There’s always a financial angle in most situations. After all, taking care of a really sick patient (or someone with a difficult condition) costs the state money. If you read the article there are sighs that this may have been a consideration in some cases they list.
"Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.
"In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital’s director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost “north of $1,500 a day.” Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.
"“Roger, this is not my show,” the ethicist responded. “My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying.”
"Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue."
I'm shocked. For the benefit of the doubt, since the quote doesn't include broader context, it's possible that the information was relevant in some way independent of guilting the patient, or the ethicist was being unintentionally awkward.
But given the information presented in the article, it's not a good look for the hospital, which should be prioritizing patient outcomes far above cost savings.
I'm American, but I've lived in Germany (Hamburg) for ~1 year, cumulatively. I recall most dogs being leashed, but at least a few not. It didn't seem to matter to me, because every dog there was damn well trained. In that year, I think can recall one instance of a dog barking inappropriately (to the mortification of its owner).
I remember one dog in particular, which was unleashed and running with its owner, who was on a bike. It would run ahead, staying on the correct part of the sidewalk, until it reached a crosswalk or corner, then stop and calmly wait for its owner to catch up and give permission to cross. I think one time (of the 3 crosswalks it was in view for) it got impatient and went back to its owner instead of waiting in place.
As a result, dogs are commonly (though not always) allowed in restaurants -- they stay quietly under the table -- and some other venues, which would be unthinkable in the US.
There's not too much of a point to this comment, just sharing perspective. I guess if anything it's that I wouldn't be so categorical about "if X, then Y, period".
Dogs need (outdoor) space. As a dog owner you carry that responsibility.
Having a garden to (mostly) take care of this seems obvious. If not, when using public space instead, it seems strange to expect others (wildlife, kids,...) to take this for granted?
Did you seriously just suggest that Amazon time the individualistic liquid consumption and bladders of their drivers? Do you have any idea how much outrage that would cause?
At least you could suggest retrofitting each truck with a urinal. That would make more sense despite being equally untenable.
I'm suggesting they have a bathroom and time to use it at the package pickup location, and if that's going to be the main bathroom drivers use then the delivery segments shouldn't be longer than 2-3 hours or so. And if that's not going to be the main bathroom then it should be Amazon's responsibility to make sure something is available, not the driver's.
How did you get anything about tracking fluid intake from "regular good opportunities"? I'm really curious.
If you've got to go, you've got to go. Holding in your pee for up to 2-3 hours isn't very healthy; that's the kind of thing Amazon got in trouble for demanding in their warehouses.
So yeah, obviously they should have bathrooms at the warehouses that drivers can use. I'm earnestly surprised they don't already, it's common sense. But I don't think it will stop drivers from peeing in bottles.
Edit:
> 2-3 hours since the last bathroom break shouldn't be unhealthy.
That assumes you chose to avail yourself at that time. If didn't feel like you had to use the bathroom at that time, you might neglect to do so anyway. Maybe because you were walking around outside your truck, and walking around somewhat suppresses that full-bladder sensation. Then you sit down in your truck and half an hour later, after a cup of coffee, you realize you have to piss. You're still 2 hours away from your next bathroom break, so what do you do? Is this a consequence of poor planning on the part of the driver? Maybe. But that's inevitably going to happen anyway.
> That assumes you chose to avail yourself at that time. If didn't feel like you had to use the bathroom at that time, you might neglect to do so anyway. Maybe because you were walking around outside your truck, and walking around somewhat suppresses that full-bladder sensation. Then you sit down in your truck and half an hour later, after a cup of coffee, you realize you have to piss. You're still 2 hours away from your next bathroom break, so what do you do? Is this a consequence of poor planning on the part of the driver? Maybe. But that's inevitably going to happen anyway.
If you've been doing the job for a while, this should be very rare. Or maybe you're new to the job and this happens a few times. But you can probably at least find some kind of fast food place at least.
If we assume the company is doing things right, needing to pee in a bottle is not going to routinely happen unless that driver has a medical condition or is an idiot. So if there is a persistent problem with needing to pee in bottles, I'm confident that the cause is something bigger than 2-3 hour drives. Something like "all the drivers are rushed all the time" or "there's nowhere good to go to the bathroom between drives" or simply "they have to deliver too many packages at once". Or "the drivers are intended to take breaks mid-trip, but there was no thought put into making sure bathrooms are available on those breaks".
Well Dylan, I guess some people are just idiots. I am not a truck driver, nobody has me on the clock when I go on road trips, but sometimes I piss in bottles. Not every week, but more times than I can count. Could I avoid this if I did a better job of planning ahead? Probably. But that's a low priority for me.
If you're not feeling forced into it, then go for it I guess. The idiot is the person that thinks peeing in a bottle is a bad thing but consistently won't go to a convenient bathroom before leaving.
And this is their day job, they're not just forgetting because it's been a while.
Yeah but I assume someone doing this for their day job can manage a bit of planning. As long as the proper opportunity is there, on-the-go emergencies should be quite rare and wouldn't be a systemic problem.
> Holding in your pee for up to 2-3 hours isn't very healthy; that's the kind of thing Amazon got in trouble for demanding in their warehouses.
2-3 hours since the last bathroom break shouldn't be unhealthy.
Why would truck urinals be untenable? That actually sounds like a pretty good idea. The truck urinals could even have collapsible privacy screens (aka shower curtains.)
Because there is a belief, not unfounded, that some portion of refugees (percentage depends on party affiliation) are lying about their situation and are actually just economic migrants.
Consider that paper filters may be more environmentally friendly than metal ones. Just look at a comparison of CO2 emissions between reusable bags and paper ones as an example. You’ll probably have to use a metal filter thousands of times more past its expected life span to break even with how much CO2 making it released into the atmosphere.
Even in case that is true - 1000 uses is about a year at 3 brews a day and my french press is still going strong after 15 years and I fail to see a reason why it wouldn't hold up another 15 years.
Do you have any sources on paper vs metal? It seems highly unlikely to me, that paper filters could be more environmentally friendly.
Yes. Hire an architect with a proven track record and significant experience and give them the responsibility. Reading a few medium articles or an O’Reily book won’t be a substitute.
Agreed. Retrieving a single random record was enough to prove vulnerability. Analyzing several days worth of data (why??? What does that prove???) crosses the line firmly into black hat territory.
I guess if someone provides an api via graphql it’s hard to tell if it’s intended to be used publicly or not, and to what extent that use is permitted. The site and app both use that api end point and going there gives you a nice page with full documentation of how to do every query plus an online IDE.
One might pull the data then start to wonder if they were supposed to get it only after they begin reading specifics that seem private.
Considering he had already found and reported this vulnerability before, and then took the time to write this report about it, that's not what happened here. He knew it was a vulnerability, he used it purposely to download private data and he looked into it. Not only could AI dungeon sue him for this, also the owners of the data (the people playing AI dungeon) could.
There have been cases of ethical hackers who found a vulnerability and abused it to download a disproportionate number of records being convicted, at least in the Netherlands. It didn't matter that their goal was just to show it to the website owner. So if you're an ethical hacker reading this, I would strongly advise you to only download the minimum required to demonstrate a vulnerability (preferably your own data, or one record), and not do what this person did.
The data was retrieved by mass-upvoting unpublished documents and using an obscure GraphQL feature to extract fields that aren't part of the explicit interface.
I don't think you could do any part of that while assuming it's intended as normal use.
The difference is that I own two cars: a boring and comfy automatic for DD and a manual Porsche for the weekends.