Also, a rather important update tacked to the bottom:
> After this story went viral, the pharmacist interviewed provided an additional statement clarifying his remarks. “I am not aware of any member that actually has Alzheimer’s and would certainly not disclose any such information if I did know.” He added, “patient privacy is a very serious matter that I am committed to upholding.”
> He said that he was “[s]peaking very broadly about disease states that the general American population have and that it also applies to everyone including members of the U.S. House and Senate since they are also people just like you and I.”
Honestly, it sounds like he's trying to (rather weakly) backpedal from releasing private information about some of the most powerful people in the U.S.
It's an interesting question whether this is ethical. On the one hand, representative democracy requires competent representatives, and knowing they have cognitive impairment is really important information for the whole country. On the other hand, I absolutely don't trust a random pharmacist to decide which personal, extremely sensitive information is important enough that they should be able to non-consensually share it.
It was pretty customary up untli the last few cycles of 80 year-olds being the major party nominees for presidential candidates to release all of their medical records. There is no law forcing this, but ethically, if you believe yourself to be qualified to set policy for and lead the most powerful hegemon to ever exist in the nuclear age, I think you owe it to the world to let them evaluate you on all fronts using all possible information. You no longer deserve privacy. Your tax returns, medical records, all non-classified communications, should be an open book.
There have to be tradeoffs. If you still want privacy, have it, but then you get to stay just a normally wealthy, powerful person and can live out your days sipping mai tais on tropical beaches and doing hookers and blow every night, but not being put in charge of a military with the power to glass half the planet if it wanted to.
Powerful people should not enjoy the same privacy guarantees that regular citizens do. They are there to represent us, and we deserve to know if they are incapable of doing that, whether because of health reasons or because they are in the pocket of lobbyists.
Agreed that a random pharmacist, with unknown motivations, should be disclosing any of this. The doctor who prescribed the meds should be (a) encouraging the representative to resign; (b) disclosing it to a proper authority; (c) disclosing to the news media if nothing is done.
I'm pretty sure it's a HIPAA violation for a pharmacist to disclose the medicines prescribed to a patient/customer and they were thisclose to doing so. It's a good law, and a good pharmacist wouldn't even come that close. Otherwise, were do they draw the line? What if it's not a politician, but a teacher or a community leader or a minister, or just someone in the community that the pharmacist wants to gossip about with neighbors and friends? What if it's not Alzheimer's meds but meds for an STI, or part of alcoholism/drug addiction recovery, or the early stages of Parkinsons or ALS, or hormones for a trans person, or meds to address incontinence or a miscarriage?
And if pharmacists choose to share what they know, wouldn't that drive people to get their prescriptions filled another way (fake IDs, assumed identities, black market, cross-border/mail-order) or just not get medicine for fear of a medical secret being announced?
A better alternative: We should stop electing people who are clearly having a hard time thinking.
That seems like very careful wording around the fact that pharmacists don't diagnose illnesses. My prescriptions never have a "for x disease" written on them.
Technically true, but sometimes you need a diagnosis code to fill the prescription. Also pharmacists will often talk to the physician. Since this was 2017, the medicines in question were probably donepezil and memantine. With that combination, you can be sure the issues are cognitive in nature.
>have one person do the more-than-fulltime job of homemaking.
This was almost always the woman.
>disappeared because corporations needed
Also because women did not like the absolute dedication of their lives to homemaking as a default. They wanted the freedom to join the paying workforce, and wanted equal pay for their work (still waiting on that).
There's some truth in your comment, but it glosses over the very real problems that came with the gender roles and subsequent power structures of that time.
At the same time, let's not discount the fact that it's made the single-earner family increasingly impossible to sustain for younger families. I'm sure I'm not the only heterosexual man who would be grateful if he could quit his day job and take care of the home while his spouse went out and made the money.
These power structures have existed for millennia, so this abstracted idea that women wanting to step out of their traditional gender roles ONLY in the last century is a bit arbitrary.
It makes much more sense that because the ruling class wanted a bigger work force they sanctioned for (or at the very least turn a blind eye) women’s role in the work force.
Exactly two millennia. The role of housewife didn’t really exist until the 1820s, and even then it was more of an upper-middle class thing and a distinctly American concept. It didn’t even really take off until the industrial revolution when factory jobs became more mainstream.
It was also created by corporations, largely to sell magazines, cookbooks, and home appliances.
Everywhere else in the world, especially outside of cities, the labor of the home was evenly divided because everyone in the family had jobs.
More obvious explanation is that the movement really took off after the World Wars, as there was a huge labor shortage on the market to be covered, in the form of a whole generation of young men who never came back from the meat grinder.
And many women spent WWII in factory jobs or even more directly combat-related roles especially in Europe. (Just finished reading a book that mentioned how Mary Churchill--daughter of that Churchill--ended up commanding an AA battery.)
While, of course, the period after is probably widely seen as classic white picket fence suburbia, the WWII experience couldn't have helped but set some changes, however slow, in motion.
Do we have examples of the 1970s women's lib movement (for one example) receiving broad financial, social, and political support from large corporations across multiple industries?
