![](https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/6b31ffe6-d10d-446b-8491-b866f8a65c98.webp)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
Um, I never said it did. I said this doctor released the information to “own the libs” because he’s an asshat.
I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful comprehension.…
Um, I never said it did. I said this doctor released the information to “own the libs” because he’s an asshat.
The worst part is that these weren’t even his patients - he just decided to share their private medical records to own the libs
The big difference is that all those exceptions only apply to an authorized party, i.e. a health care provider authorized to care for the patient. In this case, the doctor in question was never authorized - none of the patients were in his care.
You seem very confident in your answer, but the actual text doesn’t seem to match your assertions?
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/breach-notification/index.html
There are three exceptions to the definition of “breach.” The first exception applies to the unintentional acquisition, access, or use of protected health information by a workforce member or person acting under the authority of a covered entity or business associate, if such acquisition, access, or use was made in good faith and within the scope of authority. The second exception applies to the inadvertent disclosure of protected health information by a person authorized to access protected health information at a covered entity or business associate to another person authorized to access protected health information at the covered entity or business associate, or organized health care arrangement in which the covered entity participates. In both cases, the information cannot be further used or disclosed in a manner not permitted by the Privacy Rule. The final exception applies if the covered entity or business associate has a good faith belief that the unauthorized person to whom the impermissible disclosure was made, would not have been able to retain the information.
Yeah, it’s strangely beefy looking. Giving off Yul Brynner vibes
In terms of lore, have it be something like the king is forced to do it because of perceived attacks or threats and the populous demanded some sort of action. Then you can either play it where the party finds the real source of the attacks or it’s some weird splinter group or cult of the outlawed race and any orcs in the party have to fight against them or with them.
Totally depends on the vibe of the party but I’d lean towards the first option. Maybe a rival to the king is stirring up trouble as an excuse to stage a coup. For comedic points, have it be an area where they aren’t familiar with orcs and they’ve been getting fooled by night raids of hired thugs dressed up in bad orc costumes.
The second option might be especially good if a party member or an NPC they meet is a half-orc who has to deal with conflicting loyalties.
No one seems to be reading the article - it was a survey of only 2,000 participants on a financial advice website. These folks have already made poor decisions and likely not experienced in managing their money. The usual FUD that the OP posts everywhere.
So by that measure, Internet Explorer was the most successful browser ever? Not sure that’s the best metric.
There’s a well known issue of YT slowing down on FF clients. It’s not a FF issue, it’s Google being Google
Running essentially the same setup including uBlock origin but without a change to the user agent string and have absolutely no issues either.
Interesting - I’m running the same driver version but on latest version of Windows 10 Pro. In FF, under about:config, is gfx.webrender.enabled or gfx.webrender.all set to true? If not, that might be part of it.
Weird. I’m on desktop with an RTX 3080 and both super resolution and HDR are working just fine for me in both full screen and not. Results are actually quite good for me.
I think the default setting for auto depends on source resolution and desired display resolution from what I can see, so it’s variable depending on how and what you’re watching.
You on Windows 10 or 11?
Much like one of the ways stained glass was colored in the medieval period involved adding materials to the glass that acted as nano materials. For example this one particular shade of red needed gold.
I think I remember this post - wasn’t this like an eight year old article that you posted to the News channel?
From a strictly moralistic framework, unless Putin has attacked you personally, it is in cold blood. We can discuss a global societal morality and what would be justified under that, but sadly the global community has let Putin be Putin for decades now, so globally at least, it could be argued that current power structures value the status quo over what risk may be inherent in going after Putin. The kind of mindset you seem to be displaying is essentially just a complicated vigilante.
The issue seems to be that you are confusing your personal moral framework with some objective moral framework that you have yet to define.
Would I be absolutely happy to push a button that sent a meteor hurdling through the atmosphere until it sandwiched Putin between itself and the ground? Yep. But I won’t pretend that it’s some “extremely moral” decision.
I absolutely hate Putin. But yes, killing in cold blood is indeed murder. If he attacks me personally, self defense is of course morally justified in the minds of many, but killing him before he can by brought before the international courts is assassination and killing him afterwards would still be murder.
Under which morality is murder okay? Punishment is an understandable instinct but not as helpful as treatment/rehabilitation/etc. and it never works as a deterrent or “correction” of antisocial behavior. “Extremely moral” seems to be a bit of a reach for “state sponsored murder”.
I’m looking forward to this not going as planned - which seems to be the norm for the GOP these days. How wild would it be for one of their witnesses to just add “…as was directed by President Trump” after something particularly heinous? Hell, this will just keep reminding Americans of how crazy the Republicans are and it’s a presidential election year, so even without a bombshell I think this is probably going to backfire.
Interesting points, and I’m sure the Uyghurs I know who got asylum in the US would find your explanation of events hard to reconcile that with their own lived experience. Especially for the ones who survived “re-education” camps or who still have family members there. But you go ahead keep going with your agitprop bullshit.
I think you’re going to be surprised
Source: ARIN