there was a story here recently about a lot of scamming happening on truth social. so yeah.

yeah, honestly f this thread. i went from smiling to wondering why i bothered to even look at lemmy today. ☹️

there’s gotta be something nice to look at instead!

i see what you did there.

the domestic oil industry employs more than a couple hundred people. and i don’t think most people are ready to support a policy that sounds like “i want to take your job, the jobs of your friends and family, and destroy your town.” they aren’t going to vote to support progressive climate policy unless there is a solution to their very real concerns.

edit for clarification - i don’t think most of the people employed in that industry or in communities it supports are ready, etc.

no, but i noticed water faucet handles all outside of tubs and showers

i could say a lot in response to your comment about the benefits and shortcomings of algorithms (or put another way, screening tools or assessments), but i’m tired.

i will just point out this, for anyone reading.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2573025/

i am exceedingly troubled that something which is commonly regarded as indicating very high risk when working with victims of domestic violence was ignored in the cited case (disclaimer - i haven’t read the article). if the algorithm fails to consider history of strangulation, it’s garbage. if the user of the algorithm did not include that information (and it was disclosed to them), or keyed it incorrectly, they made an egregious error or omission.

i suppose, without getting into it, i would add - 35 questions (ie established statistical risk factors) is a good amount. large categories are fine. no screening tool is totally accurate, because we can’t predict the future or have total and complete understanding of complex situations. tools are only useful to people trained to use them and with accurate data and inputs. screening tools and algorithms must find a balance between accurate capture and avoiding false positives.

i hear you, you are expected to do an unrealistic amount of work. i believe you, data does not support a delayed schedule for most.

i continue to support the need to obtain patient consent to protect bodily autonomy.

i am not foolish enough to believe i have an easy solution to the difficulties inherent in that conflict given the shortcomings of healthcare systems.

the letter doesn’t say, and the reporter may or may not have had good reason. we don’t know based on the information provided.

the fact that a report was made does not inherently mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone reported concern. the fact that the report is being investigated does not mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone with CPS agreed to open a case based on what they were told.

i could call CPS and say that you are abusing a child or other vulnerable person, provide enough information about you and a plausible concern (in theory at least, whether it’s based in fact or not), and CPS could choose to follow up on that report. i can make this report and they can investigate regardless of whether there is any actual evidence of abuse or neglect.

let me preface my statement by clarifying i am definitely NOT anti-vax. and like the poster you are addressing, i agree that the needs of people in public education/care settings are important and it is good to require vaccination for participation.

to me, where a parent has concerns about the pace of vaccinations, a medical provider can share information with that person to help them better understand the risks and benefits of the typical schedule (as you have done). they should still have the opportunity to consent.

medical care without consent is a violation of bodily autonomy.

edit - i wonder if i was downvoted for a) i endorse vaccination as a benefit to the public, b) i think education is valuable in addressing fear or conspiratorial thinking, or c) i believe people have a right to bodily autonomy.

or was it d) i expressed these things instead of dogpiling the sovcit? 🤔

children are not property, but consent is also important.

i wouldn’t assume the best of CPS. in my work, i see many families who are dealing with CPS, and it is often an unjust shitshow for families.

the notion that an agency should exist to protect the interests of vulnerable people is obviously a good one. in practice, many workers are undereducated, overworked, often lacking professionalism, and empowered by the state to enact bias against families and family members who may also be vulnerable.

cps, unfortunately, should be viewed in context of our country’s history of criminalizing and victimizing minorities (people of color, people experiencing poverty, women and sexual minorities). they do some good work. they also hurt a lot of people they should not, including children.

this parent did not find it weird to be asked, because that’s what they wanted. they requested that staff seek their consent before providing care.

i don’t think the parent denied testing. when asked, they consented.

edit “when they asked me, i gave them permission.”

it looks like this person wanted to be consulted before any care/treatment was provided to their children. when asked, they agreed to suggested care.

it looks like there is an error in their post. i do not read their statement to mean they accepted care for their own self and not for their children.

Ken M! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_M

Ken M, is that you? (i hope so!)

i am at the point where i’m just letting this encourage me to use the internet less. my house is quieter, my mind is quieter.

which one… Elon? (i’m all for it)

i mean, i just read the post to my very sweet, empathetic teen. her immediate reaction was, “nooo, Tim! 😢”

edit - to clarify, i don’t think she was reacting to an outburst, i think she immediately demonstrated that some people anthropomorphize very easily.

humans are social creatures (even if some of us don’t tend to think of ourselves that way). it serves us, and the majority of us are very good at imagining what others might be thinking (even if our imaginings don’t reflect reality), or identifying faces where there are none (see - outlets, googly eyes).

let me be more direct then - i find it difficult to take your view on the whole of academia seriously when its basis appears to be the “experience” of a “friend,” particularly keeping in mind you have already wholly dismissed social sciences. i understand that statements such as yours are not invitations to actual conversation.

good night.