I’ve got a stray cat looking for a furever home. She was being fed by my father for a few years, but developed some health issues so she needs a real home where she can be an indoor kitty and get love and care. She’s an adult female (vet estimates about 8 years old). Health issues are stomatitis, low red blood count, and high glucose. She’s had her vaccinations and initial treatment for the stomatitis. She’s just started on special food for the high glucose, but it’s possible she may need insulin at some point. She’s affectionate and curious, and loves being petted and brushed.

If you’d be willing to share this post to spread the word, it’d be much appreciated.

lizluvscupcakes:

waffilicious:

jaubaius:

Diver convince octopus to trade his plastic cup for a seashell

imagine if a fuckin……. giant alien just showed up and stuck a huge hand in front of your face and then proceeded to offer you three different houses and wouldn’t stop until you moved out of your old shitty apartment and then helped you fuckin move

and then just left

dduane:

Zoom's Updated Terms of Service Permit Training AI on User Content Without Opt-Out

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. recently updated its Terms of Service to encompass what some critics are calling a significant invasion of u

Stack Diary

If you use Zoom, be aware that they’ve decided they’re going to use your input (from both free and paid accounts) to train their new AI tools. And there’s apparently no way to opt out of this. :/

So here are some open source alternatives.

liberalsarecool:

nuckgirl16:

Tax them into submission. Tax policy has always been used to change behaviors.

elodieunderglass:

beaft:

theft!! crime!!!!

Hey.hey. Hi! Hello. Parley. Sparrows reporting in for assist with baguette. Assist commence. Fear not! Stand down! Sparrows assist. Thanks for holding, your call is important to us.

friendsofabracadaver:

memewhore:

@todaysbird

punchesco:

lookoflove:

lookoflove:

my brother started calling our cat “doobie brother” which he then lengthened to “dubious brother” and has since morphed into “brother dubious” like he’s some sort of fucked up little monk

brother dubious

“My liege, I’m afraid I have reason to believe your concubine plots against you. Worry not, your eminence, you can still trust me, of course…”

intersexfairy:

charismat1c-megafauna:

nerdygaymormon:

Let’s also not forget the intersex kids who are forced into surgeries and hormones with no ability to consent.

Trans and intersex bodily autonomy NOW.

This. There are many intersex children who go thru puberty early, and most of the time intervention is chosen for us, not by us. Cis intersex children deserve autonomy too.

beneaththegildedmoon:

animentality:

From my experience what these people actually want is confirmation that their experiences were normal and correct and that it’s the world that has gone wrong. That’s why confronting them with the fact that actually how they were treated was literally abuse makes them so upset, they don’t want to acknowledge that they were (and often still are) victims of people and systems outside their control. They were raised with the mindset that to admit something hurt you was a weakness. They were raised to believe that suffering through hardship silently is a sign of good character and strength. They want to be praised for being so strong, not sympathised with for being so hurt, they just don’t know what to do with that massive shift in perspective

elfwreck:

phoenixonwheels:

can-i-make-image-descriptions:

katsdom:

soberscientistlife:

Do Not Let HR do this to you. It is not illegal to talk about wages in the work place. I did and got a 12% raise!

True info. Now let me add something: The power of documentation. (I was a long time steward in a nurses union.)

Remember: The “‘E” in email stands for evidence.

That cuts both ways. Be careful what you put into an email. It never really goes away and can be used against you.

But can also be a powerful tool for workplace fairness.

Case 1: Your supervisor asks you to do something you know is either illegal or against company policy. A verbal request. If things go wrong, you can count on them denying that they ever told you to do that. You go back to your desk, or wherever and you send them an email: “I just want to make sure that I understood correctly that you want me to do xxxxx” Quite often, once they see it in writing, they will change their mind about having you do it. If not, you have documentation.

Case 2: You have a schedule you like, you’ve had that schedule for a while, it works for you. Your supervisor comes to you and says “We’re really short-handed now and I need you to change your schedule just for a month until we can get someone else hired. It’s just temporary and you can have your old schedule back after a month.” A month goes by and they forget entirely that they made that promise to you. So, once again, when they make the initial request, you send them an email “I’m happy to help out temporarily, but just want to make sure I understand correctly that I will get my old schedule back after a month as you promised.” Documentation.

[Image ID: Text reading: In the middle of a busy clinic at our practice, I got pulled in by my manager to speak to HR, who must have made a special trip because she lives several states away, and told I was being 'investigated’ for discussing wages with my other employees. She told me it was against company policy to discuss wages.

Me; That’s illegal.

Them: (start italics) three slow, long seconds of staring at me blankly (end italics) Uh…

Me: That’s an illegal policy to have. The right to discuss wages is a right protected by the National Labor Relations board. I used to be in a union. I know this.

HR: Oh, this is news to me! I have been working HR for 18 years and I never knew that. Haha. Well try not do do it anyway, it makes people upset, haha.

Me: people are entitled to their opinions about what their work is worth. Bye.

I then left, and sent her several texts and emails saying I would like a copy of their company policy to see where this wage discussion policy was kept. She quickly called me back in to her office.

HR: You know what, there is no policy like that in the handbook! I double check. Sorry about the confusion, my apologies.

Me: You still haven’t given me the paper saying that we had this discussion. I am going to need some protection against retaliation.

HR: Oh haha yes here you go.

