paysrenttobirds @ paysrenttobirds @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

State law, but also your insurance and pharmacy benefit manager. Our pbm only allows 30 days of any Rx (pain in the ass for "round the clock" birth control) and the thing is we can pay cash and get more, but this is so hard to communicate to the pharmacies, like literally every time they just fill the 30 days and you're arguing with some poor tech holding up the line

So, CVS in California used to do most of that, especially filling the Rx without being asked and then telling us it was ready. But, after some reaction to the opiate crisis I can't find any place that does that. If you're Rx is on a schedule, no matter if it makes sense or how long you've been taking it abuse-free, they absolutely may refuse to help you whenever some miscommunication happens or you need it early because you're traveling or whatever.

I think the pharmacy attached to medical center is a good idea, but it was my doctor's office (the prescriber) who told me they "don't get involved with scheduled drugs" when Costco needed the prescription resent.

This is the problem, like I'm fine if he was really going to let God do the punishing, but they all wanna take his job

You can try this: https://support.google.com/accounts/troubleshooter/6357590?hl=en

I'm sorry for your loss and this dreadful added complication.

Try them with plain yogurt. Cuts the grease somehow and good for you.

I agree with you and one thing that really infuriates me is how stupid the Play store and Apple store have become (obviously for their own short term interest). By not enabling filtering by permissions and price model, data privacy, other concerns, they just repulse anyone with half a brain and make everyone's experience so much shittier. What should feel premium feels like a cheap scam.

My point is the bill would be more interesting if it was not restricted to the TSA in an airport, but maybe they have to start somewhere?

I think choosing a large popular instance to store your account info, posts and comment history makes sense. Also, not having great info about how your credentials are handled on all of these different instances makes people tend to congregate under the idea that more users means better outcome for any grievances. Seems safer. What am I missing?

Is she carrying a bunch of 2x4s out of the woods?

I can actually well imagine them responding to use a Gmail or short list of major domains. Normies are normal and the companies want an email they can link to all the other data on the web.

What all of you fail to realize is that it's literally the point of the project. To filter those "emails" that value privacy. Just like everyone has the right to use those privacy prioritized emails, website operators have a right to know. That is a 1:1 copy of the description of the project.

I'm my personal experience, I have to disagree. Keeping an app up to date with the os is not as ridiculous amount of time to need ongoing subscriptions at these prices as long as new users are still coming in. Even server resources don't cost enough to justify $2/mo minimum from each user for most of these apps just serving a tiny amount of data like leaderboard or new puzzles. The problem is the stores take such huge cut every month so you can't charge only what you really need. They don't want to do micro transactions

There is nothing in the article to suggest that the TSA programs' errors have inconvenienced people as the agent is right there to correct it, and more scans improves the accuracy. I get what you're saying, but the same biases are undoubtedly programmed into the brains of the agents and just as hard to eradicate.

There are many places I don't want to see facial recognition employed, but where people are already mandated to positively identify themselves seems like a natural fit. I think the senators and the ACLU can find much more persuasive examples of overreach.

Yes, I think the second. You have a pool of 100 http clients and a queue of one million requests and a queue to accept the responses as the clients complete, and a little machine that waits for capacity in the client queue to send the next request until there are no more requests. If the response is important to this process, your machine is also pulling from the response queue as available and computing whatever it needs from that, for example to decide whether to abort the rest of the requests. Any other use of the responses can be handled outside this loop.

The other way would work fine, but I think it's actually slightly more complicated and slower because you now have a queue of 10000 batches of 100 requests each and the machine has to watch for all one hundred clients to complete before sending off the next batch. Otherwise, it's the same situation.

The TSA's use of CAT-2 involves scanning a passenger's face and comparing it to a scanned ID card or passport. The system can detect fake IDs "very quickly," a TSA official told us in July, and is also able to verify the person is on any additional screening lists and is actually scheduled to travel in the next 24 hours.

This I'm ok with actually? The airport is already a place you expect to have to give your real identity to be there, and in the case of unfortunate people who share a name with a watchlist person this technology helps them travel normally without hours long interviews at every stop, I think mainly because the TSA agent can say the computer ok'd it instead of having to stick their neck out personally.

I guess the problem would be if the new scans of your face collected by this software are connected to your identity and/or travel data and then exported to third parties who didn't already have that info.

Because by itself it isn't really giving the TSA any new information. They have your id and your boarding pass. The government already knows who you are and where you're going and this bill doesn't stop them acquiring or keeping that information.

the next four years I wish I believed that was all that was at stake

Beautiful color and focus.

I don't know about funny, this is actually a little disturbing to me. Like, here the decision is silly and no real principles involved, but the fact that corporations can be forced to take any technically legal action (including lobbying to change the law) to improve short term bottom line has more serious consequences elsewhere.

I guess you're just lucky :)

I'm pretty sure it's the Eastern grey's around the house. Not endangered in the slightest. [https://myodfw.com/wildlife-viewing/species/squirrels-chipmunks-and-marmots](Western grey squirrels have no brown color at all and are bigger. Don't think I've ever seen one.)