braxy29

i'm trying to find what they (project 2025) are intending to rename health and human services. don't find it at the moment but it's definitely some orwellian bullshit. "ministry of life" or something.

edit - department of life

i'm not sure i would call this hilarious.

and i will see it repeated endlessly online over the next several years, paired with a lot of "serves them right" style comments.

it doesn't help women or anyone else.

this is not the way forward.

fucking gross.

edit - i work with dv victims/victims of abuse. tell me why your "lol comment" is any better than the shit women tell me every day they hear from their abusers?

which truth is that, that no one hates women like other women?

look at the current climate, i see a lot of woman-hating from all sides, including supposed allies on the left looking for a scapegoat. the oversimplified victim-blaming of dumping our president-elect at the feet of women (again) demonstrates very little understanding of gendered power dynamics and very little effort to build coalition.

to this i would add the threads blaming racial and ethnic minorities, the poor, and the poorly educated.

do you want less suffering in the world, or are you no better than the right in looking for someone to blame, and someone whose suffering you can enjoy because, "they asked for it, they voted for it, they deserve it?"

as i just said in another comment, it scares me to see this shit AGAIN.

this narrative is not making women any safer!

there was a story here recently about a lot of scamming happening on truth social. so yeah.

i would absolutely try this.

i eat a LOT of kraut, probably five days a week. also enjoy sardines and mayo on toast with capers. followed by kraut, which pairs well with the salty capered dregs left in the sardine tin.

i don't mind the humor, because good lord it's so damn depressing otherwise.

i could say a lot in response to your comment about the benefits and shortcomings of algorithms (or put another way, screening tools or assessments), but i'm tired.

i will just point out this, for anyone reading.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2573025/

i am exceedingly troubled that something which is commonly regarded as indicating very high risk when working with victims of domestic violence was ignored in the cited case (disclaimer - i haven't read the article). if the algorithm fails to consider history of strangulation, it's garbage. if the user of the algorithm did not include that information (and it was disclosed to them), or keyed it incorrectly, they made an egregious error or omission.

i suppose, without getting into it, i would add - 35 questions (ie established statistical risk factors) is a good amount. large categories are fine. no screening tool is totally accurate, because we can't predict the future or have total and complete understanding of complex situations. tools are only useful to people trained to use them and with accurate data and inputs. screening tools and algorithms must find a balance between accurate capture and avoiding false positives.

i hear you, fellow texan. no fan of ercot, but reading this thread has been infuriating.

for anyone else reading my comment - some years ago, i lived in oklahoma for a little while. years of drought, one year a lot rain. lots of trees with a lot dead branches weighted by new growth, then that winter an ice storm hit. trees bigger than my car came crashing down and it was all over the town i lived in. for three days in the silence, you could hear branches cracking and falling. two houses down a tree went right through their living room. one end of our street was impassable for several days until someone could cut one tree into small enough pieces to clear it.

needless to say, power was out. parts of town had power back within days, some parts of the state, if i remember correctly, didn't have power for weeks.

grid stability or redundancy couldn't have prevented that problem.

https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-20071208