Women get IUDs inserted with nothing more than OTC painkillers, generally. Especially in people who have never given birth it can be cripplingly painful and cause severe cramps for weeks.
Have you ever read about what it's like to get an IUD inserted? I would recommend checking that out and then asking whether a small injection to the genitals is really the worst possibility.
I'm sure nothing could be worse. You're welcome to volunteer to get either procedure, both, or neither. I would recommend elective medical procedures stay optional.
An ex-gf of mine gently flicked my gonads once without warning, that was no picnic either. Luckily, just like an IUD, it isn't mandatory. Horses for courses.
When I was at Shopify, it was Python unit tests for ETL code. There was a framework of reusable components that simplified things, but it was all homegrown. They were trying to move to dbt
I have been the token woman interviewing a woman and also joined teams where the only other woman interviewed me. It always struck me more as "look, we have one and she's not mouthing 'get out' so we're a good employer".
Usually once I join the one other woman leaves and the cycle repeats.
How else would you recommend they approach the situation? Should the other woman not have been bothered to interview you?
Maybe a more generous interpretation is that people are flawed, and they're making an effort as imperfect as it is. I I feel the alternative is a catch-22, and everybody be damned regardless of the motive, effort, our outcome - nothing will be good enough.
Graviton2 is generally available and depending on your codebase and dependencies can be a drop-in replacement. I was amazed at the breadth of ARM docker images that exist for common use cases.
Yup, classic fascist rhetoric. It's not surprising they point to a woman being independent and expressing her sexuality as the example of "degenerate culture". The "other" (people of colour, women, queers) are producing art that represents our own experiences, which is a threat to their desired white hetero-patriarchal order.
Never mind that Mozart wrote a ton of filthy shit. People have been obsessed with sex forever
I think the comment about the music is ridiculous, but the broader point about free money causing the gradual degradation of food, housing, standard of living, etc. is not without merit.
> free money causing the gradual degradation of food, housing, standard of living, etc. is not without merit.
First, you have to establish that degradation has taken place. Considering that for most of civilizational history, the vast majority of people were wearing rags and eating grain porridge without spice or much salt and living in hovels, that doesn't seem obvious to me. Second, even if you do establish that, you have to specifically tie it to "fiat" currency and not some other factor. Those both seem like a tall order.
The factors leading to the dust bowl in the 1930s happened under the gold standard.
The government is prioritizing the wrong things, which is leading to today's degradation of food, but lack of government intervention also results in the degradation of food.
Housing quality and standard of living are at their best ever - if free money is causing that, thats not a terrible outcome
Well we are approaching half of americans having a chronic disease and a large part of that is from what we eat along with lack of exercise. it does seem like we have a degradation of the nutrients in our food supply as well.
Surely this is a problem of supply and not demand.
If I go to Safeway and don't find something healthy, I will nevertheless buy something for the simple reason that I am hungry. Want healthier food in a society? Sell healthier food in a society.
It's not the job of consumers, nor is there any reasonable communication channel, to dictate what is put on shelves. They can only provide feedback based on what is already there. If they have a limited selection, you will receive a censored signal, and you cannot judge the outcome based on counterfactuals of what they would have bought if something else was in the pool of offered products.
Above describes the folly of "demand-based" economic thinking. If there was truly an infinite supply and infinite variety of products, it makes sense to consider demand-based perspectives as actually expressing consumer desires. But it doesn't do that -- it only expresses preferences among the finite selection available, and you can very quickly sink into a feedback loop that encourages unhealthy diets by conflating the two perspectives.
' It's not the job of consumers, nor is there any reasonable communication channel, to dictate what is put on shelves. '
In a free market the job of consumers is to use communication channel of purchases to signal what they want to have stocked on the shelves. Safeway stocks junk food because that is what people buy.
Where is the answer to the problem? Signals are carried in codes, and codes can be more or less efficient at conveying information. How does a sample from a biased population provide any information about the true mean? How would offering only Cheez-its and Gatorade tell you about consumer desires for eggplant?
Many accuse their fellow humans of degeneracy but that narrative only serves to obfuscate the primary role of corporations, for which we can make much stronger accusations of degeneracy.
Dear reader, observe the classically crypto-fascist rhetoric with its complete lack of self-reflection and deflection via essentially empty-headed, debate-bro tactics.
There has never been a time in human history where a smaller percentage of the population faced starvation. Actual wars were fought over access to spices I can buy for three dollars at the supermarket.
Small changes in per-unit micronutrient quantities are not the cause of modern obesity. If you do want to make some claim that worldwide nutrition was better at some point in the past, that point was definitely not when Bach was alive.
What's really being said here is "people need to make better nutrition choices." Or can you support a claim that highly processed super-tasty engineered and mass-produced food is purely a function of ag subsidies? And that there would be no market pressure to create such a thing in your world.
It doesn't matter. Facts don't matter if you have spent significant amount of your life savings into magic internet money. Any news is contructed into 'this is good for bitcoin'. Even history itself is malleable, everything can be blamed on fiat (even though Bitcoin itself is fiat).
They're spending money to build housing, which will be used to house people without homes. The headline makes it sound like they're paying a million dollars in rent, but in fact this is real estate development.
40000 * 837000 = 33.48 billion dollars. This solution, as implemented, can not possibly solve the problem, ever. The upkeep on the housing alone would be a billion dollars a year!
Its because they don't actually want to house the unhoused. They want to make it seem like this impossible challenge to provide affordable housing that doesn't cost the average person in LA $1M+
San Francisco had a similar problem in recent years, where trying to build housing for the unhoused was running a cost of about a million a pop.
It's perhaps possible that this isn't a deliberate display of incompetence, but a set of systemic problems that make housing in California very expensive to build.
They can choose anywhere to build, the government controls zoning, and they're making apartments. Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems?
Though the article doesn't actually say anything about average costs or cost per type of unit, and since this is a professional news outlet they don't link their sources...
> Doesn't that get past all the big systemic cost problems?
You would think so! Unfortunately, this is not the case. In SF, some of the systemic issues are planning processes voted into the city charter decades ago, so the city doesn't get to bypass them. Some of the larger issues, such as land price and CEQA, are state-wide issues that cities can't avoid.
That is definitely not a universal truth. Anyone who has rented out a house knows just how expensive a bad tenant is.
I have had a few friends who were in that position because they had to move but couldnt sell their houses (2008-2014 era roughly). They would have been better off taking the loss on leaving it empty after taking out loans to undo the damage done.
It's actually the land which goes up in value. Houses go down in value, like a new car.
Sometimes this is masked, by regular maintenance, retrofits, and repairs. But if left to pot, a house is eventually worthless, then even a cost, for the new owner has to tear it down and rebuild.
Depends on the house, but houses can get more valuable much faster than the minimal maintenance costs associated with them. That’s less common in earthquake zones, but scarcity can easily drive up prices because “they don’t make them like they used to” or something interesting happened in the location etc.
LA also does spend money just booking rooms at for profit hotels for homeless people vs constructing shelters at cost too, so not everything they are doing is totally productive and efficient.
In practice people will accuse non-pornographic LGBT educational resources of being pornography and breaking the law. Pornography is subjective, and straight people have historically tried to say that any information about gay sex or being trans is pornographic. This just hurts queer youth by depriving them of resources and forums to talk about their experiences
