This was a point brought up in a training with my school district. I don’t remember the company who trained the staff, but even though I knew a lot about suicide prevention, this was something new.
I wasn’t aware how impactful asking can be, even though it happened to me. I was suicidal in my teens (14-16) and attempted suicide once, thankfully very poorly. A friend reached out because I signed into a website with the mood “suicidal” a few times in a row.
Her reaching out and asking was the turning point for me where I no longer wanted to die. The ideation took years to work through and building self esteem took years, but she genuinely saved my life.
The thing is, it doesn’t HAVE to be a friend or even a coworker or teacher. If you see someone and something makes you wonder, the worst thing that happens is that the situation becomes awkward because you asked. The best is that you save someone’s life.
> The office that reviews FOIA requests has just 10 employees, according to a declaration filed with the court by Suzann Burk, who heads the FDA’s Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management. Burk said it takes eight minutes a page for a worker “to perform a careful line-by-line, word-by-word review of all responsive records before producing them in response to a FOIA request.”
>
>At that rate, the 10 employees would have to work non-stop 24 hours a day, seven days a week to produce the 55,000 pages a month (and would still fall a bit short).
>
>But as lawyers for the plaintiffs Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency pointed out in court papers, the FDA as of 2020 had 18,062 employees. Surely some can be dispatched to pitch in at the FOIA office.
Food for thought: How many, loosely speaking, corresponding employees does Pfizer have? If this is "undue" for the FDA, is it any wonder pharmaceutical companies have standing professional lobbyists?
As have been pointed out before, most large corporations end up having a legal department that looks like it's not even part of the company itself; Because ultimately, it is not based in the same values and motives as the company itself. It becomes an extended arm, a branch, of the government inside of the company. However it leeches directly from the company, under cover of being the company, without utilizing normal governmental intermediaries.
Eliminate all this pretentious grandstanding and unnecessary paperwork, to cheaply save countless of human lives that currently are being destroyed in order to give impression of the complete opposite.
So the regulatory grip is tightening around the world and it’s getting more and more absurd. We as crypto supporters need to come together and should wipe off the tribalism. If governments want to make anonymous wallets illegal it only means one thing: Crypto owners being forced to deposit their holdings on „identifiable“ wallets, which are usually only available on exchanges (= the new banks?) These are places where authorities are able to have a detailed look at your holdings and even have the possibility to confiscate your holdings or block you for whatever reason they have. Being the only person who has complete control over your own crypto assets was and is the main argument for crypto and the ultimate form of freedom. There’re already existing KYC/AML rules on exchanges which is fair enough, but forcing people to get rid of their private wallets is outrageous! I urge everyone to have a look at your country’s plans and to contact politicians who are responsible for these topics. If we don’t do anything against this, regulation will kill all the innovation and freedom we’ve achieved so far ...
EDIT: So I obviously wrote this post in an emotional state, I could've added additional sources, but it doesn't change the fact, that these are important times ahead of us and that governments and (central banks) around the world don't like the dynamics coming from the whole crypto and blockchain sphere.
>Here's another source coming directly from an EU member: New rules for Bitcoin & Co: My proposals for the EU crypto regulation - Sven Giegold - Mitglied der Grünen Fraktion im Europaparlament (sven-giegold.de)
Thx to /u/meesa-jar-jar-binks**/**
Additional info by /u/popopopopopopopq**/ Thx!**
>But they are indeed doing some work on Crypto. Here some sources:
>
>Draft the article was mentioning
>
>EU Regulatory framework for crypto-assets (below you can find all their documentation on all Impact assessment reports, Opinions, summaries, proposals for regulations.
>
>[Details on the Expert Group that is working on it](https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/exper
That's about it. Woohoo!
