I remember that there's a trick you can use to force medical officials to do their jobs. Basically, if they refuse to offer you treatment, you tell them you want that refusal in writing, so if anything happens to you as a result of their negligence, they can be held liable for it. They tend to be a lot more accommodating when they know they could be charged with malpractice.
Doctors don't take women seriously. Doctors don't take black patients seriously. Being a black woman is like drawing the losing lottery ticket in terms of healthcare in the US. I'm glad it's at least getting a little bit of attention.
Conservatives will be back and they will be even worse. Conservatism is a plague of oppression and hatred that cannot stop without severe intervention, as history has shown.
If their apprenticeship program goes well, it might allow thousands of people to lift themselves out of poverty, especially if the pay is fair. I hope that’s the case.
It's hard to keep a healthy news sub because of so much polarization, and so much subpar stuff that's called "news". I can point to 2 successful examples that handled it differently.
At truenews https://www.reddit.com/r/truenews/We simply ask for quality sources. You can read the sidebar for the rules. Basically we demand that all news posts are actually from reputable news sources. We provide an explanation of what that means and tons of valid examples. Then we mod to remove non-valid sources, and work with posters to help them understand the rules. If a user is having trouble getting used to the rules, we ask them to stick to the 2 dozen recommended sources we provided.
Another example is neutralnews https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/This is a very clean sub because it went a very strict way. Not only are all posts expected to be from valid sources, but any comment is expected to contribute something useful (so no jokes or venting), and all claims in comments have to be substantiated. This sub is very hard to moderate and it can also be hard on participants because so many comments get deleted until users get the hang of the rules. But the benefit is that it enables real discussion from any angle of politics because people are blocked from repeating party lines and memes, and instead have to argue their point with sources. Some of the most useful political discussions I've seen have happened in this sub, due to the requirement for good faith arguments with sources.
What do people think of a “journalistic integrity” rule? I know that’s also subjective, but I’m trying to think of how to phrase a rule that is basically “don’t post intentionally incendiary crap”. I guess the rule could just be “don’t post intentionally incendiary crap”, with some examples of what that means and community opportunities to in some way indicate that an article is incendiary crap.
One of the rules I liked from the /r/games community was one of the rules you mentioned here: “Use the same titles as the article itself.” I think all the rules you mentioned here are definitely good ground rules as well.
Personally, I would also like to see people adopting the body portion of Lemmy posts to summarize the article, or quote a meaty part of the article; but that could also be used for misleading purposes, so I’m not sure if that’s a good idea without some level of oversight.
I used to have several hives in Texas until moving out East. The heat and droughts were brutal for them. We were constantly trying to split healthy hives to increase success for our queens.
This coming spring I’ll try to add two hives to our backyard as the city allows for up to 3 hives per residence. I’m hoping the more temperate climate and docile queens will help our area.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.