fucking_tragedy

I suggest you step outside of your circle. When I did, I found that many lower and middle class parents were using pirating setups that I didn't even know existed.

For example, I learned about PopcornTime from a single parent who ran it on a laptop connected to their TV. The guy is bus dispatcher.

When I need a recommendation for a streaming site or tracker, I ask my old neighbor who works as a lab tech.

I've found that I'm generally ignorant of such things because everyone in my IT circle just pays for streaming services.

Similar niche job boards charge many multiples of $99 to list an open position.

> I'd rather spend no more than $25/mo on tv and $50 for >=100mbit internet. Thats an ideal number considering I spend less on electricity each month.

Agreed. Other countries are able to do it, but cable companies and ISPs have monopolies in different regions of the US.

> should the state implement mental health screening for police officers?

Yes, for a very good reason. Currently, incentives are such that police are rewarded with long careers and large pensions for avoiding mental healthcare.

Despite having excellent access to healthcare, police notoriously avoid accessing any type of mental health resources. They're afraid that they'll lose their jobs for it, which makes sense.

A cop's testimony is pivotal to most criminal cases, and if it is called into question because of the cop's mental health status, that can be a liability. Many places have strict policies concerning mental health and policing, as well.

It's absolutely necessary that the state implements mental health screening for police officers, because they refuse to implement it themselves.

> Does anyone have any suggestions for how we should actually handle situations like these?

You shouldn't be able to call in a hit on someone by calling the cops on them.

If soldiers in an active war zone can follow their rules of engagement and resist shooting civilians even though they're scared, so can cops.

> It really depends.

In the past, throwing opioids at chronic pain patients and calling it a day was par for the course.

Now, there's a level of awareness that not only are opioids not very good for managing chronic pain all of the time, they can even make pain sensitivity worse in the long-run.

Criminalizing pain patients is disgusting, but I'm hoping we can reach an equilibrium where those who have chronic pain are able to seek adequate treatment and opioids aren't the first line of treatment or overprescribed.

As someone with family members suffering from chronic pain, I know several people who have switched to MMJ or CBD supplements with great success. One of them took pain killers for decades and hasn't needed them in years because of CBD.

CBD won't affect you cognitively, if you have the time, money and your doctor thinks it's a good idea, it wouldn't hurt to give it a go.

We spent the better part of decade catching and locking up doctors who prescribed opioids out of guidelines, so much so that doctors are now terrified of prescribing them to people who legitimately need them.

The problem is that the prescribing guidelines, which were written by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, described a regimen that would get pretty much anyone physically addicted to their product.

So you had doctors acting in good faith, prescribing medications only when indicated and following their manufacturer's prescribing guidelines, inadvertently creating new addicts where the manufacturer's literature said there would be none.

Not only that, but we spent several decades treating chronic pain patients with opioids, such that they are completely dependent on that class of drugs to manage their condition. Only very recently have prescribing guidelines adjusted to reflect the reality that opioids are not a good treatment for chronic pain. When those pain patients are driven off of their opioid prescriptions, even if their doctor is well-meaning, some of them turn to heroin/fentanyl to manage their pain.

Bankruptcy exists as a safety net for failed capitalists.

> This is not true

It is true. The Sacklers will never see the inside of a prison and will remain billionaires after the lawsuits and settlements.

> So I'm not sure what you expect me to do. There's no country I can move to that is doing significantly better. The only action I can see is to attempt to change what is happening here.

The difference is that in the western world, you're allowed to make as much of stink as you possibly can about the system you disagree with. Surely, you'll meet opposition, but you and your family aren't going to be whisked away to a secret prison because you disagree with a particularly powerful person or political party.

> Simple VLAN-enabled switches don't cost that much any more.

They're dirt cheap and have been for the better part of a decade. If you're looking to upgrade, cost isn't a reason not to.

While we wait for Star Trek magic, our economic system refuses to account for its inability to maintain a robust, sustainable and healthy agriculture industry, or its destruction of the environment.

No, someone else doing a bad thing doesn't make doing that bad thing okay.

A computer is a bad metaphor for the brain, there's no reason to strain the metaphor even further by dragging threading into it.

No, being wealthy means that the Sacklers belong to a class that our system is designed to protect. They will not face prison time, and they will remain billionaires even after the lawsuits and settlements. The only time someone who belongs to their class goes to prison is if they fuck with another rich person's money.

> The challenge is investing the right amount of resources that retain the necessary minerals, is ecologically sustainable long term and healthy.

Our economic system refuses to account for these things, and refuses any attempt at being held accountable for them, as well. It optimizes for a supply chain that depletes soil, replaces robust ecosystems with fragile monocultures, forgoes sustainability, and enjoys the luxury of not having to account for the negative externalities of turning a profit.

No, it turns out that the adherents of the religion of "love thy neighbor" and "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" have no problem with our economic system.

I wouldn't doubt that meat suffers from similar nutrient deficiencies. After all, livestock are fed from the same supply chain.

> Growing food has turned into an engineering problem where people think you solve it by investing the least possible resources into it.

Our economic system optimizes for exactly this.

For a blood pressure medication, 1 in 8,000 is not a small risk. Serzone, an antidepressant, has a similar risk rate for inducing liver failure, and was taken off the market.

> These comments, if true, lend credability that the FDA is more regulatory capture than actual useful regulation.

It lends more credibility to the fact that the FDA is notoriously underfunded when it comes to ensuring the safety of drugs[1].

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK52926/

> The first three pages are all sites with extremely watered-down content and little to none of the cross-referencing links that make wikipedia a good exploratory tool (and a natural fit to PageRank).

Those pages are littered with Google ads. It's no wonder that they're prioritized over relevant and information rich results like Wikipedia.

Yes. If a corporation wants access to my health data, they need to ask for permission.

We wouldn't need to wait for Slack to get around to implementing a dark mode interface if we could just use the protocol with clients of our choosing.

Well, if you bought a new iPad mini in 2014, Apple is deprecating your device in this release.

Based on previous iPad deprecations, your iPad Air 2 will probably be deprecated within the next two years.

Convenience and security wise, you'd want to buy a new device before your old one is made incompatible with new iOS releases.

Looks like I was wrong. Thanks for the reference and stats!

There are plenty of companies and entrepreneurs that aren't artificially propped up by VC money that are waiting for any opportunity to eat Uber/Lyft's lunch.

In fact, many regional ride-hailing app companies already are.

This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of employer-employee relationships that are flexible and not full-time. I'd wager to say that the majority of Americans are employed in such an arrangement.

> I'm not a fan of all these moves to treat drivers as employees for one simple reason: you can drive for more than one company at the same time.

This is a non-point. People often have more than one job, and they're considered employees at each of their employers.