I just received a paper with legal letterhead and an apology saying there was no verbal warning or write up. Don’t even take their shit you guys. Keep talking about wages. Know your worth. /End ID]

At one of my old (shit) jobs my boss would continually come have these verbal discussions with me and would never put anything in writing I took to summarizing every discussion we had in email. Like “just to confirm that you asked me to do X by Y date and you understand that means I won’t be able to complete the previous task you gave me until Z date - 2 weeks later than originally scheduled - because you want me to prioritize this new project.

The woman would then storm back into my office screaming at me for putting the discussion in writing and arguing about pushing back the other project or whatever. At which point I would summarize that conversation in email as well. Which would bring her storming back in, rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

Anyway I cannot imagine how badly that job would have gone if I hadn’t put all her wildly unreasonable demands in writing. Bitch still hated me but she could never hang me for “missing deadlines” because I always had in writing that she’d pushed the project back because she wanted something else done first.

Paper your asses babes. Do not let them get away with shit. If they won’t put what they’re asking you to do in writing then write it up yourself and email it to them.

If you don’t have this kind of job but someday you’d might: start practicing.

After a casual conversation with friends, write up a brief synopsis of what you discussed & agreed to. (…Do not email this to friends unless you have their agreement that this would be a fun group project.) Get practice with,

“A, B, and C had a brief meeting about food options after the big game. We decided on pizza, with A&B agreeing to contribute X dollars each, and C agreeing to contribute Y dollars and also bring soda. A will call for pizza on the day of the game and schedule it for delivery at 8:30 pm.”

“A, B & C discussed movie options. A wanted something lite and fun; B wanted something scifi; C was fine with anything but horror. Nobody wanted superheroes. Decided on Lost Space Wanderers which opened last weekend; C agreed to research theatre options and report tomorrow.”

…and so on. Practice describing the results of “meetings” with friends and you’ll be ready to sum up “boss told me to set aside Project A to focus on Project B for the next two weeks” - because what’s likely is that boss didn’t say anything that clear; boss talked about how important Project B is and how the company needs parts X and Y done asap and you have the best skills for that, and when you mentioned how much time Project A was taking, boss said “eh don’t worry about that right now; marketing is breathing down my neck so we really need part X by Friday, okay?”

…at no point did you get a direct instruction.

Which is why anyone who is not the screaming-drama boss mentioned above would think it was perfectly reasonable for you to say, “I want to clarify the discussion we had earlier - you told me to focus on Project B to the exclusion of Project A for the next two weeks, even if that means Project A will miss its deadline; is that correct?”

poetry-siir:

teatimewithgiles:

friends-to-lovers-tournament:

Friends to Lovers Tournament: Round 3, Side B, Match 8

ALT

ALT

Percabeth (Riordanverse) vs Kirk/Spock (Star Trek)

Percabeth

Kirk/Spock

propaganda under the cut!

Keep reading

cogitoergofun:

EPA Approved a Fuel Ingredient Even Though It Could Cause Cancer in Virtually Every Person Exposed Over a Lifetime

An EPA document shows that a new Chevron fuel ingredient has a lifetime cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than what the agency us

ProPublica

The Environmental Protection Agency approved a component of boat fuel made from discarded plastic that the agency’s own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. Current and former EPA scientists said that threat level is unheard of. It is a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.

Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk.

But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Though the substance can poison air and contaminate water, EPA officials mandated no remedies other than requiring workers to wear gloves, records show.

ProPublica and the Guardian in February reported on the risks of other new plastic-based Chevron fuels that were also approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a “climate-friendly” way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. That story was based on an EPA consent order, a legally binding document the agency issues to address risks to health or the environment. In the Chevron consent order, the highest noted risk came from a jet fuel that was expected to create air pollution so toxic that 1 out of 4 people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer.

In February, ProPublica and the Guardian asked the EPA for its scientists’ risk assessment, which underpinned the consent order. The agency declined to provide it, so ProPublica requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. The 203-page risk assessment revealed that, for the boat fuel ingredient, there was a far higher risk that was not in the consent order. EPA scientists included figures that made it possible for ProPublica to calculate the lifetime cancer risk from breathing air pollution that comes from a boat engine burning the fuel. That calculation, which was confirmed by the EPA, came out to 1.3 in 1, meaning every person exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime would be expected to get cancer.

Such risks are exceedingly unusual, according to Maria Doa, a scientist who worked at EPA for 30 years and once directed the division that managed the risks posed by chemicals. The EPA division that approves new chemicals usually limits lifetime cancer risk from an air pollutant to 1 additional case of cancer in a million people. That means that if a million people are continuously exposed over a presumed lifetime of 70 years, there would likely be at least one case of cancer on top of those from other risks people already face.

When Doa first saw the 1-in-4 cancer risk for the jet fuel, she thought it must have been a typo. The even higher cancer risk for the boat fuel component left her struggling for words. “I had never seen a 1-in-4 risk before this, let alone a 1.3-in-1,” said Doa. “This is ridiculously high.”

Another serious cancer risk associated with the boat fuel ingredient that was documented in the risk assessment was also missing from the consent order. For every 100 people who ate fish raised in water contaminated with that same product over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer — a risk that’s 70,000 times what the agency usually considers acceptable.

When asked why it didn’t include those sky-high risks in the consent order, the EPA acknowledged having made a mistake. This information “was inadvertently not included in the consent order,” an agency spokesperson said in an email.

moringmark: