#Regulatory Issues

[sodrippy]

the us having no centralised records or regulations at a federal level has the medical field looking like the old timey wild west. doctors can and do literally still just show up in a new state like 'hi im a medical professional im opening up shop here yay' and nobody knows theyve just killed three patients halfway across the country

[andromedasummer]

boss has mike hosking playing on the radio and he started bitching about the christchurch call, calling it a failure and useless and something that needs to be cut in lieu of costs i had to get up and walk across the toom to get a cup of coffee to stop myself from hitting something i feel completely fucking wracked with rage

[queerticulate]

Radical thoughts: in Western societies it is constantly re-debated whether terminating a pregnancy should be illegal, while it is never debated if for example abandoning a partner during pregnacy should be illegal, indicates that the governing structures and politics are still infused with deep sexism. This one-sidedness reveals the debate is really about the right to control women's bodies (and people traditionally deemed women), and not about protecting new life.

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

Made a behavioral health appt with a new provider because I'm getting new insurance and can't keep sering my therapist out of network and I needed a new psych anyway, and somehow these people managed to schedule me an intake for literally the day after Christmas?????

Like.....I called this morning..... and they're getting me in DURING A HOLIDAY PERIOD in under a week???? Take the holidays out and that is literally 2 (MAYBE 3) business days.

Color me fuckin impressed.

Like this is so fucking quick that I just assumed until SEVERAL HOURS LATER that the appt must be for Jan 26th because that made more sense. I checked. December. Like damn yall got some efficient intake procedures.

On the other hand, they did hold a brief risk assessment for me on the phone before scheduling and the less flattering (to all involved) option here is that I just scored high enough that they were like "we're slotting this bitch into one of the emergency intake slots"

Hopefully they're just very efficient lmaooooo I don't need yet another phone call letting me know I'm too much of a liability to take on as a patient rn

[gibaraltar]

cw ai, suicidal ideation, negativity of all things to not regulate. why AI

[grandwretch]

I know that I am on a watch list because when I'm inconvenienced I start threatening what is essentially Hollywood's view of terrorism

[hmsharmony]

1) This is not an executive order. NIST is requesting comments for the factors it will consider when enforcing regulations promulgated under the Bayh-Doyle Act and Executive Order 12591. Notice and comment is generally for proposed rulemaking. Executive orders, meanwhile, are just that—orders. They don’t ask for public comment, nor is such comment necessary for an executive order to take effect (see, for example, all the executive orders bringing back sanctions on Iran when we left the JCPOA, or announcing new sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine). With proposed agency rulemaking, however, most* cannot go into force without a notice and public comment period, after which the relevant agency has to review every single comment. When the agency passes the final rule, the preamble summarizes the comments and explains how the final rule addresses the concerns raised in those comments (or why doing so wasn’t necessary).

*There are exceptions, but trying to avoid turning this into an admin law lecture.

2) Reviewed the federal register notice and confirmed the comment portal linked above is correct.

3) To make sure your comment conforms with requirements/is useful to NIST, I would read the federal register notice itself, linked in 2), particularly pages 2 and 6-7.

4) Agency rulemaking is subject to judicial review. What this means, in practice, is that if a court is hostile to expanding government intervention (other than, y’know, a woman’s reproductive system), then there’s an increased likelihood the court may say the agency exceeded its authority. Just to prepare people since this is very much a move that could be seen in that light, particularly given the current composition of SCOTUS. Historically courts have given deference to agency interpretations of statutes, known as Chevron Deference, but there are two cases on SCOTUS’ docket that could roll that back.

"The Biden Administration last week [early December, 2023] announced it would be seizing patents for drugs and drug manufacturing procedures developed using government money.

A draft of the new law, seen by Reuters, said that the government will consider various factors including whether a medical situation is leading to increased prices of the drug at any given time, or whether only a small section of Americans can afford it.

The new executive order is the first exercise in what is called “march-in-rights” which allows relevant government agencies to redistribute patents if they were generated under government funding. The NIH has long maintained march-in-rights, but previous directors have been unwilling to use them, fearing consequences.

“We’ll make it clear that when drug companies won’t sell taxpayer funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less,” White House adviser Lael Brainard said on a press call.

But just how much taxpayer money is going toward funding drugs? A research paper from the Insitute for New Economic Thought showed that “NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved from 2010-2019, totaling $230 billion.”

The authors of the paper continue, writing “NIH funding also produced 22 thousand patents, which provided marketing exclusivity for 27 (8.6%) of the drugs approved [between] 2010-2019.”

How we do drug discovery and production in America has a number of fundamental flaws that have created problems in the health service industry.

It costs billions of dollars and sometimes as many as 5 to 10 years to bring a drug to market in the US, which means that only companies with massive financial muscle can do so with any regularity, and that smaller, more innovative companies can’t compete with these pharma giants.

