Americans need to clean up their own shit before assuming their self-assigned role as world police.
Not self-assigned when USA was the only serious country paying into NATO. Every other country failing to pay into NATO makes USA the de-facto police. Fortunately other countries have understood that and are now starting to pay more into NATO these days.
Rabies kills animals in about 10 days. We have years of videos... It didn't have rabies. Since lived indoors you can also reasonably prove that it couldn't get rabies either.
You said you're using OPNSense for routing... Just keep it up to date and you'll be fine.
If you're worried about your ap, I think you can set omada APS to restart nightly.... Though I could be misremembering.
Every network manufacturer has had some CVE for something.
Good thing what I actually said was
Paying anything you can up front saves you several times over in the long run.
My point was that the advice was terrible. Not that there are other circumstances that could make it useful. Overall, as a general rule you shouldn't want to just hold onto debt for no reason if you have means to pay it down. It's also why I specifically showed 10% as well rather than just the typical 20% downpayment, it furthers my point that
you’re so much better off if you put as much into the down payment as you can.
"As much [...] as you can" And not just some 20% or whatever magic number.
For it to be ironic, there would have to be some sense of Texans doing it to themselves. People coming in from another state is not a Texan's fault. I don't see the "irony" here.
This is terrible advice. Paying anything you can up front saves you several times over in the long run.
Let's talk 500k house, 6%, 30 years, no pmi, no taxes, no extras...
Paying 100k (20%) up front you'll pay: $863,352.76
Paying 50k (10%) up front you'll pay: $971,271.85
Paying 0 up front you'll pay: $1,079,190.95
Paying 20% down (100k) will save you over 200k.
If you intend to live in the house indefinitely, you're so much better off if you put as much into the down payment as you can.
Edit: List formatting
but that it’s ironic that they didn’t think through the consequences
And what part of that consequence is the native Texan's fault? If anything it simply proves their point.
the first is a lot of personal risk; the 2nd is minimal risk
This flies in the face of the article though... it expounds quite a lot that it's hard to sue for this situation at all. With the reviewing hospital doing the procedures in house quite often as they get referrals all the time.
But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”
It's clearly NOT a lot of risk since the burden of proof for that lawsuit would be effectively insurmountable. To the point that the no lawyer is willing to take the case according to the article. If it's that hard to put a lawsuit together on the matter, why would a doctor be scared about conducting an abortion that was already covered as an exception to the law already? I'm not seeing it. I'm not buying the excuse.
It's not like sepsis is undocumented and unknown to the medical community. It's not hard to justify the required treatment through literal decades of medical cases that have been studied and there's specific exemptions in place for medical necessity in TX (and most[qualifier only because I have checked all] other states with a "ban"). The only way this situation make sense is if these places didn't actually have the doctor on hand/staffed and it was some other medical provider that didn't have power to actually make the decision. In which case there's a whole 'nother bag of worms of a problem that needs to be addressed. If it's not negligence on the doctor's behalf (whether that be due to laziness,ignorance,fear, whatever), it's because there wasn't a doctor at all like an RN calling the shots. But the article claims to have gone through everything and doesn't share with us, so I have to assume the former.
This smells a lot like "cops need immunity otherwise they won't investigate stuff". No... they need to do their job better.
the delays at the 3rd hospital
My statement/arguments were more for the first two visits. I feel (and I'm no doctor) was that it was already too late by visit 3. I don't think she was going to make it at that point regardless.
is that they shouldn’t be hard cases
Sepsis IS ALWAYS a hard case unless you catch it very very early. They delayed her significantly and she was already down the path of symptoms. I'm not sure that shrugging of the hard case of potential sepsis (for the first one that didn't bother checking her thoroughly) and confirmed sepsis for the second hospital... is anyway at all related to the case being hard because of "abortion".
Some said the first ER missed warning signs of infection that deserved attention. All said that the doctor at the second hospital should never have sent Crain home when her signs of sepsis hadn’t improved. And when she returned for the third time, all said there was no medical reason to make her wait for two ultrasounds before taking aggressive action to save her.
Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her. Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier[...]
This has nothing to do with abortion ban. This has everything to do with shitty doctors. None of this required or even remotely called for any abortion. And should that first doctor NOT have been allowed to keep their license from previous cases of being a bad doctor... A women and her child probably would be alive today.
The other facility that examined the case was also in Texas. Clearly the "ban" doesn't stop them.
The well-resourced hospital is perceived to have more institutional support to provide abortions and miscarriage management, the doctor said. Other providers “are transferring those patients to our centers because, frankly, they don’t want to deal with them.”
Can't blame a "ban" if there's places that can and do legally do it.
This is shitty doctors/hospitals blaming to the law to skirt around hard cases that they simply don't want to deal with.
But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”
Now this is a shame... This is what TX should be fixing. Malpractice shouldn't need a higher standard in an ER
All in all, I'm not sure how this is related to the abortion "ban" in any way shape or form. So why is it in the article/OP at all? Especially since in this case, it would have been covered regardless...
Section 170A.002 prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There is an exception for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. In order for the exception to apply, three factors must be met: A licensed physician must perform the abortion.
The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function" if the abortion is not performed. "Substantial impairment of a major bodily function" is not defined in this chapter.
The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient's death or impairment.
But... That could be what it adds on. Gotta use the right tool to capture the ghost. That way identification is still relevant.