bear hug
My brother is nuts, he knows it, and still won’t take his schizophrenia medication. If there is anything you can suggest like a monthly shot, please PM me.
Also, I wont go into specifics, but why the hell do they provide so few blankets? When you are in a vulnerable state isn’t a fluffy duvet more appropriate?
actually I would like to see how closely that website follows WAI guidelines.
I’d rather be public, but if there is anything really private you want to talk about, I can PM you.
I take Invega Sustenna a once a month (or sometimes more often from what I understand) shot that is very similar to Risperdal an a-typical antipsychotic. I take the second highest dose, 156mg. The last time I checked my bill, it was $1200 a shot, of course covered by Medicaid.
This antipsychotic takes time to take effect, and is not nearly instant like a shot of older drugs like Thorazine or Haldol, that I have had the displeasure of taking.
Edit: there are a lot of people in the clinic getting this Invega when I am there, every time. I’m sure Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc is making mad money off the patent on a fairly safe drug that does not expire until May of 2017 for a generic to come out
Seems my country has broadly adopted “failure to cooperate” with Authority Figure (bureaucratic, police, TSA, etc…) as justification for all sorts of state endorsed Fuckery.
Yeah, maybe the law is on your side, but it’s hard to seek restitution when the only help you can afford is “pro-bono” and issues with communication and/or access are what got you screwed in the first place.
Good thing algorithms are completely objective and handed down by God Almighty, and not systems authored by subjective entities with their own internalized biases.
In the American legal system, many jury instructions are algorithms; the judge explains the law, the jury members decide whether the facts fit the relevent law.
And well written laws have an algorithmic character.
the problems are twofold-- first, if the algorithm is private, as in the case of contracters hired by the state, it impermissably delegates sovereignity from (obstensibly) public institutions. Second, it removes the human element, insofar as bureacratic institutions have not already done so.
That’s why there is the concept of jury nullification. Too bad so few jurists heard about it.
Hmm. I think you’re downplaying the power of a “finder of fact.” In this instance, a human caseworker would be able to ascertain Purdue’s hearing impairment as well as her other disabilities far more effectively than a computer could.
On the contrary, a well-written computer program should be able to take such things in account way faster and without getting tired and jaded and burnt out over the years. Of course this assumes the “well-written” part.
On the other hand, patching one program is easier than training thousands of case workers.
We’ll see how it develops… Neither approach is a clear win.
I never heard of it before --certainly wasn’t brought up during my singular jury experience.
Thanks.
I thought that bringing it up led to mistrials being declared?
I don’t know why there isn’t a direct link to Eubank’s lecture-- it’s more than her Slate article.
Exactly: it cannot be mentioned, let alone explained. But if the jury spontaneously chooses to invoke the secret third option, it is entirely legal.
I plead ignorance of the law 
How Zen.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
