Lith

Actually this one feels pretty similar to watch_dogs. Wasn't this the plot to watch_dogs 2?

Just to offer another perspective, this covers just how difficult the burden of administrative tasks already is for physicians: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8522557/

Not all physicians work for a hospital, so I don't think they all have much access to large departments that can take up the slack for them. It's difficult to ask them to chase our insurance for us when the paperwork they already do is driving them insane and taking them away from their patients.

The solution, as you said, is single payer. The overwhelming administrative overhead is a symptom of a very broken system. Nobody directly rendering or receiving care is benefiting from how things currently are in the United States.

"I'll upload a patch later this week" 12 years ago

I also have socks with side indicators. They're designed to fit the feet, so the entire socks are asymmetrical. Theoretically you could go by the pattern, but when you're pulling socks out of a hamper it's a lot easier to match them via letters which you know are always at the ends. It's pretty convenient and makes it impossible to match them incorrectly, so I think it's a good design choice.

One application I've seen for this is recording your brushing patterns for your review and to recommend ways to improve your process. This is pretty useful right now considering dental hygiene literacy is criminally undertaught and uncommon even among adults.

IoT is great, it's just that companies right now are abusing it and our lack of data protection laws to extract as much personal information as physically possible. The question shouldn't be "why is my toothbrush connected to a network", it should be "why does my toothbrush need to be connected to the Internet".

Here's my (NSFW) e621 tag (notice my username?) where I've commissioned several acts of graphic homosexual intercourse between a representation of myself and other male characters.

Yes, I very much am.

You saw whatever hand you wanted to see. Have you considered that I'm gay and pro-choice, and I have legitimate reasons to worry that some corporations (e.g. Twitter) will try and start censoring support for these through selective enforcement of the current ToS?

What's more dangerous, your grandma being allowed to say racist things on Facebook, or marginalized groups being systematically silenced? You're missing the forest for the trees.

It's bad faith to argue that companies should be allowed to do things because they're already allowed to do those things. I see a little bit of that creeping in even here with the concept of "rights", as if corporations were humans. Laws can change.

It's good faith to ask if companies have too much power over what has become our default mode of communication. It's also good faith to challenge this question with non-circular logic.

Your assumption that I'm defending racism and bigotry is exactly why I think this stuff is important. You've implied I'm an insidious alt-rightist trying to dog whistle, and now I'm terrified of getting banned or otherwise censored. I'm interested in expressing myself. I do not want to express bigotry. But if one person decides what I said is even linked to bigotry, suddenly I'm a target, and I can lose a decades-old social account and all of its connections. And if that happens I just have to accept it because it's currently legal. It's so fucking stressful to say anything online anymore.

I think this is an underrated point. A lot of people are quick to say "private companies aren't covered by free speech", but I'm sure everyone agrees legal ≠ moral. We rely on these platforms so much that they've effectively become our public squares. Our government even uses them in official capacities, e.g. the president announcing things on Twitter.

When being censored on a private platform is effectively social and informational murder, I think it's time for us to revisit our centuries-old definitions. Whether you agree or disagree that these instances should be covered by free speech laws, this is becoming an important discussion that I never see brought up, but instead I keep seeing the same bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they're allowed to do it.

The Chevrolet Nova sold very well in Latin American markets; General Motors did not need to rename the car. While no va does mean "it doesn't go" in Spanish, nova was easily understood to mean "new".

Don't worry, the inevitable price increase isn't until next week.

This was the main thing that made me switch to another engine, too. It's very obvious that Google hides certain results in addition to sponsoring others, and I don't want a profit-driven corporation deciding what I can and can't see (or anyone, if I can help it). On a larger scale, it's terrifying how much power over our culture via access to information this gives Google. I'm just glad there are still better options for me to choose from.