quixotic120

There’s also a bunch of contexts where workers wear scrubs but the exposure to contaminants is low or basically nonexistent

Like I worked in a psych hospital and the nurse practitioners were required to wear scrubs. They saw people on an outpatient basis 90% of the time or more. Their job was to sit in an office, have someone come in, interview them for a bit, write scripts, then repeat until the day was done basically. They may take temperature or blood pressure.

They were required to wear scrubs because occasionally if the inpatient dept was short staffed they would be asked to come on the floor and there you would have a much higher risk of bodily fluid exposure. But the vast majority of the time their scrubs were absolutely pristine

I worked homeless outreach in a rural area. My job was to connect people to housing, assist with obtaining government benefits, and mental health services if necessary. They would spend the day at local hot spots, well trafficked convenience stores in the morning, well trafficked stores like the local grocery store for most of the rest of the day. A lot of them would hang out in the stores as long as possible to escape the heat/cold and many would also hit up strangers for money at these spots

They were often very hesitant or completely unwilling to share where they actually slept. Even though I worked for a nonprofit a lot of them saw me as a government employee and even the ones who didn’t still were very hesitant to trust me or any of my coworkers with that info. I’m pretty sure they were scared that I would call the cops or something. Some slept in wooded areas, some slept behind stores, some couch surfed, etc from the ones who did share and who I found (part of my job was being the point of contact for police and other emergency services who found people staying outside in dangerous weather and getting them emergency housing).

Even though it was probably like 2013 or so that I did this job the absolute cheapest room that would rent to the homeless was $700/mo. There were cheaper rooms around but they tended to require big deposits and would often refuse to rent to someone that didn’t already have a permanent address. I’m pretty sure that’s illegal but they would get around it usually by being vague and ghosting. “Oh so sorry someone else got the room”, stuff like that, and you’d see it was still available for 3 more months. I can’t even imagine what the rent is like now

Super depressing job. It’s very difficult to escape that cycle once you’re in it. It radicalized me a lot to work with people who were literally left on the street in a town with hundreds of vacant apartments. By our estimate there were maybe 20-40 homeless people in said town at any given point

You can also use komf alongside komga/kavita to just scrape metadata automatically upon import. A bit finnicky to get going (a tampermonkey script is required to give it accessible setting on the komga page) but works very well and even has a gui for identifying results and selecting the correct option if the auto scrape fails similar to jellyfin

For the actual reader part I just use komga as a server and read through Mihon (one of the tachiyomi forks) on my ereader mostly. occasionally I’ll use paperback on my iphone (although recently I’ve been trying Tachimanga, which is basically an iOS tachiyomi fork). Loads library, can sort by tag/library/date added, reads most things very well, can sync read status with the komga server (and/or manga updates or whatever), etc.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702620921341 - the bigger takeaway from this one is that trigger warnings reinforce trauma as a central part of the traumatized individuals identity but they did find some incidence of drawback/harm

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625 meta finding no benefit and actually can cause an anticipatory reaction making the person more engaged with the material

There are others, this is just what grabbed from 30 seconds on google scholar. Its been a bit since I’ve done more serious lit review and it’s not like I keep a directory of papers I’ve read

The issue is the culture surrounding trigger warnings. Let’s be real here, people looking for trigger warnings are generally (perhaps overwhelmingly) not looking for material to help with their exposure therapy. They are looking for a “warning” to help them screen material to avoid. The issue is that this creates an unrealistic expectation that is incompatible with the real world. You can avoid suicide, sexual assault, eating disorders, or whatever in your media (maybe) but real life won’t sanitize itself or warn you. You will encounter these topics, whether through the news, careless speech from friends, or even intrusive thoughts of your own. Research continues to show that avoidance of upsetting topics can worsen anxiety and ptsd symptoms

To your final point the idea of it helping to create a choice isn’t even as clear cut as you describe

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026221097618 content warnings actually increase the likelihood someone will view problematic content. This point is further reinforced by similar findings in the meta linked above

So you have a system that ultimately makes creators feel like they’re doing something noble, that is likely at best useless and potentially harmful. Said system increases the likelihood that a person will view the problematic content but also enables the reality that a person will simply avoid the things that provoke their anxiety which again is more strongly established as harmful

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796712001064 - ptsd worsens with avoidance

