Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Steve's Place (steter@mastodon.stevesworld.co)'s status on Thursday, 01-Jan-2026 04:36:18 JST Steve's Place

   Fwiw, I worked at a company that laid off all of its contractors, and the entire manufacturing line operators, over the holidays annually. Then, sometime in January, they went looking for them.

   To tide everyone over for up to a month without income, the company handed out the fixings for a turkey dinner for a couple or small family in a Tupperware container. Everyone would line up in their cars in the parking lot to get their turkey dinners.

   When Bush went to war, sales stopped, so they extended the layoff to nearly a year. I lost a house.

   Happy holidays, everyone!

2. Embed this notice
   Totts (geri@mastodon.online)'s status on Friday, 12-Dec-2025 01:36:58 JST Totts

   "In an emotional moment, Machado waved to cheering supporters who had gathered outside the Norwegian capital's Grand Hotel, blowing them kisses and singing with them.

   To their delight, she then came outside and greeted them in person, climbing over the security barricades to get closer.

   "Maria!" "Maria!" they shouted, holding their phones aloft to record the historic moment"

   How the BBC approve of things .....

   Pass me the sick bucket 🤢 🪣 .

   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0q5p43qgl1o

3. Embed this notice
   Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊 (theogrin@chaosfem.tw)'s status on Monday, 18-Aug-2025 04:14:37 JST Jennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊

   A reminder here that arbitration always favours the abuser -- which, in the case of a corporate/individual dispute, is almost invariably the corporation.

   Background: Air Canada decided to skirt labour laws by saying that flight attendants aren't on the clock until the plane leaves the runway. This, combined with the fact that the contractual pay did not keep up with inflation, has led to a strike against the company, well-known for being abusive and dismissive towards employees and customers alike.

   12 hours after the strike began, the Liberal government, known well for sucking off Air Canada's fuel line, declared that forced arbitration would need to be done.

   The union saw that arbitration would, by its nature, favour Air Canada and fuck over their members, and said, 'No.' So good on them.

   To those who've had their flights cancelled by Air Canada, remember that they legally have to reimburse you for a flight on another airline unless you accept another option, so don't accept a refund when the replacement might be more expensive.

   https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/air-canada-flights-sunday-1.7611078

4. Embed this notice
   GeePawHill (geepawhill@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 13-Jun-2025 00:51:53 JST GeePawHill

   Ya wanna change the world, but you need to do something that is cheap and fast and risk-free.

   No problem.

   Start here, now, on mastodon.

   Write a simple public message to someone here -- not me, please, i'm well-supported -- whose output here improves your life.

   Don't star. Don't boost. *Tell* them. Use your words, honey. A single sentence will do the trick.

   Takes one minute. Costs nothing. Risks nothing.

   Just tell them.

   To you, it's miniscule, useless, trivial.

   To them, it's *juice*.

5. Embed this notice
   13 barn owls in a trenchcoat (hauntedowlbear@eldritch.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 21-Jul-2024 22:10:10 JST 13 barn owls in a trenchcoat

   I know Greg Graffin's the Bad Religion member who does the whole public philosopher bit, but I lowkey suspect that Brett Gurewitz has the more philosophically interesting positions, at least based on a close read of their respective lyrical contributions + interview comments relating to them.

   To be clear I'm an absolute sucker for all of BR's whole bit, but, I think I find whatever's going on in here to be a bit more interesting than the "atheist wrestles with the symbolism and void spaces traced around the image of a god they were societally inculcated to expect, but which is clearly absent" thing that Graffin tends to dwell upon.

   Bad Religion - Marked
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFtgH0zo2vg

6. Embed this notice
   A Concerned Scientist (be@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 21-May-2024 04:12:07 JST A Concerned Scientist

   in reply to

   I have chosen to die on this hill, and so I will continue. I was going to ignore this new opinion piece in The Lancet, but, I can't help myself in the end.

   https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00244-7/fulltext

   The first time I read it I gave up on the first paragraph.

   Read this carefully:

   "The report proposes that use of the unqualified terms airborne and airborne transmission in the context of infectious disease transmission should be avoided."

   Followed by:

   "It introduces new terms matched to specific definitions, including “through-the-air transmission”, “infectious respiratory particles”, “airborne transmission/inhalation”, “direct deposition”, “semi-ballistic”, and “puff cloud”. "

   What this, literally, says is that we should replace "airborne transmission" with "airborne transmission/inhalation." This is what everyone is fighting over.

   After it came across my timeline for the 20th time I decided I'd give the rest a read.

   Paragraph two. Two examples of airborne being used in papers in the last 127 years to show that there was no confusion regarding the term "airborne"?

   Compare that to the extensive writing of Prof. Jimenez on the history of the droplet dogma and decide if you think everyone understands this.

   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354772435_Echoes_Through_Time_The_Historical_Origins_of_the_Droplet_Dogma_and_its_Role_in_the_Misidentification_of_Airborne_Respiratory_Infection_Transmission

   https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0049

   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ina.13070

   Paragraph 3. Finally something we agree on. The WHO botched the last 4 years horribly.

   The next paragraph is where this falls off the rails for me.

   "This new WHO report appears to assume that because some infectious disease experts believe that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is airborne only “situationally” (ie, under unusual conditions),1"

   I, for one, read this and went directly to the report itself because I was appalled. Guess what? The quoted word, "situationally", never once appears in the document, which is cited. Nor does "under unusual conditions." So now it's just quoting things that don't exist and citing them.

   To be clear, it's citing a document titled "Global technical consultation report
   on proposed terminology
   for pathogens that transmit
   through the air" not the document actually about COVID(https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/376346/9789240090576-eng.pdf), while complaining about COVID.

   I don't see a need to continue.

   Mark my word. The CDC delayed their response to this document, whether or not they would go along and declare COVID airborne, because people are making it "controversial" and giving them cover to.