It kills me that this person is so close to the truth. Yes, devices are constantly recording and using your data, but it's so far abstracted away from an individual as to be intangible. Nobody is sitting in a cube farm with headphones scoping out your conversation and taking notes to blackmail you with. Nobody is really important

It sucks bigly. And all sorts of selfhelp groups follow the same concepts as a 12-step program. It's not always Christian god but it's always inherent that you learn to hate yourself

Not silenced, but I don't believe any religious person should hold government office. If you're religious it naturally affects your values and conduct, and I am guaranteed freedom from religion within the government and its representatives.

Also how is a fking corporal the head of any agency?

I mean, Housing First isn't based on hearsay, it's based on evidence. The Linear model is also evidence based and both have drawbacks. I don't think one can accurately state that housing first flat out doesn't work. (INB4 Cicero house study, so poorly conducted I can't handle it)

I reckon the greatest hurdle is funding. These programs cost a shit load of money, and our leaders choose to spend it on other things, same as any funding issue. But I'll hear you out on the greatest hurdle you see in the process

Well, I tend to follow the Housing First model, which is not an abstinence-only program. Both that and the linear model have real flaws - for example, someone who wants to move to abstinence only doesn't have the social support in a HF program to do so compared to a linear program.

I took your meaning from your previous statements like "you can't have someone in a shelter doing meth", "you don't get someone off drugs by handing them a house", "you can't [stop drug use with housing], you need to solve the mental health or addiction problem first". All of these would collide with the Housing First model, and so I came to believe that you did not want shelters services to be available to individuals who weren't drug-free. Is that accurate?

You're getting me real confused. Do you want shelters to accept addicts, or not? Because so far it seems like you do not want shelters to accept addicts, but then you keep saying I'm making incorrect assumptions or that I didn't read what you said. So what is your stance?

Good conversation mate

You're not denying services, you're just... Not letting them into the shelter...??? That sounds a lot like denying services to me.

Drug addiction is not going to be solved for someone who is housing and food insecure. You know, hierarchy of needs and all that?

Well, given that Nazi beliefs are solidly in the hate speech category, no. I'd argue Christian beliefs are too, but it's political suicide in this country to push back against Y'all Qaeda

Technically correct - the only kind of correct!

Asstastic

I finally got the milk, son. I'm coming home

Seems like you're just raging. Maybe you should channel all that frustration into something helpful rather than ranting on the internet about "emotional thinking" and how your brother's cousin's roommate is a nurse and that's why you're an expert on addiction

Homelessness has a huge comorbidity rate with addiction. Don't deny services based on mental illness

Making them go away without any inconvenience to himself is exactly what Kentucky here wants. He doesn't want to deal with them.

If my kid dies from being haunted by a kid who died from anaphylaxis from a balloon launch, I hope he haunts the original people who deserved to be haunted

Meaning unclear; racially harassed pizza guy for having Spanish on the tv

The only "illegals" I've ever known have been through and through American patriots who stand for fairness, equity, hard work, and solidarity. I'd put any "illegal" up against Perry in a contest of integrity - no question

Hunt'er nuts ayyyy gotteeeem 📣📣📣📣

I have respect for hackers who stick it to giant behemoth companies, who pursue an agenda of conscientious hacking and target shitheads and bad guys, and who do it for fun more than harm.

But people who hack a hospital? Straight to the boiler room of hell. What level of shit head do you really have to be? And I know these are just schmucks employed by a state actor but God damn have some spine to you

Nobody can be fully protected, but I think it might shock you to see the reality out here. I have Fortune 50 customers whose security programs are woeful. Seriously, that bad. Cringeworthy, nail biters. Hell, my mom worked for a top 3 insurance company for years and from day 1 she was an admin on her laptop, handling HIPAA compliant data locally. It is often that bad, and a lot of companies are hardly trying.

Just FWIW, phishing training generally has a really poor return on investment. It's improving with products like knowbe4 but largely you can expect that around 8% of trainees will change their behavior in the short term

Cyber guy here. I totally agree that protections and consequences need to be heavier, and I'd like to see that extend to organizations that get breached due to negligence and poor practices. The patients are the victims here 100%, but this medical org also has potential culpability based on what they did or didn't do to prevent and contain a breach

Yes. That's a government position.