22,721 karma · joined June 24, 2011
LOL, the Trump appointed buffoon at USGS who fell over himself to tell Trump in a memo that he'd gone ahead and made it happen even before it was official?
Good thing it's official, then. That's what matters.
But still, sadly, I can relate multiple instances where we had a patient in MH crisis, who was doing well, until police not only arrived but actively escalated the situation.
Get called to an obviously mentally disturbed person who is agitated and such. Successfully talk to him over a period of time, calm him down, start a plan for getting him some assistance. And then had a cop march back over (who was on scene, saw the initial incident, the de-escalation), and start shouting at the patient over the destruction of property. The patient's property. "Who the fuck do you expect to clean up that broken glass? Selfish asshole. I should make _you_ get on your knees and clean it". Note that at the time, the patient's father was actually standing by with a trash can and a broom, ready to take care of exactly that.
End result? The patient who was compliant and willing to go for evaluation in the back of my ambulance needed to be sedated and narrowly avoided being tased. In the grand scheme of things, worse things have happened. But this was a situation actively under control. And a situation this officer, and only this officer, actively worked to make worse.
That incident resulted in a complaint, though I have no idea what the resolution was.
Don't hear many anecdotes about FSD in Pittsburgh on a night in January...
Now you just have to maintain multiple subscriptions to streaming services so you can watch the movie you want. $22/month for Hulu, $27/month for Netflix, Amazon Prime where you pay for the privilege of paying to rent some movies.
So you might be able to watch more with your subscription, but the nexus isn't quite that simple.
Most of the big DI (diagnostic imaging) providers (GE, Siemens, Philips, etc.) have financing programs for physicians who want to buy CT, MRI, etc.
They have consultants who'll help you with your Certificates of Need (the documentation that you need when opening a new healthcare facility that is, cynically, "will your competitors choose to shut down or accept less revenue if we let you open"). They'll even connect you with other physicians so you can form your own partnership on a facility.
And then, you'll go on to refer your regular patients for DI at a rate somewhere between 1 and 2 standard deviations above what other providers do for the same ICD-10 codes.
Not problematic at all!
Don't worry though, just like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50090246 someone will be along to say "mistakes are inevitable, but we need to enforce immigration law, and this is an acceptable price, though not ideal".
Oof.
Like this.
You:
> Deported deliberately to accompany their mother. This was in conflict with the mother's expressed wish for them to remain with other relatives.
When I replied, and added further context, then you walk it back.
> They were deported because their parents were deported and they accompanied them. In most cases where this occurs this is the parents' preference
Well, in this case, it wasn't. As you yourself acknowledge.
Except then you change your acknowledgment to:
> it has been disputed that this was the preference
> Whether this is administrative error or individual malice or institutional malice
No, it's pretty clear that in this case its both individual and institutional malice, given that attorneys for the extended family were there, as well as attorneys for the deported parents.
And in some of these cases the federal judge has recognized all this and DHS has said "fuck it, we're going to walk right out of this courtroom and straight to the airport, try to stop us".
Which has led to nationally televised news incidents where judges have given extraordinary emergency orders to turn deportation charter flights around, and DHS has still said "nah, we're not going to do that, judge".
But what do you expect when one of the leaders of that organization spent most of his "leadership" cosplaying as a literal fucking SS officer?
> In all of these cases, the children are free to reenter the country and remain; they are citizens
LOL. In some of those cases, the children are 11 months old. Their parents have been deported. They have been deported. How are they getting in again? And you'd have to have an optimism that is thoroughly detached from the reality that led to them being deported in the first place to think that, regardless of Constitutional rights, there's not a non-zero risk of CBP at the border denying entry. They were never meant to be deported, what makes you think they'll be let back in? Their rights? Their right to not be forcibly deported was summarily ignored, why will this one be treated as sacrosanct?
"Obviously not ideal" you say. No shit. And then you act, throughout the thread, like the only possible alternative is "no laws/no enforcement, of anything, in any way". What?
Then they should be able to articulate it. Instead in the few cases where they do, it's laughable, at best (or would be laughable if it didn't come with a non-zero risk of extradition to a third world prison in a failed central African state).
