The study you link has literally nothing to do with your claim.
Do you find it weird that people die in ERs sometimes, and it happens more often in overcrowded ERs, as the study you link suggests? Because that’s what it’s saying. That long triage times and short staffing leads to worse patient outcomes… And surprise, this study was in 2021, still peak COVID year.
I downvote anyone that whines about or asks why they’re getting downvotes. Otherwise I don’t up/downvote anything at all (except that guy that is posting triangles for upvotes)
Seriously, who cares?
I’m sure this guy’s dad that needs help installing Linux will appreciate the clarification, good thing you’re here to point that out
Yeah but they’re not on the plane. They’re at the airport, the plane is grounded, and they’re waiting for authorization to get on the plane from the FAA after it’s cleared to fly.
Your whole analogy is flawed because they’re not in flight.
If you’ve got an ALDIs nearby, they’ve got a $5 cheese take n bake. Pro move is to get one of those and then cut your own toppings, bake, it’ll be better than any chain.
I’m sure there’s other good take n bakes, but $5 for a quality one is probably hard to match
You’re mixing some things up. Yes, some agencies will have some POLICIES about not wanting to hire personnel with a history of drug abuse/use, but that is separate from the clearance adjudication process.
A secret clearance is a secret clearance, and you’re correct that it’s much simpler to get a basic secret than it is a TS-SCI or to be read into certain programs. But there isn’t a “FBI” secret and an “Army” secret.
There’s no timeline for how long it’s been since you’ve smoked pot, or number of times, or anything. I think a poster said that it’s about whether the investigation finds you trustworthy enough for the level of eligibility they’re investigating you for, and that is correct - and there isn’t a hard and fast rule necessarily.
If you do an investigation and are asked if you’ve ever used any illegal drugs and you say no, but in your criminal record you have a possession charge, that’s bad. You’re obviously lying, and not even being smart about it. If you say you used to smoke trees every day and are blazed right now, that’s bad because you obviously don’t give af about laws and stuff (not my opinion, this is the opinion of the Fed that still thinks it’s illegal). If you say you used to smoke with your friend for a couple months in college a year ago but stopped and think that was probably a dumb decision, that’s not necessarily bad, it all depends on how the interview goes. They’ll ask for the names of who you smoked with and how you got the weed - so they can check if you were hanging out with known cartel members or just some other joe schmoe at UCWhatevs.
At the end of the day it’s all based on context and a ton of factors. They dig a lot deeper and have a much higher standard for more selective clearances or programs, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone? But it’s all about whether you’re trustworthy to keep certain sensitive information from unauthorized people.
Why would you change travel plans based off of a single article? Go visit Japan
Even if I replace the speaker from a telephone, and the keypad stops working a month later, I have voided the warranty already by doing the speaker change as they can’t know if the now not working keypad was done because of you or a failing unit.
This is false. They have to PROVE that the repair that you made caused the keypad to fail in other to void your warranty, at least in the USA. Most people are misinformed as you are however, and they’ll TELL you that’s the case to make you go away, despite it being illegal.
Lol
Your reading comprehension is so, so bad