I have never had cancer of any kind in my family tree, and I had a precancerous polyp found at 38yo.
You should get a colonoscopy. If you are at low risk and look totally healthy after, they'll tell you that you don't need another for a good while and you'll get the benefit of not (often) getting something that you don't think you need and, as a bonus, not die of treatable cancer.
You'll die of something else then. That's the part that so many people seem to overlook.
There is a money-making industry around colonoscopies and mamograms. I'm not saying to disregard medical advice in this regard as for any individual there may be good reasons to have these procedures. However you can't completely discount the financial incentives for the providers.
As someone who lives in the south but has done a lot of traveling both inside and outside of the US, rednecks (or redneck-equivalents) are absolutely everywhere. It's a lot more of a class/rural thing than a regional thing, and certainly in the US 'redneck culture' has become mainstream basically anywhere that is not a major urban center.
Also I'm not convinced on the idea that it is unlikely to elicit change. My current employer takes exit interviews very seriously when they lose good people, and tries to fix the situation before losing more.
Like you said, if it is handled professionally - that is, you have valid concerns/criticisms that you are able to quantify and address in a constructive manner - it can be very useful for everyone involved.
I get that for every company that seems to care there are probably 10 that seem to not, but I always find this sort of stereotypical "work sucks and is a zero-sum game" attitude that is common on Reddit and HN a little saddening. Sure, your primary concern should be to take care of yourself, but this idea that everything with 'Inc.' after its name is full of layers of uncaring, heartless drones is frankly untrue. People think the same about IT/tech/dev, and it's not true there either. It does not have to be you vs them, even when you decide to leave.
I've done a lot of a relatively high-value item (motorcycles, cars) buying and selling on Facebook and Craigslist, and let me assure you: people didn't move to Facebook because Craigslist was a 'robust incumbent.'
As a seller, I am guaranteed to get 10-20 scam messages in the first 24h of my post on Craigslist; text, email, and phone. God forbid you were bold/stupid enough to put your real information in there. You have to use burners or congratulations, you've signed up for a lifetime of scam calls.
Facebook Marketplace has many faults, but it is relatively easy-to-use, has a wide audience, attracts more serious buyers in my experience, has low spam/scam volume, actually attempts to address scammers (albeit cumbersomely; this is still a differentiator from CL) and allows me to know something about who I am trying to make a deal with.
Marketplace is succeeding despite its faults precisely because the other options are generally such terrible experiences.
As a BUYER, the FB marketplace experience is TERRIBLE. Seriously, it's beyond bad. Searching for an item gives you different listings every. single. time. It's a dice roll if the faceted search works. And that's on top of the usual cruft of selling online - the requisite "is this available?" and ghosting being the most annoying. I'm a member of several B/S groups and half the content is split between posts and marketplace items and searching between them is obnoxious.
Full disclosure - I use the mobile web experience because I refuse to install the app. I would rather Craiglist 8 days a week, but because FB has the user already there, logged in, they've gained a lot of traction with a seriously inferior product.
I wonder if this depends on the location. I've never run into that issue. Sure, a couple here and there. But nothing where I would ever consider needing a burner number or felt like I was getting scammed. Although I've only sold maybe 10-20 items, so maybe I'm just lucky.
I've been upset by this myopic view since the very beginning. We are increasingly learning that viruses can have long-term effects on the body and mind, even prior to COVID. Agreed that we can't all walk around as 'bubble boys' out of fear of the unknown, but one should definitely avoid becoming infected with viruses where at all possible. That the initial symptoms are analogous to a flu for most people doesn't mean that's the end of the story.
HPV was 'just' genital warts, until we found out that it causes cancer. Other animal species have cancer-causing viruses as well. Or take Chicken Pox: basic kid's illness in the past (and yes, it was worth getting it when younger before a vaccine was available to avoid late-life illness) but if you've ever known anyone with a severe case of shingles you'll know that it's not 'just' a virus that causes itchy rashes in grade-schoolers. Shingles can ruin people's lives.
Assuming you won't have any long-term issues from exposure to a dangerous virus is just rolling dice.
The idea of letting my kids get a known neurologically-affecting virus without even the option of vaccination (yet) and just hoping that it won't cause them issues in the long-term fills me with dread.
Well the article notes that some amount of user demographic info is revealed simply by interacting with the post, regardless of the information provided by the respondent.
Secondly, this is almost like the email phishing paradox: to an educated user it seems like the number of people who respond with relevant information would be extremely low, but if the attempt costs you basically nothing and you get something useful 1% of the time, you're still winning.
"My perfect fall day is my memory of Aunt June when we lived in Connecticut in the 70s, before she passed away." In itself something like that doesn't seem useful, but there's a good amount of information in there if someone can correlate it with other details about your life.
Liberal Biden voter here: Totally. Everyone is absorbing media that spends 90% of its energy encouraging them to think that they're being attacked by the other half of the country. Both ends of the spectrum are encouraged to have a victim complex that makes them feel totally justified in their heinous behavior, because in their minds they're just defending themselves against the aggressor.
It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I consume no media directly, but I get exposed to the victim complexes quite thoroughly here on HN. And from that I do indeed get the impression that I'm under attack.
Last year(?) YouTube changed TOS to state (IIRC) that if you didn't explicitly mark your own videos as 'not for children' they would be included in search results that included content for young children. Then, if the video was found to violate TOS in the content, it could be removed or demonetized.
Creators like myself who may have cursing or other 'adult themes' would need to check a box saying that the content was not intended for children or risk TOS violation. Ergo many people self-imposed age restriction on their content.