Growing up in Australia, my dad pointed out two things to me, learning to drive: 1) that in my state at that time, you were required to drive at the maximum speed that was: within the limit, appropriate to the conditions and your ability to control the vehicle, and 2) that if it was to directly and imminently avoid an accident, a driver is permitted, for the minimum time possible, to ignore any road law (i.e. you cannot be cited for crossing over into oncoming traffic if it was to avoid traffic about to hit you. It was also commonly used for people cited for speeding while passing another vehicle - you'd appeal, and say "While I realize that I am still required to obey the speed limit when passing, as I was doing so, the vehicle I was passing adjusted its speed putting me in a situation where I felt the safest course to avoid an accident was to accelerate past them and then return to the speed limit").
But yes, as someone who was both a paramedic for 14 years, I've seen more than my fair share of drivers who think that they are safe (which, to be clear, is general commentary - I obviously don't know you).
Before the Model 3 was announced, a curious user poked around his car's network, and found multiple references to it, which he leaked to a news site.
Tesla responded by remotely forcibly downgrading his vehicle's firmware to an older version with no references to the 3 (presumably so he couldn't make any further discoveries), blacklisting his vehicle from getting any firmware upgrades, and to make sure he didn't try to thwart that, disabling the ethernet interface.
On what grounds were those children deported? They were US citizens who had family who were US citizens, whose parents have, in some cases assigned guardianship to said families.
Why were they deported? Citizens who as you say, were not charged with any sort of immigration crime.
Why were they deported? Farcical deportation hearings with 2 year olds (and in one case, an 11 month old in a car seat) "defending themselves" "pro se" against ICE lawyers arguing for deportation over again, as you acknowledge: US citizens, not charged with a crime. Because however much Trump would not like it to be (and for positively hilarious irony, Don Jr, Eric and Ivanka all benefited from it), birthright citizenship is still a thing, and neither a post on Truth Social or an EO override the Constitution.
You know what does insult me? Members of the current administration demonizing people who did the same thing as they and their families do/did. I don't see ICE raiding Melania's penthouse for working illegally as a model or entering the country on a fraudulent visa (she was a "model" of no repute in her home country, for an agency whose largest claims to fame were involvement in prostitution and sex trafficking rings, not who they got on the cover of magazines. She certainly didn't meet, not even close, the bar of "who possesses extraordinary ability" or "who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement"). Or Elon, who worked, openly, and famously for startups while here on a non-employment authorizing student visa.
That insults and offends me. Not the common person eking out a life for themselves or their family.
How is "does your candidate favor a corporate hegemony?" a political question, but "does your candidate favor allowing abortion?" not? Politics is the methodology by which we organize a society, which includes legality, morality, and ethics.
I feel you think you've had some sort of "gotcha" moment by implying that Democratic candidates have failed in meeting their claimed goals. For one, I am unable to vote in US elections. And for two, the candidates I would support would be far left of today's Democratic Party, and I would vote for that Party only if/because the realistic alternative candidates were ... as abhorrent as they currently are.
Yeah, the biggest speedbump for Democratic candidates or left leaning people is the DNC.
From Hillary and the whole Debbie Wasserman-Schulz sabotaging Bernie, being caught doing it, denying it, then ... surprise! She's Hillary's campaign manager within 24 hours of resigning DNC leadership...
... through to one of the most uneducated electorates (which is on both sides), where the single most popular Google search on Election Day? "Did Biden drop out?"
I had an M1 MBP that I needed to re-pave with Monterey. Yes, it's end-of-support, but it's also only 4 years old. And runs on that Mac.
So, first step, I make a USB installer, and run it. Great. Reboots, and says "FYI, this is an unsupported OS. You can install a newer OS instead, or run Monterey in "Reduced Security" mode." That was fine for me.
"Installation of Reduced Security mode failed." Nothing else. Eventually my understanding of this was because the machine had been upgraded previously all the way to Tahoe, that somewhere along the line some firmware or something in the EFI had been upgraded and was too new for Monterey. No thanks to Apple. No info, debug logs, anything, just "Installation failed. Reboot?"
So what then?
Hmm, more research. "Do an IPSW image restore via DFU", i.e. pave it with a largely installed image. Could work, might have the same issue, but since I'm stuck right now, with a Mac I can't install anything on, a four year old $3,000 brick, why not?
Alright, I have a Mac Studio. I get the IPSW image, and Apple Configurator. Connect the two as per Apple's instructions and the MBP does indeed show up in Configurator as being "not booted, DFU mode".
