Just an aside, this question reminded me of an interview I watched with a former CIA agent speaking about how when he worked overseas he varied his routine randomly every day. Woke up, left the house at different times, drove different routes to work, etc to avoid being targeted. He had a colleague from a different nation who regularly accused him of being paranoid. Then his colleague got assassinated.

Nutmeg is poisonous in high doses and can lead to hallucinations, seizures, and other complications.

I can see from your comment you want to better understand queer people and feel that supporting them as equals is the right thing to do. Your lack of insight into the historical and ongoing persecution your in-group has had toward this minority is a issue and will limit your ability to support queer people at this time.

Christianity as a whole has spent literally centuries persecuting sexual minorities and reinforcing the belief that people who are not cisgendered and heteronormative are living inherently sinful lives and are morally bankrupt people who should be ostracized from society or worse. People have been imprisoned, castrated, and murdered by state and state-like actors because of Christianity’s beliefs. People have spent their lives hiding who they love because they would literally be beaten by their neighbors, had their careers ruined, or run out of town if it came to light they were homosexual.

Has this gotten better in recent years? Mostly

Does this mean people who are Christian inherently hold this belief or are themselves bad people? No.

But your lack of introspection and/or knowledge of the historical context for which queer people have distrust of Christians as a whole is evidence that you don’t really understand the problem.

Your comment that you feel like you’re being looked down upon by people is also interesting. Many people now look back upon the centuries by which Christians sought to impose their belief system on others often through state-imposed violence, and how some groups continue to do so, as barbaric and directly confrontational to modern concepts of freedom and liberty. But Christianity is still the most populous religion in the world, and conservative Christian ideals are seeing large political victories in many western counties over the last 1-2 decades, often directly at the expense of the rights of women and minorities. This argues that you really aren’t the persecuted minority that is sometimes brought up in modern propaganda such as the laughable concept of the “War on Christmas”.

If you want to support queer people, I think that’s great. If your idea of support is “I don’t care what they do as long as it’s not forced on me” you should recognize the historical irony in this statement as Christianity has spent literal millennia forcing its ideals on others and continues to attempt to do so. I would encourage you to reflect on your beliefs, if you truly accept queer people as legitimate equals, and obtain some historical perspective on this issue.

US Physician here. The efforts I place into keeping a patient with capacity in the hospital vary directly to the concern I have about their pathology. There is a very real subset of people who have capacity, i.e. have the mental faculties about them that I cannot legally or ethically place them under a medical hold for treatment, who clearly do not comprehend the gravity of their situation or the likelihood they will die if they leave. I have unfortunately seen a number of patients who require significant amounts of supplemental oxygen, IV medications to support their blood pressure, life-threatening infections requiring IV antibiotics, etc, who for whatever reason decide they don’t want to be in the hospital anymore. Discontinuation of this life support puts their life at near-immediate risk, but the folks that are usually trying to leave in these situations are angry, distrusting of the medical system, and very goal-oriented on what they want to leave the hospital for (food because they’re NPO, illicit substance use, smoking, care for their dog, etc) to the point that they’re capable of saying “yeah yeah I can die whatever fucker, unhook me and let me leave.” These patients deserve for me to sit down with them and try and have a conversation about what we can do to keep them in the hospital because I’m worried they physically won’t make it through the hospital doors before they lose consciousness.

There are also people who have capacity, want to leave for whatever reason, and aren’t literally gonna die in 5 minutes. They get papers and a pat on the back as they walk out the door.

All of this hinges on a patient’s decision making capacity, and the reason every single time you want to leave the hospital against medical advice (AMA) you have to talk to one of the treating doctors is they have to determine if you have capacity at the time you’re making that decision. To be allowed to leave the hospital AMA you have to be able to demonstrate that you can understand why you’re in the hospital, the risks of leaving the hospital AMA, and hold consistent and logical (not necessarily rational) positions on decisions/priorities. If you can’t do any one of those things, you by definition don’t have medical decision making capacity, and I am not only legally allowed to, but I’m ethically obligated to keep you in the hospital to be treated until either a surrogate decision maker with capacity can be identified OR you have return of your capacity after your illness improves and we have this conversation again.