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962184904000290 - anxiety disorders do the same

There’s evidence that trigger warnings actually worsen anxiety and are counterproductive

The way to treat anxiety is to face the source of anxiety to try and change your relationship and reaction. The best way to do this is via controlled access that exposes one to the trigger gradually in a context that has no risk of harm (eg a media depiction, discussing the concept, building up to discussing the source of trauma that led to the phobic response if applicable)

Trigger warnings enable active avoidance. This sensitizes one to the aversive stimuli and makes the phobic response stronger. As a result when one encounters the stimulus (eg a friend, family, celebrity etc commits suicide, suffers an eating disorder, etc) your resilience to the trigger is now even lower and the response is more likely to be more significant than it was before.

That said education on access to resources like 988 or other warm lines can lower suicide rates, maybe. Research is more mixed here because it’s difficult to prove causation

If you have a rooted webos tv there’s an app for this in the home brew channel

https://repo.webosbrew.org/apps/org.webosbrew.inputhook/

a virus perpetuates and replicates itself infecting other executables with its code, thus the name “virus”.

this is just shitty code that crashes hard. it’s not even particularly malicious, it doesn’t destroy anything

that’s not what a virus is

The important takeaway from this is that “supplements” have 0 oversight. The CBD, probiotics, vitamin d, etc that you buy could just be capsules of vegetable oil that does nothing at all. Or they could be asbestos and cyanide for all you know (that probably would lead to an investigation though). There’s also no safety regarding packing and handling, so it might literally be a guy with unwashed hands who just picked his butt loading your gelcaps in a dirty bathroom that someone just took a massive shit in. No one checks and verifies any of this and that’s why shills and hucksters jump onto this shit, it’s a completely unregulated market where can cut corners everywhere and say whatever you want as long as you include *not intended to treat any diseases and not evaluated by the fda

A $1200 thing you buy on instagram that sends “good waves” to your brain? Supplement. The cbd you buy at the gas station? Supplement. Doterra oils? Supplement. No regulation, no oversight, just robbing people based on their desperation to fix chronic pain and mental illness

Bleed in my ass

those bass drum hertas tho

It hasn’t seen a release yet, code is here:

https://github.com/arjpar/WebShield-staging/tree/ldev

I’m not endorsing it, never heard of it before this post, but this was literally the second line of the readme

Then if you’ve met your deductible the big question is if you have a coinsurance after the deductible is met and an out of pocket maximum.

If your coinsurance is 60% or 80% or whatever, you won’t be responsible for the full bill but only that percentage of it.

If you have no coinsurance (a no charge after deductible plan) the service should be covered 100%

If you have coinsurance you should have an out of pocket max, which once hit should end the coinsurance and make services covered 100%. OOP max is typically quite a bit higher than deductible, sometimes 5-7x as much, but not always. It’s plan specific.

If your employer pays 50% that is an arrangement they have worked out and the specifics will be tied to your companies contract. This could mean they would pay 50% of any bill (unlikely as this is not a fixed cost they can plan for. Maybe if you’re like a ceo or some shit) or it could mean that up to your deductible they’ll pay 50%.

Also keep in mind even if you’re in a “covered 100%” scenario there are some instances in which you would still get billed:

Differential vs contracted rates - if the hospital charges $5000 for your procedure but your insurance only pays $4600 the hospital can sometimes bill you for the difference. This is not always the case; some contracts require the servicer (doctor) to accept the contracted rates and not charge more. Most common reason you’d get a bill in the above 100% scenarios and also the reason the math might not work out in coinsurance scenarios. Eg in the above surgery example your bill would probably be $1320. It should be 920 as that is 20% of the $4600 paid, or even $1000 as that is 20% of the 5k billed, but you pay the 920 as 20% of what your insurance paid plus the $400 difference, so $1320

Out of network providers - these can often have a separate deductible and sometimes in hospitals a provider can be out of network even though the hospital itself is in network

Non covered services - if the procedure involves a service that isn’t covered (uncommon)

Billing errors: if a bill looks wrong contest it and if your insurance isn’t reimbursing providers properly complain to them. Sometimes a medical office gets your info wrong and assumes your deductible or coinsurance is active when it shouldn’t be. Sometimes your insurance makes similar mistakes.