For act: my dilemma is as follows
I have a 33 composite and my sub-scores in everything are above 30 aside from math math is a 26 💀 ik ik
I am still debating wether to submit the score or go test optional, I don’t really care if the score helps, I care more wether it will hurt my chances (pm me for info about ecs and everything else if you want to give a better opinion)
My current standing: I should submit the score because its one point below average for the typical Brown pool, however some other things I considered are as follows:
-
I accessed a distribution of scores (I will send a ss in pm) and for class of 2020 or 2021 (most recent data that was on there) 18.something% of accepted applicants had an act score of 24-29 on math (aka my range), due to the test optional policy for this year I believe that % will be reduced (it keeps going down every year as more people submit >30 in math) to around 15ish%, I don’t know if I wanna take a 15% chance lol but I am already doing that for this school so, scary stuff
-
Brown weighs everything equally in an app which does not help at all with this decision
-
An obvious one but due to the test optional policy the average now is probably closer to 35-36 meaning my 33 is no longer one point from the average score
-
It is a firm belief of mine that my score in math will not help with plme and may harm me there, but this score will probably not do anything for just regular Brown admissions
last thing, a coin toss said heads for submit scores so I am literally going off of that, any help from anyone would be highly appreciated!
EDIT: I have submitted test optional! feel that is the best decision and I hope the rest of my application is strong enough :)
If you needed to rent but couldn’t find any one person to be a guarantor, could you theoretically use a business to serve as the guarantor if they agreed to it?
I’m not in this position, it is just a thought I had in relation to some work I’m doing and it interested me.
So me and my girlfriend broke up 3 months ago , i asked her if i did her wrong if ive made her feel bad or if i was bad in any way and she said no , she admitted that she is the one who was wrong and she is the one who hurt me , we established that the breakup is because of her mental issues with no hard feelings, yesterday she is posting stuff on the account no one knows about but me (she doesnt know i know) that i was toxic that i hurt her that i was keeping her from being who she is and I SWEAR THATS NOT TRUE AND SHE KNOWS ITS NOT TRUE AND SHE TOLD PEOPLE THAT ITS NOT TRUE , why is she acting like she is the victim??? Why is she acting like i did her wrong ? I don’t understand
Survey: Nearly One-in-Ten Employers Dropping Drug Testing Requirements to Attract Workers
Milwaukee, WI: Some employers are abandoning drug testing requirements as a way to attract new hires and to retain current employees, according to survey data compiled by the Manpower Group
Pollsters surveyed representatives from over 45,000 employers in North America and Europe. Nine percent of respondents acknowledged that they had “eliminated job screenings or drug tests” as a way to either attract or keep their employees. Sixty-nine percent of respondents acknowledged experiencing “difficulty” in filling staffing positions in the current job market, a 15-year high.
In June, representatives of the Amazon corporation announced that the company would no longer engage in pre-employment marijuana screenings for its new hires, except for those in federally regulated positions (that mandate drug testing). The company further announced in September that it had “reinstated eligibility for former employees and applicants who were previously terminated or deferred during random or pre-employment marijuana screenings.” The Amazon corporation is the second-largest employer in the United States.
In recent months, lawmakers in several states – Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Montana – have enacted policies limiting employers’ ability to pre-screen applicants for past marijuana use, as have councilmembers in a growing number of municipalities, including [Atlanta](https://norml.org/news/2021/01/28/atlanta-mayor-takes-executive-action-abolishing-pre-employment-drug-screens-for-many-public-employee
... keep reading on reddit ➡I've been wondering, how was the Big E when he was talking to/spending time with people close to him like the Primarchs, Malcador, Valdor etc Like how did he talk and behave, was he normal, actually somewhat laid back or did he have a stick so far up his asshole you could see it sticking out his throat when he opened his mouth
I can't seem to find this one anywhere. Are private companies required to provide translators for those who do not speak english? I know the DWP does, who provide a similar service to the company I am working for. Is this part of the Equality act anywhere, or something else?
Someone made a FOI request asking a similar question which was answered here, and the DWP referenced the equality act but I have looked through the Act can't find the part of it they are referencing:
If so please could you provide a source so I can take this to the company I work for.
Thank you.
To fund purple's endeavours we have instituted an act that will take away royal property and it instead be used by the state. The private farms are now controlled by the state and profits from the farms will be placed back into the province by other executive orders
https://twitter.com/Vinay1011/status/1466808146655989763
http://www.uniindia.com/rs-sees-intense-debate-on-private-member-s-bill-for-csr-contribution-towards-maintenance-of-monuments/parliament/news/2582417.html
Introduced: Sponsor: Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R-PA]
This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary which will consider it before sending it to the Senate floor for consideration.
