What are you trying to find

Well it depends. If you want quality staff delivering quality service/making quality products then yes it is. You have to spend a ton of money onboarding and training them so burning them out is foolish because you just burn cash

However, if you are fine with delivering a poor or mediocre service/product (the bare minimum), you can slash training and onboarding costs to the bare minimum. Your staff will be even more resentful because now they will struggle.

But as long as you have a huge pool of workers clamoring for jobs you can keep this going and even do so with abusive conditions (demand 100% efficiency, constant overtime, insane quotas, etc). Just burn them out and when they crash pick another resume from the pile

I was talking to someone the other day who works in the tech industry. They had a coworker who died on a Friday and they were replaced on a Monday. There was no fanfare or grieving. It was just “okay, that’s a bummer, here’s his replacement”

More workers than soldiers at this point

I have a friend who studies behavior but applied to employment systems. Tons of research there on getting the most out of your employees. This sounds terrible when you first hear it right? But when you read it it’s about not burning out staff with reasonable quotas and demands, using positive reinforcement, building morale, etc. basically that you might decrease output slightly now but you’ll increase retention of the staff and the staff will overall be much more satisfied

They reject this in basically every industry even though it’s evidence based. It’s easier to burn people out and churn through workers. Meanwhile humanity stays poor and miserable for the most part (aside from a small percentage that makes out like bandits)

That’s correct, I misspoke, I clarified that with the rest of my post though

I don’t understand what you are arguing?

If you’re arguing that downloading remuxes and only flac is foolish then yeah, 99.8% of the time h264 and 320 mp3 are going to be indistinguishable on most setups with most content. H265 will be the same on like 99.5% of setups with slightly less content and will save tons of space. Sure. But this assumes the lossy encodes were done properly from a lossless master

if you encode lossy to lossy it will result in visible and audible distortion of the image and audio. Sometimes it’s minimal, sometimes it’s quite bad, sometimes it’s masked by your equipment, but it’s always there. Further, you’d spend more money on electricity running your cpu on full blast encoding terabytes of video files when you could simply just redownload your library in whatever format by someone who knows what they’re doing (if you’re so concerned about space and don’t care about quality go av1)

But you do you

Don’t encode lossy to lossy. The encoding will take forever and the image quality will suffer. If you want file size savings redownload your media in h265 or whatever. Or temporarily download a lossless copy, encode, and delete.

You’re correct that it will reduce file size but encoding lossy to lossy is foolish. You will introduce compression artifacts and have an objectively worse quality image, the encode will take much longer than if you used a proper lossless source, and if you don’t set your configs right you’ll strip out subtitles, tags, chapters, etc

Additionally if the h264 was already compressed by a lot h265 won’t save all that much space, giving you all the downsides with basically no upside

Only dummies encode lossy>lossy. The debate about lossy>h265 is one thing (h265 is not for archival) but h264>h265 will result in visible distortion

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/juveniles-charged-adult-criminal-courts-2014

“At case disposition, 65% of persons ages 12 to 17 charged with a felony in adult criminal courts were convicted, compared to 25% of persons charged with a misdemeanor.”

First thing I found that wasn’t mock trials. I’m hesitant to link the research I was involved on because my name is attached but fwiw my research was mock trials.

Its more than that

I assisted on research when I was an undergrad that consistently showed simply trying a juvenile as an adult meant they were far more likely to be convicted

I am sure the state is well aware of this effect and wants to make it easier to increase conviction rates

That’s ritard, short for ritardando

Unless you meant a non chord tone resolving downwards but that’s retardation

Obviously timing to be replaced by someone even worse

And now he can use his newly padded resume to get a cushy executive job at wherever guts the remainder of the usps

This is nothing on the order of watergate, prism, etc and you and I both know this admin has that level of corruption going on

Sit on this bombshell, which is ultimately that the admin uses a non approved communication modality that hides their tracks (shocker, they’re afraid of being on record). You still have evidence of that by sitting on this. Wait until they drop some real shit and leak that. But that would probably end with you needing to leave the country

Yeah maybe. But maybe not. I’d rather not bank on a potential when the actuality was literally manifested, but what’s done is done

Maybe the only way this happens again is if someone from within the administration develops a spine and leaks info

You accept risks when you take the job. He used his discretion here and did not release classified info that could compromise operations. sometimes doing what is morally and ethically right does not align with what is legal

Okay and? He has a direct line into the administrations secret signal group. This is tremendous thing dropped into his lap

It’s like if bob woodward met with deep throat once, reported there was nonsense going on in the Nixon administration, but then told him to fuck off becuase it was too risky to continue. That’s insane and his bravery led to Nixons corruption being exposed

Or like Snowden going to greenwald and co and them reporting that “some guy told us about government corruption but we sent him on his way” instead of coordinating his transport to Hong Kong and Russia and passing of the document cache because it was “too risky”

Modern journalists being cowards is a huge part of the reason we have trump. He should be ashamed he threw away such a tremendous opportunity. You better believe they’re going to improve their opsec now.