>Spez - I want our users, user-users and moderator users, to make money on reddit. Specifically, I want them to make money from other users. And so we need to have business models where users are paying money to other users or to subreddits. I would like subreddits to have the ability to be businesses. We have a lot of subreddits that are kind of trying to do this, but the platform just doesn't support it.
that was the first post, they shut down the re-opened
when they re-opened only mods could post, and it was a daily discussion thread
then there was a sticky, a poorly named one, where apparently there was another poll about what to do with the sub.
next comes a day when they plan to shut the sub down and the comment section is filled with people saying they didn't know this was happening and that the sticky was vaguely named.
I'm not sure they were hiding anything; maybe you just missed it among the thousands of other posts collectively across thousands of subs about the blackout protest. There was also:
* June 11: 'r/Python Will Black Out on June 12 at 00:00 UTC'
* June 12: 'By community vote, r/Python will Return to a Blackout'
* June 16: 'An Update about our Community' (text started with links, 'Here is a summary of the changes which prompted the recent Blackout. Here's our announcement for doing the Blackout....' and then 'Hence we wish to take another poll of community feedback...'
* June 28: 'By community vote, r/Python will Return to a Blackout'
Looks like the volunteer r/python mods were doing their best to keep everyone involved in the decision-making and informed of the outcomes while also juggling that volunteer activity for a for-profit company with their paying jobs and real-world responsibilities.
> * June 16: 'An Update about our Community' (text started with links, 'Here is a summary of the changes which prompted the recent Blackout. Here's our announcement for doing the Blackout....' and then 'Hence we wish to take another poll of community feedback...'
i'm confused about your post, is this 4 topics? was this all one long title? what was this except exactly as what i described it as?
and that's my point, it wasn't as transparent as it should have been
and if they want a blackout, so be it, but propose another place for people to aggregate. why destroy a community over this pettiness that's all but gone away since it happened? why does the same end result that happened in CrossValidated need to happen there too? what good does this do in the world?
its all passive aggressiveness when communication can literally solve everyones problem, especially when this was the issue with the reddit admins to begin with! why are they acting like the reddit admins by refusing to communicate properly? its all so ridiculous
>i'm confused about your post, is this 4 topics? was this all one long title? what was this except exactly as what i described it as?
It was one of many posts that the r/python volunteer mods made, giving everyone a chance to vote and discuss. Was it "hidden" as you say? I don't know - I don't think so, it was a vote-by-comment instead of reddit poll to reduce fakery, and it required some context so everyone knew what they were voting on.
Good luck in your search for a new community. Perhaps drop in the discord server and see if anyone has suggestions for you. Link is on the sidebar of the archived page.
right, the topic title isn't called "vote here", its not direct
and if you archived the post later to include all the comments on the post that came after, you'd see all the comments saying they didn't even know this was coming
and i probably won't need to find another community i'll just wait until these mods are dethroned by the admins
1. Download and install the legacy Evernote v.6.25.x.x. Evernote has removed it from their website but you can get it at FileHippo. Download this now - I downloaded 6.25.3.9348 and used it, but now it's gone from FileHippo... not sure why. https://filehippo.com/download_evernote/6.25.1.9091/ I installed on a separate computer, but probably you can run v10.x and v.6.25.x on the same one.
2. Follow the undocumented trick for downloading all notebooks at once. This will preserve tags as well. Archived here: https://archive.ph/XDnqN - scroll down to KoZz's comment posted on "Tuesday at 11:53 AM".
3. Then if you want to move to Obsidian, use YARLE but note the template that automatically loads doesn't work (it has spaces and breaks other rules). https://github.com/akosbalasko/yarle
Correcting myself for anyone searching for this later... Evernote v6.25.3.9348 (version that's guaranteed to work) was not on FileHippo. It was shared several times on the Evernote discussion boards, recently here: https://discussion.evernote.com/forums/topic/146705-fatal-mi..., which I've archived here: https://archive.ph/G4hdq - scroll to PinkElephant's comment.
Is that the best tool to delete posts and overwrite comments? I took a look at the developer's comments and last month he said about v 1.4.3 (3 years old) that it still works as it always did, but 2 years ago he was talking about a complete rewrite to fix things, and he never got around to it.
That's part of a whole program; while reddit lets many mods work for free they are paying these "mods" $20/hour to "organically" drum up subscribers on non-US subs. I shared some links about this a few months ago:
I think the tip jars are a scam, but tipping waitstaff is important. However: Tip waitstaff with cash because their wage is much lower than most tip-jar situations.
Restaurants pay workers the minimum wage for tipped workers ($2.13/hour in most states), but must make up the difference if the worker's wage plus tips don't equal the minimum wage ($7.25 in most states).
When I waited tables, we were forced to turn out our pockets at the end of a shift and count out our tips in front of the boss. A lot of us took cash tips and stuffed them in our shoes beforehand.
Plus waitstaff had to pay for the credit card charge (2% at that time for MasterCard and Visa) if someone charged their meal, so reducing that as much as possible was helpful.
Also, a rather important update tacked to the bottom:
> After this story went viral, the pharmacist interviewed provided an additional statement clarifying his remarks. “I am not aware of any member that actually has Alzheimer’s and would certainly not disclose any such information if I did know.” He added, “patient privacy is a very serious matter that I am committed to upholding.”
> He said that he was “[s]peaking very broadly about disease states that the general American population have and that it also applies to everyone including members of the U.S. House and Senate since they are also people just like you and I.”