Oh, that's awful to hear. I'm surprised that your surgery is postponed to February. Normally, having an inguinal hernia with pain is so dagerous that immediate surgery is advised. Particularly, your doctor's "advice" to "push it back in with your hand" sounds truly irresponsible.
The issue is that if one leaves an inguinal hernia untreated for too long, the hernia can get bigger and cause more and more intestine to leak out. And if a loop of intestine is clamped off, life is in immediate danger.
So please consult a second physican and check for rapid treatment.
Read this kind of crap that least 20 years, over and over again, all culminating in "voting doesn't fix it". Which is exactly why T won in 2016, why women's care in rural aeras was cut, and why you now have the Supreme Court you have. And I cannot prevent your shit from littering my TL because I have no way of blocking you. *That* is the nuisance of our time, not the nonsense you post.
« [A] growing number of western spiritual seekers dabbling in psychedelics are accused of causing a shortage of the plant that produces mescaline.
Experts warned last week of a shortage of peyote, a sacred cactus used by Native Americans in religious rituals, which produces the hallucinogenic drug and only grows in limited range across south-western US and northern Mexico. They blame a psychedelic renaissance taking off in wealthy western societies, as well as overharvesting and land development. »
She seens to conflate bias and neutrality, switiching between both at times, at others not.
Here she sees the distinction:
«I can acknowledge that my perspective is informed by my experiences and my reality while still maintaining rigorous standards for evidence and argumentation.»
And here not:
«When someone says you're biased against them because you object to their stated goal of removing you from society, they're not actually asking for fairness – they're demanding complicity.»
Of course one can be biased in one's attitude/opinions and at the same time ponder them and those of the opponent from a neutral point of view, that is, weighing the pros and cons. That's why juridcal procedures evolved and have their rules. That's why a "fact" is a "factum", somethig made, viz., information subsumed under certain rules to create a certain pattern which is at a struggle with some other proposals in which most often the same information is subsumed under slightly or grossly different rules to create rather different patterns, which is why there is always a judge necessary in the procedure to weigh the different proposals of subsumption and annoucne a decision.
(Often, the question which proposal supersedes (not: is true) is a matter of lobbying and pressuring the "judge". And let us not forget that that is most often one's own mind doing the pressure game, as we repeat and mimick both roles, that of proponent and opponent, and that of the judge. Which is why we ourselves stay in our mind bubbles, as all three roles merge in our daily practice of "rationality". Averting cognitive dissonance is thus more important to us than to be right or true to the facts. Every conspiracy theory will serve that purpose.)
So, indeed I think that in a sense she is making up a straw man, declaring an enabled assault on her life a matter of cognitive dissonance and rule of the more powerful. That does not negate her being part of a persecuted minority but it negates that there is room for argumentative combat. In fact, she demands the same right to be a jerk that her assailant are, enjoy, and insist to be. And why shouldn't she?
It's just simple decency that Germany accepts its culpability and does everything it can to support #Ukraine and the Ukrainians. But Germany will hide from its guilt, as always.
Read the whole thread. Human fact-checking will be abolished but not the technical filter system to prevent violations of U.S. laws.
Far more interesting than the termination of the human fact-checking is the future of human content monitoring on those platforms. It is well known that content moderators, ensuring that content doesn't violate "community" standards, are forced to examine horrific vides and other content as their daily work, with the consequence of psychological stress, PTSD, and drug abuse.
As Meta gives up on human fact checking, what happens to the human content examination? As the border between fact checking and content examination is rather fluid, will content examination by humans be abolished as well? Will it be replaced by automated filters and learning software? If the latter, I'd very much applaud that. Because I don't want humans to watch torture videos just to earn a living.
Out in the fields the floods have frozen and the cracks at the edges are razor sharp against a world trying to pretend everything is normal. Good morning and #tzag.
Embed this noticesimsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Jan-2025 22:08:18 JST
simsa03People freaking out over Meta and its 180° "moral turnaround" should remember: Meta, like Alphabet and others, is a profit-oriented company providing a good/service not to make "the world better" but to increase profits of its shareholders. Under T45 they do this, under Biden44 they did that. It's about preventing negative effects on business. Accordingly, turning to T45 may help Meta in various antitrust issues or the softening of restrictions in the acquisition of other companies. Remember that the Department of Justice has demanded Google for anti-trust reasons to sell its Chrome browser. They may fare far better under T45. If people don't like these services, they are "free" to switch to a different one or build it for themselves from scratch.