This is incorrect. You just can’t switch manufacturers easily if you’re stable on one. But that’s not a brand vs generic thing, that’s an any manufacturer to any-other manufacturer thing. Same with warfarin, narrow-therapeutic index antiepileptics, etc.

No idea unfortunately, but definitely not to release pressure. You don’t get air in your brain, it’s all fluid. Outside of the hospital, all the drains drain to somewhere internal, usually the abdominal cavity

Am doctor. Outside of very rare and specific causes of headache, no this wouldn’t fix anything, just put you at risk for infections.

Am a doctor, this wasn’t actually a migraine and is not how migraines happen. Shunts are placed for elevated intracranial pressure, which can occur for a number of reasons, and do cause headaches. But it’s a very uncommon cause of headaches and a shunt will not fix your actual migraines or tension headaches.

Cellular insulin resistance is the definition of Type II diabetes

All remote based typing is awful, T9 included. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can type with swipe gestures on a virtual keyboard via remote faster than I can input T9 text. I’m unaware of any stock remote for a device with a full keyboard. I would argue Apple has text entry perfected at least as well as any other major manufacturer. You have virtual keyboard entry, solid voice-to-text, and it can be configured to push a notification to your iOS device when you enter a search bar which will auto-open to the remote app and pull up the keyboard. Because of this feature passwords can also be autofilled from Keychain to make logins easier.

You may personally prefer T9, but I’ve never seen anyone in the last decade input anything into a TV via T9. And you’re asking why it doesn’t have voice input, when it does. You admit to having never used an Apple TV yourself. I hate the idea of app-only interfaces features, but this isn’t a case like that. Maybe you should understand the features of a product before you call it “fucking stupid”.

I self host a lot of shit, but after almost a year of using Obsidian I finally paid for their sync feature for one reason: iCloud sync to iOS is painfully slow.

I was sometimes waiting 30-45 seconds to jot down a note just waiting on the app to open with iCloud sync as my backend. Now, with Obsidian sync, the app is ready-to-go in seconds.

Now if you’re only going to be using on desktop, I would definitely consider a git-repository based sync, but if you’re gonna use mobile I’d recommend you at least consider Obsidian Sync

Yes, but most DRM has been circumvented in one way or another. DRM primarily continues to keep law-abiding citizens from easily acquiring a copy of media they rightfully own as opposed to preventing piracy.

Though if institutions insist on utilizing DRM for prevention of privacy, I do think that DRM should be built to fail after a meaningful timeframe, at worst the expiry of the copyright for the material. Unfortunately many pieces of media, particularly video games, are abandoned and unsupported long before their copywriter expires. Abandonware in general is not well handled by modern copywrite law.

I think the point is more so why are digital purchased DRM’ed and prohibited from local storage in so many ways. The historical argument is “well you’re not buying it, you’re buying a license to use it for as long as we wish to provide it”, but why does it necessarily need to be that way. And more generally, from the standpoint of artistic/media preservation, as BluRay releases continue to decrease and console video game releases become continually more digital-only, these non-archivable or locked-without-server-license-validation media results in IP that at some point in time, this media could be permanently lost.

Personally, I feel this is unacceptable. The media we consume forms a huge portion of our culture, and is just as much an example of artistic expression as painting. While I thoroughly believe artists/companies should be able to charge for these properties, I do not believe that when it is no longer profitable for them to support the system, that these pieces of media should simply be discarded with no method for future recovery and preservation.

That’s not true. HIPAA covers anyone handling protected health information in a professional manner. If some office clerk at the VA is mailing out copies of HIPAA-protected information, they’re bound by HIPAA. If a consulting IT firm has access to a hospital’s servers as they’re changing something about the EHR, they’re bound by HIPAA. Protected information cannot make its way from a “covered entity” to a non-covered entity like a totally unrelated bakery who would not have an obligation to protect your information without either: 1) violating the law, 2) you personally disclosing the information to the non-protected party, or 3) you or someone authorized on your behalf signing a disclosure waiver permitting the covered entity to disclose

Could you elaborate on what you mean?