This also means that if a company can’t recoup that loss, a single failed drug can result in massive disruptions to business. To protect themselves, pharmaceutical companies establish piles of patents on drugs and drug manufacturing procedures. Especially if the drug in question treats a rare or obscure disease, these patents essentially ensure the company has monoselective pricing regimes.

However, if a company can convince the NIH that a particular drug should be considered a public health priority, they can be almost entirely funded by the government, as the research paper showed.

Some market participants, in this case the famous billionaire investor Mark Cuban, have attempted to remedy the issue of drug costs in America by manufacturing generic versions of patented drugs sold for common diseases."

-via Good News Network, December 11, 2023

[embervoices]

A very useful thread on Bluesky:

(There is a lot more. Rather than give you all the images, I've copied the full text below.)

Meredith Rose‬ ‪@mrose.ink‬ November 8, 2024

This is not going to be a repeat of 2016-2020. It will be better, it will be worse, but most of all it will be different. Here are things I want every single person to keep in mind as we head into round 2 of a Trump admin.

My credentials: I’m a queer female public interest attorney working on tech policy in DC. I’ve been doing this for a decade--longer than some, not as long as others. I had to navigate three different administrations, as well as Congress, regulatory agencies, courts, and the advocacy world.

FIRST: don’t let despair override your media literacy.

The left has grifters, just like every other movement. If you’re able and compelled to donate, give to orgs with established track records. Avoid giving to individuals, especially anyone who emerges overnight with a one-weird-trick “plan.”

The left is not immune to misinformation, and everyone—EVERYONE—falls for it sometimes, present company included. There is no shame in it. When (not if) it happens to you, you should acknowledge it; delete or retract the post to reduce the spread; and move on.

If a source consistently shares half-truths or outright misinformation, it is not trustworthy, no matter how much “their heart is in the right place.” Unfollow and move on.

Prediction, analysis, and reporting are three fundamentally different things. Learn to identify them for what they are. Reject attempts by amateur “analysts” to predict the future. They know as much as you do.

Real subject matter experts know and acknowledge their limits. They’re also (usually) hesitant to try and predict the future. The best frame their predictions in terms of a range of possible outcomes. Subject matter experts may also disagree with one another! It happens!

SECOND: What we know for sure about how the Trump, how he operates, and how that will impact the next four years.

Trump is a narcissist who avoids reading and doesn’t care about details. He cannot be persuaded by argument or logic; he’s moved mostly by flattery, and will agree with the last person who flattered him. He can and will upend his own administration’s work without warning, often by tweet.

As a result, most policy experts—even those "on his side"—dread him taking an interest in their field. Ask any Republican staffer who worked in Congress during the last administration, and most of them will confirm that their greatest fear was Trump tweeting about anything related to their work.

As such, people who are serious about their work will do everything to make it as invisible and boring-seeming as possible. This is the policy equivalent of defensive camouflage. Lots of “normie” work will continue in silence. (The lion’s share of tech policy ends up in this bucket.)

If you have a niche issue that you care about, now is a great time to donate to orgs that work on it. Lots of money will be funneled to big legacy orgs working on headline issues: ACLU, climate change orgs, etc. Consider sending your donations where they matter most: local, niche, established.

Trump runs his cabinet like the Apprentice. He thrives on chaos and making people compete for his approval. Not only does he not reward collaboration between his subordinates, he actively undermines it.

Moreover, everyone who works with him knows that they’re vulnerable to being thrown under the bus at a moment’s notice, for any reason (or for no reason at all). His cabinet is going to be scorpions in a bottle. They will not be able to coordinate, for good or ill.

One scorpion can still do a lot of horrific damage. But large scale inter-agency coordination is unlikely, particularly after the first few months, by which point he will likely (prediction warning!) have gone through a handful of cabinet secretaries already.

FINALLY: The view from inside civil society heading into 2025.

In 2016, Trump was a largely unknown quantity. The left and establishment right alike wasted a lot of time trying to read tea leaves and make sense of this guy, because he was completely outside the realm of what anyone had dealt with. That’s not happening now.

He did us a favor by broadcasting his plans in advance (aka Project 2025). Civil society has spent the last 2.5 years strategizing around it. We’re not starting off flat-footed.

The Biden admin did a good amount to future-proof its own achievements. Folks can speak to their own areas of expertise, but clean energy and CHIPS and Science Act (investing in domestic semiconductor production) have benefitted from huge sunk investments. That money’s not getting clawed back.

OVERALL TAKE-AWAYS:

It's going to suck. But civil society and the political left have some advantages we didn't have last time. We know him, we know his angles, and we know who he's bringing in--none of which we had in 2016.

We'll get through this. It will be grim, but we'll get through it.

John Cutting‬ ‪@johncutting.bsky.social‬

Thanks Meredith. I really valued your analysis over the past few years, and I think this is a reasonable, actionable framework to think about the upcoming storm

Meredith Rose‬ ‪@mrose.ink‬

I really cannot overstate how much time was (necessarily) wasted in 2017 trying to figure out this guy and his influences. The fact that he's not only a known quantity, but ran the most over-studied administration in this nation's recent history, makes this a very different game.

John Cutting‬ ‪@johncutting.bsky.social‬

I bet we can weaponize his narcissism. Let's say some ghoul starts making progress with a mass deportation effort, if we start calling that ghoul that "shadow president" en masse, Trump would fire him in right away and appoint Hulk Hogan or something

‪Meredith Rose‬ ‪@mrose.ink‬

This is exactly why I don't think Musk will last very long. Trump is very clear that he's the only one in the room allowed to have an ego or any kind of brand name.

[researchers-me]

Red Flags Raised Over Surging Silver Imports from Dubai via Gift City

Red flags raised over increasing silver imports from Dubai through Gift City amid regulatory concerns.

[touchaheartnews]

Mob Vandalizes Telecom Office in Festac Town Amid SIM Blockade

On a scorching afternoon in Festac Town, Lagos, an uproarious scene unfolded at a major telecommunications office. The incident, now widely referred to as the “SIM Blockade,” involved a mob of frustrated locals who took their grievances to the streets, culminating in a significant act of vandalism against the telecom office. The root of this chaos was a recent policy change that left countless…

[alianoralacanta]

FIA Bans F1 Cars (24-08-2006)

Context: the championship-contending (and eventually championship-winning) Renault R26 received a setback when the FIA banned its integrated mass damper during the summer break. This was a device with an internal weighted element that shifted slightly when undergoing sufficient G-force. The argument used was that that nothing that moves could provide aerodynamic advantage. However, Newtonian physics determines that everything moves when anything touches it. Thus, everything has aerodynamic advantage and on that argument, every F1 car that has or ever could exist is illegal. This did not seem like a good idea…

So the FIA are in essence saying that a small aerodynamic advantage means that a component is not part of the fully sprung mass (or so it would appear from the proximity of the aero and sprung mass points). In other words, all components providing an aerodynamic influence are not part of the sprung mass and therefore illegal. All components have an aerodynamic influence, however small that may be.

Technically, this means that the FIA would be obliged to ban all past, present and future F1 cars and declare all results from this year forth as null and void. The prior results are protected by a rule saying that once championships and races are confirmed at an FIA meeting in November, that they cannot be modified. Were it not for this clause, then it wouldn't be so much a case of passing the championships to Maranello as passing them to Paris.

If a ruling implicitly bans all F1 cars, it probably needs a rethink…

[cerbreus]

i don't know how to explain to my doctor that the fact that it is so goddamn hard and annoying to get my prescriptions refilled is part of the issue for managing my adhd. it's never easy! it can never be easy!

[the-warlock-syndicate]

Alright US mutuals, if you are interested in, morbidly fascinated by, or anxiously doomscrolling through AI news, including Stable Diffusion, Llama, ChatGPT or Dalle, you need to be aware of this.

The US Copyright Office has submitted a request for comment from the general public. Guidelines can be found on their site, but the gist of it is that they are taking citizen statements on what your views on AI are, and how the Copyright Office should address the admittedly thorny issues in rulings.

Be polite, be succinct, and be honest. They have a list of questions or suggestions, but in truth are looking to get as much data from the general public as possible. If you have links to papers or studies examining the economic impacts of AI, they want them. If you have anecdotal stories of losing commissions, they want them. If you have legal opinions, experience using these tools, or even a layman's perspective of how much human input is required for a piece of work to gain copyright, they want it.

The deadline is Oct 18th and can be submitted via the link in the article. While the regulatory apparatus of the US is largely under sway by corporate interests, this is still the actual, official time for you to directly tell the government what you think and what they should do. Comments can be submitted by individuals or on behalf of organizations. So if you are a small business, say a print shop, you can comment on behalf of the print shop as well.

[apas-95]

the whole thing with subtitles saying '(speaks foreign language)' is like. aside from logistical issues with outsourced transcription services, the solution is seemingly very obvious - just transcribe the foreign language itself. like, someone who hears the audio can, if they're familiar with the 'foreign' language, glean some understanding from it, even just from individual words that are loaned or widely known - and by transcribing it accurately, that isn't denied to those reading the subtitles. even if you can't understand anything, the experience of having a character respond 'Non, mais votre chien oui!' or ‘好久不见’ is better than having them respond '(speaks foreign language)'. just like when expletives are censored in subtitles but not in audio, it's a case of the richer, fuller experience being denied for a sanitised version compatible with a production pipeline that does not see subtitles as a method of genuinely conveying meaning, but as a regulatory requirement

[constructionsafetynetwork]

Hiring Legal Counsel for Construction Safety Issues

In the complex world of construction, understanding the nuances of safety laws and regulations is imperative. This is where the key phrase “Hiring Legal Counsel for Construction Safety Issues” becomes critical. This article aims to explore why hiring specialized legal counsel is vital for addressing construction safety issues and how it can significantly impact the success and integrity of a…