Pavel Chichikov

  • 3 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 9 days ago
cake
Cake day: December 9th, 2024

help-circle



  • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.eetoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldCriteria
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I took a job as a medical assistant. I was not certified. It was during COVID, and the manager was woefully understaffed. I had zero experience or training. They still hired me, because in her words “we can teach you everything you need to know, and your resume demonstrated you were a good learner so that’s all that matters.” (I had taught myself Chinese and coding, and put that on the resume).

    I worked my butt off, and after two years when I had to leave to go back to school they offered me a massive raise, more training to get me a promotion as an actual technician to start making 80k/year, and they even said when I finished grad school I could be taken on as a partner and own the business (it was a small clinic). They wanted to do anything to get me to stay.

    All these companies these days care too much about certs. They don’t know how to hire. They should look for resume’s that demonstrate learning, initiative, responsibility, and commitment. Because at the end of the day: almost anyone can learn any job that isn’t a PhD-level.

    Like, having managers be required to have a college degree is moronic.



  • TLDR yes, they are wrong.

    1. Prisoner’s dilemma. As a pharmaceutical company, you know theoretically a cure for a given chronic illness exists. What you don’t know is if your competitor is close to having one. If they are, it would render your pathetic non-curative regimes obsolete and you’d lose billions and be decades behind. Shareholders would be calling for blood, and if you’re the CEO or board exec you’d lose your head. So you work on developing the drug because even if its possibly less profitable, its still in your best interest to do the research.

    2. Most people doing this kind of research are universities, which are publicly funded and would gain more profit from a curative drug than they would from letting big pharma continue using non-curative regimens.

    3. Government has strong interest in developing cures because chronic illness is a massive drain on the economy costing billions of dollars, with significant public health costs that eat into government budgets that politicians would much rather spend on things like weapons or parking meters that accept credit cards.






  • Long but I think worth reading:

    There’s this weird subliminal level of crime that exists among the upper echelons of society and yet remains below a response threshold, where the perpetrators put layers and layers between themselves and their victims, and disguise themselves in the trappings of class propriety, societal respectability, and commercial success. Then they all link arms, taking part in each others crimes, creating a diffusion of responsibility that like zebras herding together blends them and makes it difficult for we the lions of the people to find a target to blame. Who is to blame for United Healthcare’s denial A.I.? the CEO? the Board chair? other members of the board? majority stock holders? the CFO? the business strategist who came up with the idea? the engineers who designed the A.I.?.

    They drench themselves in plausible deniability, and THEN they align themselves with the very systems of civilization - the legal system, the healthcare system, the industrial sector - in such ways that reduce the possible forms of retaliation to almost exclusively include those that exist above legal response thresholds (i.e., the only way to punish them is to shoot them in cold blood, as everything else requires too much sophistication and power and takes too long)… and they do this so that they can hold us hostage against ourselves, blackmail us with our own livelihoods, so that we won’t dare rise up because it could mean collapse of society as we know it, so that they can persecute us viciously if we try to punch up. They make themselves small, distant, moving targets, like trying to kill a swarm of bees with your bare hands or trying to spear a whole school of fish. Some of them even want to upset us, to provoke us to this violence, to use us to tear down and overthrow the bee hives of institutions and systems that bring power to their competitors.

    And if we ever win, if we ever strike a blow, they adjust. They tighten security, deprive us of rights, imprison our supporters and spokespersons, and learn from their mistakes. They evolve. But they don’t repent. They can’t repent. Few and far between are the good men and women who as Rudyard Kipling said have the tenacity to “walk with kings and yet not lose the common touch”. All the remainder are numbed, warped, and consumed by the insatiable hunger that drove them into their seats of power. Like hardy weeds that break off at the stem, their roots are deep and they grow back rapidly, spreading everywhere.

    This is the nature of the elite. And it is the reality we face as the common masses. And although Rousseau was right that man is born free but everywhere is in chains, so too was Dylan Thomas when he observed “I sang in my chains like the ocean”. I’m reminded of the Menu with Anya Taylor Joy where she accuses the angry masses of creating the very problem that has set them about in such a murderous fury: “you don’t cook with love, you cook with obsession”. We listen to the elites, we join their cults of personality, believe in them, we call them our heroes and we worship them with this petulant infatuation and fandom, all while failing to raise heroes that can deliver us! It is up to us to cultivate in our homes, our friends, and our lives people who can keep the common touch and who hunger to deliver us! We’d all rather be consumers. Ultimately, we are just as responsible for this mess as the elites who have entrenched themselves. We pay for that crappy healthcare plan rather than die in defiance to the despots. We vote for the doddering old carpet-bagging establishment fools that sniff the hair of our daughters on national television, and then we vote for the gluttonous lechers and foreign assets to take their places! We sit at home, we type away on keyboards, we let them shovel the social media slop down our throats.

    And those of us who don’t engage in the fervor are merely pissed off, retreating into the intellectual to make up for their own social incompetence. Or they disguise their own insufficiency as “righteous anger” that they redirect at elites who don’t even know they exist. It is a chicken and the egg. We have created our hell, and we refuse to do the work necessary to transform it to a heaven. We exist in a binary, where we’re either victims or violent revolutionaries. Because we are insincere. We are wrong. And we are unworthy of a better world.

    If there is a hell, if there is a punishment after this life, then surely we will be there along with the people we claim to hate so much to a point of exulting in their murder.










  • If his life was in danger, or he knew someone who was being denied claims that had died or their life was threatened, and he knew that the death of the CEO would lead to saving the lives of said victims, then its justifiable homicide.

    But if his medical bills were paid for (they were), and he had no immediate relations being denied life-saving treatments (which he didn’t), and he had no personal connection to United Healthcare (he was never insured by them), and he had no logical reason for believing that killing Brian Thompson would suddenly cause all insurance companies to massively improve rates of claim approval (he had no reason for believing this), then its not justifiable homicide: its just plain murder.