Apple's instructions, "Drag the IPSW image onto the DFU 'box' for the target Mac". No. It doesn't light up like it's accepting a drag and drop, and indeed it doesn't. Nor does it accept a "restore..." or similar from the Configurator menu options. There's nothing in Configurator that seems to allow you to image the MBP. Again: no error, no instructions, just the error "bonk" noise.
So... off to ChatGPT, Reddit, etc., I go.
Much repeating of the same. However, ChatGPT pokes a little button. Near the very end of its answer, it says "Newer versions of macOS may have limitations on the age of the image they might restore. You may need a slightly older macOS to do this. Even an Intel MBP running Ventura could work."
As fortune has it, my fiance happens to still have her old i5 MBP with touchbar, and the latest version of Ventura... let's plug it in, let it catch a little charge and boot...
Alright, I need Configurator on this laptop.
No soup for you, says the App Store, "You need macOS Sequoia to install Configurator".
Back off to Reddit, where I find someone who has helpfully zipped up an older version of Configurator that runs on Ventura, and in the end, I'm able to re-pave via IPSW.
But Apple's docs absolutely are incorrect/incomplete about Configurator, and DFU restores.
"You can use Restore... in the Configurator menu to select the software image". No, you can't, even leaving aside the "old/unsupported". It actually means restoring from a "backup" (presumably Time Machine, though it doesn't specify) and you can't select any file or image.
"Drag the image onto DFU". Doesn't work in that situation, no error, no "hey, you're doing the right thing but I can't do this", just acting like a fool trying to drag the image onto DFU only to have it bounce off.
Like I said, I didn't have DFU port issues, but Apple's docs on how to make this happen were either non-existent, or incorrect about the process, or flat out told me I couldn't do it. But mostly non-existent and overly simplistic covering the most basic scenarios only - which I get for general support, but by the time you are "connect to a second mac in DFU mode and run Configurator" in their own words, we're way beyond simplistic "you can just install a newer macOS" type "instructions".
... the next time you launch Safari, it will say that the default browser has been changed, "Did you mean to do that?" and of the two options presented ("Keep using Chrome" or "Switch back to Safari") the Safari option will be the default.
Like coming here on a student visa, and working for startups, explicitly against the visa requirements.
While they're at it, they can look at Melania, who started working without a work visa, not to mention the granting of an O-1 visa to her in the first place (Eastern European model of zero prominence even in her home country, working for an agency that had ties to organized prostitution and sex trafficking).
- get an abortion up to one month after delivery
- get gender reassignment surgery coordinated at your school without parental awareness or consent.
"There's no truths or untruths here". There absolutely fucking are. And then people like you are acting like we're the ones contributing to it, "Well, have you considered why they might think that way?"
You're not asking them "Have you considered how what you're saying is utterly disconnected from any reality whatsoever?"
Why not?
I, and the other poster, are beyond that point. I've actually had it said that it's our fault (liberals) that things are like this, because we are refusing to engage and that we "owe" conservatives the opportunity to listen and understand their argument.
That we somehow owe it to people to argue in good faith with them when they are talking of (the ones I've personally had mentioned): post-birth abortion ("in several Democrat states, abortion is legal up to one month post birth!". Apparently you can take your baby home, come back a month later, and say "Nah, changed my mind on this one", who knew?), adrenochrome harvesting, etc.
That it was my/our fault such views propagate because we're not "willing to understand their perspectives".
The thing is, their perspectives are a lie. And in many cases, they know they're a lie, they just don't. fucking. care.
So they can go online and whine about being dismissed or criticized, or pat each other on the back for "knowing the truth". There's a subset who, I'm sure, see such things as actual literal truth, and that's a different issue altogether, but not sure it's my responsibility to solve, or that failure to engage on my part makes the current situation "my fault".
"Maybe I need to put more effort into why they think or feel that way?" That won't work, because I'll be the only one doing so. You'll note that it's never framed as a matter "maybe they should think about why people think what they're saying sounds absolutely ridiculous". There's no effort on critical reasoning or discourse that will work there, because it's not grounded in reason in the first place. And when that comes up, crickets. But no, "keep going high", keep working on empathy for people who actively celebrate LE shooting people, and for a President that will say from the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, quote, "My kids are insider trading all the time".