Just, as an exercise, list out 3 good reasons someone might want untraceable admin accounts then list 3 really bad reasons they might want that. If you manage to find 3 good reasons does the outcome of those those outweigh the risks of the potential bad reasons?
I appreciate the question. The most obvious is that this is an “audit the auditors” exercise, and they do not want to leak information toward a likely adversarial counterpart. If they have the authority to so, then they do. An adjacent complaint about “not following Treasury policy is similar.” If these systems exist, there is a governing authority structure, and that does not begin at the level contemplated in this document.
Good:
1. The account-level below that doesn't have access to certain stuff and just happened to have untraceable stuff
2. They just said "give me the highest level of access" and didn't investigate what that meant
3. Can't think of a good third atm
Bad:
1. They want to do nefarious things untraceably
2, 3. I think 1. covers pretty much everything.
Personally, if I'm put in charge of overhauling a system I don't want to waste my time waiting on approvals for BS, I just want to be given the highest level of access I can be given to get on with work.
I'm not saying this is fine, but the information here is basically a random list of things that happened and it doesn't really tell a nefarious story to my eyes.
I honestly don't understand the defenses of these actions here. Forget about the nature of data we're talking about here. If I was an engineer working at say google, and I put in mechanisms to access a bunch of data and bypass both auth and audit, I'd get fired instantly.
Uhh this is important because the onus and health risks of contraceptives have been entirely shouldered by women. Not because a very low percentage of men have been “coerced” into fatherhood.
There’s lots of comments in this thread on the risks of cancer and this and that risk with male contraceptives. meanwhile, these are already real issues women have to consider when using modern day hormonal contraceptives. The discourse in this thread is so dude-centric tone deaf.
Discussions around pregnancy, childbirthbirth and raising children are very gynocentric and minimising men.
They are disregarding men having to face a disproportionate economic burden paired with lower (often, NO) rights to have a say. For example, even if they desire abortion, women can force men to pay alimony. Another example would be the common paternity testing prohibition, allowing women to plant cuckoo children as they see fit.
Pharmaceutical contraception for men gives then back their reproductive rights.
Reminded me of this documentary I just watched about humans and Waymo - beautiful and sad. Highly recommend it. Kind of a hard opener, but stick with it https://youtu.be/WsGWqxxMt9k?si=ycrIBGvdy73SLgsA
Are you an owner? the hoa is not the board - it’s the entirety of the home owners who can vote and amend any rules at any time with enough momentum and support.
Yea totally. I am an owner and I've been fighting with the board for 3 years over failure to hold elections, and inconsistent treatment of members / rules.
I have a lawyer, have won my first battle already but it cost me $6k out of pocket (and the HOA $25k) for something that should have never happened.
Next step is to expose the board and get people to turn out to vote, sadly there are unelected members on the board since 1995, and not enough turn out for a quorum so I am a bit hamstrung
I had to get a medication for a stomach bacteria called C. diff. It has bad relapse rates and its best to get it in check asap. What my doctor prescibed was the newest/best antibiotic for the issue, the other have worse recovery rates and way worse side effects.
I have very good insurance. The price of the medication without insurance was about $5000, the price with very good insurance was about $1300. After redditing i found a thread where you can find a manufacturers coupon on the manufacturers website. After knowing this seemingly secret hidden trick the medicine was $50. My doctor didnt know about that, my insurance didnt either. Absolutely insane. Absolutely arbitrary.
Well of course. In the USA, health insurance is legally required to spend at least 80% of premiums on medical care [1]. So, if they paid for only 50$ of care, they would only be able to make at most 62.50$ of revenue. The only way to keep revenue and total profits increasing is to increase costs.
> After redditing i found a thread where you can find a manufacturers coupon on the manufacturers website. After knowing this seemingly secret hidden trick the medicine was $50. My doctor didnt know about that, my insurance didnt either. Absolutely insane.
This is GoodRx's business model in a nutshell. I used them when I didn't have insurance and saved a ton on medicine.
Some manufacturer coupons/copay programs work a little differently than GoodRx—specifically the ones that you can only use if you're insured.
Those ones work like this: HelpfulDrug costs $2000/month. Your insurance company will pay $1500/month, and wants to pass the remaining $500 onto you, but that's too expensive for you to pay.
The manufacturers of HelpfulDrug see this and would rather not lose our on a deal, so they make you an offer: as long as your insurance pays the $1500 as promised, they'll tell insurance to waive $450 worth of your portion. You only pay $50, and the HelpfulDrug manufacturer still earns $1500, most of which is pure profit anyway.
Manufacturers' discount coupons are a fairly common thing in the US. But if the patient is on any kind of government medical assistance program (Medicare & Medicaid being the two big ones), they're not eligible.
My bit of anecdata is the insured price of $1249/month for a drug whose manufacturer would sell me for $40/month - if only I weren't on Medicare. $14,988/year vs. $480/year. Sucks.
I sort of find telemedicine to a be a scam. I’m sure it has its use case, but most of the time it feels like they are trying to limit liability so they just tell you to go see a doctor in person.
do you still get insurance coverage if it isnt requested by a physician?
Edit: answered my own question. Per questhealth.com "Tests purchased on questhealth.com are only for individuals who intend to pay directly for testing and do not want to submit a claim for reimbursement under their health insurance. "
You can still submit your own claim to your health plan even if the provider doesn't do billing. They may or not pay depending on coverage policies. You can also probably use an HSA or HRA to pay for these services.
Anecdotally, I prefer telemedicine for my PCP other than yearly physicals. I can usually get an appointment in the same week, often same day if I am willing to go to another provider in a different nearby office.
If the modified will be open-source would you be willing to outline goals of the project on github or gitlab? I'd be happy to take a look. been a while since I've done PCB work I mostly do asic/fpga design now, but depending on the scope I could possibly help.
reply