Scummy misdirection

It’s technically true and they say it to calm users but what they’re not communicating is that the buyer does not have to guarantee the same protections

They’re “important considerations” but they have no leverage whatsoever. They’ve mismanaged the fuck out of this company and have been desperate for buyers. Now they are in a position of potentially selling to the highest bidder

Coincidentally my parents used their service. I’m logging into their accounts to delete things. Last week when I logged in (assuming this was coming) to request copies of their records the site was snappy and responsive. Today when I log in to actually request deletion of their sample it is abysmally slow. I’m sure it’s getting hammered but I’m also sure they will put up whatever roadblocks they can as they need those samples preserved, that is their value

Being a journalist is about taking huge risks to expose things like corrupt governments. Man got the golden ticket and threw it away once he verified it was real

The bigger bombshell from the actual Atlantic article imo is that the administration is doing all of its communication via signal with messages set to auto delete after a week. No one expected transparency but this absolutely confirmed it

And this journalist had the golden key but he removed himself from the group after he was able to verify it was real. wuss

Policy and advocacy? Maybe masters of public health

That said as someone who’s worked as a licensed counselor for over a decade one of my pet peeves is when someone gets an MPH and all of a sudden is an authority because they spent two years learning about “the issues”. It’s kind of like the MBA who comes into a company and is like “oh it’s pretty cool what you’re doing but I know everything because I learned that making more money is great!”

That said it does give you some cred. Ultimately the biggest thing is networking, like all things in life. Get to know people and play the game of “hey remember me from x! I’m doing x now and we’d love to x” it sucks but if you truly want to enact change you need people to know you and be on your side more than any letters

Pedigree and experience helps though. Just don’t get too bogged down in it. I’ve known people with my licensure (masters of counseling, lpc), that do work here. Plenty of psychologists, MDs and DOs, CRNPs, etc. they have the benefit of drawing on experience, which can be powerful.

I recently did some advocacy work and it involved writing an op-ed about my experience working in the residential inpatient system we are talking about here, for example. I have spoken to policy makers about what works and what doesn’t in this vein. I will admit it is unbelievably frustrating to speak to a politician who practices being super polite and nice to everyone. They hear you out and talk in empty platitudes, shake your hand, then vote for the insurance companies that you find out paid them $8,000 via open secrets. It’s disheartening but you keep trying, I guess

Well practitioners who are members of the APA/ACA/etc have the most sway. Writing opeds, participation in meetings, submission to calls to action, becoming more involved in the organization. Like any political action really you have similar challenges: how do you organize members? Except here it’s a bit different; a great deal of membership is in agreement that conversion therapy is abhorrent. But like governmental political action leadership is often hesitant to make serious moves

The troubled teen industry is a different issue. The worst examples of these facilities often operate outside of regulation. The thing is there are regulatory concerns for certain facilities but then there are loopholes around this. If I open an inpatient residential facility I have regulatory guidelines to follow. If I open a “camp” for troubled teens the regulations are much more relaxed, basically nonexistent.

Inpatient facilities that operate properly are a different story. These are fairly heavily regulated in most states but the regulations can vary wildly. However even in states where regulations are more strict it is often cash starved on the side of regulatory oversight. Ie the bodies that exist to ensure regulatory compliance have little money. This is addition to the programs themselves being poorly funded (and often the funding being unfairly distributed)

The solution to mental health treatment is such a multifaceted problem. People don’t want this; they want a simple line. Increased funding would help, but it wouldn’t solve it. In many cases it would simply be absorbed into private equity and administrative salaries. Increased regulation would help but if you just do this it won’t do much because the programs cannot cope without the funding, training, and increased staffing. Additionally regulatory bodies would need the teeth to actually enforce. And this doesn’t even touch upon the health insurance component that is necessary to be reformed heavily so people can access these (absurdly expensive) services without being bankrupted

That last point is key. These services are absurdly expensive. Inpatient on the low end can be 10k per month and as much as 60k a month. People don’t want to pay for this and politicians know this is a class of people that can easily be erased for massive healthcare savings (at the benefit of funneling them into private prisons instead, which is absolutely disgusting, but politicians are scum)