NABDad

I work at a large, private university health system.

Annual up front cost for insurance is $4967 for medical insurance and $609 for dental. Those cover me, my wife, and two of my three children. The insurance is a plan funded by my employer, but managed by Independence Blue Cross, AKA "Personal Choice".

There are three "tiers" of coverage.

First tier is for facilities that are part of my employer. Generally, for procedures performed at my employer's facility there is no additional charge. For a primary care provider who is part of my health system, there would be a $20 copay per visit. Specialist would also be $20, and an ER visit would be $200.

There is an "in network" tier, made up of external providers that accept personal choice. Primary care copay is $35, specialist is $50, ER $200.

The third tier is "out of network". If we see someone out of network, we would have to pay them directly, then try to get partial reimbursement from insurance.

There's also a prescription plan, but we get a discount by using the hospital's outpatient pharmacy.

Everyone always talks about the cost to give birth. All three of my kids were born at the hospital where I work, and none of the births cost us any additional money.

https://youtu.be/PZbqAMEwtOE

Edit: if it were actually a commercial, it would be the best commercial ever created.

that doesn't mean the political articles will be!

The idea is that it means there's no reason to trust anything the paper says. However, that doesn't go far enough.

If you read an article in a paper about something you have direct knowledge of, and you can confirm the article is factually correct, that still doesn't mean anything else in the paper can be trusted.

You can't really trust anything. For all you know, I'm a guinea pig who managed to steal a cell phone to post on the Internet. I'm not, of course. That would be impossible. However, how would you know?

"Tricked" implies that he cares if it's true or not.

He's not being tricked any more than Rupert Murdock is tricked by the stories his company promotes.

I think the LLM could be decent at the task of being a fairly dumb personal assistant. An LLM interface to a robot that could go get the mail or get you a cup of coffee would be nice in an "unnecessary luxury" sort of way. Of course, that would eliminate the "unpaid intern to add experience to a resume" jobs. I'm not sure if that's good or bad,l. I'm also not sure why anyone would want it, since unpaid interns are cheaper and probably more satisfying to abuse.

I can imagine an LLM being useful to simulate social interaction for people who would otherwise be completely alone. For example: elderly, childless people who have already had all their friends die or assholes that no human can stand being around.

Think of the savings if you replace the CEO with an AI!

Hopefully.

not the name of the software/company, but rather some sort of advanced DDOS-like attack

As we've discovered, both can be true.

On Friday, as we were running around the hospital where we work trying to get every computer working again, we were following the work-around to rename the Crowdstrike folder under C:\Windows\system32\drivers to "bad-CrowdStrike".

When my coworker was typing the rename command, instead of typing "cro TAB", he started typing "clo TAB". He'd ask me why it wasn't finding it, and I'd point out the typo.

I started saying, it's not "CloudStrike", it's "CrowdStrike".

By the end of the day, we were both a little loopy. I started typing "CloudStrike", and cursing him out for screwing with my head. By the end of the day I wasn't sure what it was either.

CloudStrike

CrownStrike

ClownStrike

It occurred to us that CrowdStrike is an absolutely terrible name. It sounds like a terrorist attack. Of course, it felt like one on Friday.

Or it shouldn't be a fine, but criminal prosecution for the executives responsible.

The only worse choice for CEO is Chambers. She had a valid reason to just fire his ass. If he's not willing to do what he's told to do, then he's not willing to do his job. It looks to me like the board wanted to get rid of him for reasons that had nothing to do with cancer. Why reference the cancer at all?

I have the feeling the only reason they didn't just get rid of him was because of the cancer diagnosis. Trying to be "nice". But even if the cancer was the reason for not just cutting him loose, there's no reason to bring it up.

How does the CEO not know referencing the cancer would expose them to liability? Did they not sit down with their lawyers before sitting down with him?

Now they're probably going to lose in court and be forced to pay him off.

They should fire Chambers.

Perhaps people on Lemmy just aren't learning anything.