to choose other ways to find new stuff. if Spotify needs more money to pay the bills, imho they should plainly be asking the consumers up front

whoops. maybe I should read the entire thing next time

downvotes are not to express disagreement!

so many comments here about adding regulations and “this should be illegal” and, yes, those may be a valid way to curb this behavior

but customers willing to leave a company for bad behavior, customers wary of new products without asdurances they wont just become useless, non-reusable e-waste could also effectively curb this behavior

just because you want to outsource all of your product and company research to a law or regulation, and want to be able to blindly buy products and just hope the company doesn’t make bad choices in every regard but quartly profits doesn’t mean it is the only effective check & balance

The way I understood it is a commercial for McD in the US isnt required to have real food; a commercial for McD’s “whatever” has to have the actual item being advertised, but can be so meticulously crafted, you’d never see one like that in the wild. A commercial for a grocery chain, for example- most/all of of the food you see is props made to look like the most appetizing food youve ever dreamed of.

Who knows if this is enforced. NPR and PBS stations are specifically prohibited from “sponsorship” messages mentioning a specific product or service, and they’ve been ignoring that for decades.

I find myself immediately opening the video transcript for many videos. creating a well made video that offers more than a few paragraphs of text is often a challenge

They care about being able to hire labor, which we provide, and they care about revenue and profit, which we also provide. Not defending any behavior, but the consequences in a healthy economy would largely come from customers, potential and current employees. Failing that, large issues would be overcome by regulations, or at least enforcing existing ones (codified rules against monopolies, for examples, are just words if not enforced).

Without consumers willing (and able) to make sacrifices (like paying higher prices) to reward good corporate behavior, and to avoid companies with purely short-term profit motivated behavior, this is what we can and should expect. Nevermind companies are rewarded by shareholder and investor support based more on profits than.how those profits were made, especially when many of those shareholders feel forced to turn to the stock market to fund their retirement, as pensions are so increasingly a rare option.

Would voting for fresh representatives possibly increase instability in out daily lives? Is that instability a possibly necessary cost of maintaining effective regulation of the investor class that has captured our legislative system to their own benefit?

There are systemic problems at play here- not to downplay the choices this individual company made, but the focus could be on the larger forces at work. If your first reaction is that boycotts and choices by consumers and employees, no matter how organized and widespread, do not work, then I ask you, dear reader, to consider what might work to make the necessary systemic changes, and what, if anything, you can do to help make them happen.

The investor class has made it clear what their playbook is, as they have time and time again thru history: explotation, and as much of it as they can get away with. The question then becomes what us, the ever-increasingly exploited, are going to do about it.

no war but class war.

ed:I hope that didnt come off as disagreement- just trying to voice frustration with a side of “everyone who agrees with you please take a moment to think about the big picture, and what you can do about it” because I’m also tired of this slide into an increasingly boring dystopia