So while people are looking at this in the lens of 'YouTube is censoring free thought!' it is entirely possible (maybe even likely) that the creator of the video chose to exclude children from their audience, and that YouTube's request for age verification is the consequence of that creator's choices.
Obviously there are still troubling implications here, but if a creator chooses to age-restrict their own content that's not really YouTube's fault (though their poor review policies combined with a 'shoot first' approach to takedowns could definitely be seen as strong-arming creators into this paradigm).
I think what you're thinking of the "made for kids" checkbox, which just decides if YouTube can collect data on the audience if the video is the target audience of a video is kids: "To help protect kids’ privacy and meet legal requirements, we have to limit data collection and use on videos that are set as “made for kids." [0] I agree its very confusing for creators.
The age restriction is a separate option, and it's unclear whether the restriction on this Harris/Weinstein is self-imposed or imposed by the platform.
My understanding from younger colleagues is that entry-level positions are much more competitive than they were when I was leaving college and entering the tech market 10 or 12 years ago. At that time, my experience was that if you knew Linux (at all) or Windows/Mac administration - and were otherwise a good interviewee - you essentially had your choice of jobs.
People entering the market now talk about it like it's a complete wasteland. Apparently entry-level 'learn-on-the-job' tech work is extremely competitive and difficult to access for new graduates these days. If you're already 'in' and have a network and experience it's still largely like the glory days, but getting to that level is supposedly much more difficult now.
(To be fair to any younger people reading this, my entry-level tech job was at $28k/yr and I worked restaurants and bars until I was able to move on, so it's not like I got a degree and someone threw $150k at me to intern. It took a lot of work, even in the glory days)
There are many people entering the industry that can already demonstrate their skills well, and interview in a way that shows that even if they are technically entry-level, they likely won't stay there for very long.
This probably contributes to a very competitive situation for traditional entry-level "actually I need to learn this job once I get there" candidates.
I keep seeing this argument everywhere (basically whenever anyone is criticized for a past Tweet or FB post), and it's really confounding to me. Perhaps it's that many of the people making this argument have grown up as part of the 'social media generation' and are therefore more apt to identify with this sort of thing? I grew up during the dial-up days and was always taught to be careful with what I did and said online, as far as it was attached to my name. Has that knowledge been lost?
> And finally, norms have changed drastically over the last decade.
You're so right, but I'm not sure that it's in the way you think: in what other period of time, and in what other sphere of social life, have past actions not mattered?
You're presuming that he has 'grown and matured' and is therefore beyond reproach; did he offer any evidence that he has changed, or is the mere fact that his behavior is from 'several years ago' what makes you take up his cause? If I yelled racist and homophobic things at people ten years ago, does the passage of time alone make me 'innocent' in your eyes?
> teenagers a decade ago
> I think it's foolish to hold historical figures to today's societal norms, and I think the same about any of us a decade ago.
We're not talking about a teenager saying something 'a decade ago;' this was only several years ago, and in a similar job. He is young, yes, but does that mean that his professional conduct does not matter? At all? Because a couple of years have passed? He didn't know that being hateful and shitty to people was bad then, because his cultural context was so different? I call bullshit on that.
The author of this pieces makes the same assertion about King:
> decades-old tweets
Twitter has been around for 13 years. There are no 'decades-old' Tweets, period, that anyone has been attacked for, ever. It gives the impression that it is in the much more distant past than it really is.
I know that I'm pissing in the wind of the prevailing attitude that what's said online is somehow sacrosanct and should be free of criticism, but I find the conclusion that we can't judge people on their past ONLINE actions, specifically, very fucking strange and self-serving.
> wisdom in Christ's words
If you want to be Christ-like, try not saying hateful things online AT ALL. I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't have said, "Let he who is hateful be without reproach because it was funny at the time."
> If you want to be Christ-like, try not saying hateful things online AT ALL. I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't have said, "Let he who is hateful be without reproach because it was funny at the time."
I left out the part of the story where he turns to the woman who was to have been stoned and says "go and sin no more". We must be responsible for our actions and try to do good, but none of us are really very good at that, and will always make mistakes. Because of that, it's also our responsibility to show grace and forgiveness to others. If it's impossible to leave behind foolish or terrible things we've said or done, we're all doomed.
For what it's worth, I didn't really want my original comment to be read as aimed at King or the reporter. I think the reporter (and his editor) was wrong to do what he did and got a taste of his own medicine. It would've been far better had the whole story remained untold.
Well I didn't expect this to turn into a theological conservation, and I don't really have time at the moment for all of that, but I will say that there is a difference between innocently screwing up and asking for forgiveness and the idea of 'indulgences' where we essentially say, "We know we're going to screw up so good thing we have an 'out' and it's no big deal in the end." Saying that everyone screws up so it's not that bad sounds more like the latter to me.
> If it's impossible to leave behind foolish or terrible things we've said or done, we're all doomed.
I don't know; I'm embarrassed by some things that I've said or done in the past, but I can acknowledge them without it destroying my perception of myself. Plus if you think small, family-based societies in the past had shorter social memories than we do today, I'd wager that you're dreadfully mistaken.
Most schools of thought around forgiveness, especially Christian ones, involve acknowledgement and atonement, not blaming our youth or social context or the fact that it was online. We may leave things behind, yes, but that does not mean that they didn't happen. Denial is not acceptance.
You should get a colonoscopy. If you are at low risk and look totally healthy after, they'll tell you that you don't need another for a good while and you'll get the benefit of not (often) getting something that you don't think you need and, as a bonus, not die of treatable cancer.