This is a tumblelog, kinda like a blog but with short-form, mixed-media posts with stuff I like. Scroll down a bit to start reading, or a bit more to read more about me.
Just happened. So what bill is that? “House Democrats say the Republican-authored law would raise requirements to prove domestic violence and sexual assault, erase confidentiality protections for immigrant women and alert abusers when their victims seek help. They say it would eliminate a path…
Sigh loudly. Slam forehead onto desk. repeat.
Republicans, Get In My Vagina!
HA, YES! But for the trolls, when they’re talking about birth control, they’re not talking about the government actually funding contraception. Instead they’re talking about the government mandating that insurance companies cannot make women who pay into their insurance plans pay (via expensive as-heck co-pay) for birth control because it is a basic, preventive reproductive health service. These women already pay for insurance so their basic health needs should be covered. Minor clarification.
Is it cruel if I hope Meow stays exactly as he is? He may win the prize for most pathetically adorable creature on the planet. I know that in all likelihood it was a lazy, possibly sadistic human—or perhaps a severe metabolic disease—that rendered him useless, and we should hope that he beats the odds to lose the weight. But look. at. that. face!
For Immediate Release: Thursday, April 26, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice released the following statement:
“Georgetown LSRJ is deeply disturbed to learn that Georgetown University President John DeGioia has decided not to comply with the final rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring comprehensive contraceptive coverage in 2012 student insurance. Georgetown could have complied by either fully implementing contraceptive coverage themselves or by simply stepping back and letting insurers fulfill their legal duty of providing this critical care to students directly without university involvement or funding.
“We believe President DeGioia’s decision is an affront to the health concerns of the Georgetown student body. Georgetown LSRJ has extensively documented that Georgetown’s current policy does not adequately meet students’ medical needs for contraception. Sixty-five percent of surveyed students who reported attempting to use the ‘medical need only’ coverage reported barriers to actually receiving insurance reimbursement. Many students are unable to obtain coverage despite having doctor-verified medical needs such as polycystic ovarian syndrome. President DeGioia’s retort that students are free to purchase other insurance on the open market exposes a lack of understanding of how financially unfeasible that would be.
“Unfortunately, President DeGioia never responded to our April 21 request for a meeting to discuss this critical issue. Having heard from almost 800 Georgetown University Law Center students and numerous members of the faculty through a campus-wide petition and through individual correspondence, and having been told that additional medical school, graduate, and undergraduate students were preparing petitions, we believe that it is disrespectful that President DeGioia, as the head of our university community, did not at least meet with students who have expressed legitimate and important concerns. Accordingly, Georgetown LSRJ remains open to a meeting with President DeGioia at any time.
“Among our unanswered concerns, President DeGioia has yet to explain how covering contraception for faculty and staff but not for students is consistent with the Jesuit mission of Georgetown. In order to qualify for the HHS exemption allowing religiously-affiliated universities to delay contraception coverage until 2013, Georgetown must certify that it has a moral objection to contraception coverage. President DeGioia has yet to explain how Georgetown University plans to certify to the federal government that it has a moral objection to contraception coverage when it has long provided full contraception coverage for faculty and staff, excluding only students. We hoped to raise these and other issues at our meeting with him.
###
These are the humans trying to give our jobs to robots
There’s been a lot of talk lately about Narrative Science, its boss Kristian Hammond, and their algorithmic journalist robots of the future. Most of the controversy has been over a few audacious comments, as most controversy usually is (via Wired):
Last year at a small conference of journalists and technologists, I asked Hammond to predict what percentage of news would be written by computers in 15 years. At first he tried to duck the question, but with some prodding he sighed and gave in: “More than 90 percent.”
He also predicted that a computer will win the Pulitzer Prize by 2017. But that’s just talk — from reading what his algorithms have done, it’s hard to expect a Pulitzer, but it’s not as easy to rebuke the 90% assumption.
via Slate, on what the robots cover:
Narrative Science is one of several companies developing automated journalism software. These startups work primarily in niche fields—sports, finance, real estate—in which news stories tend to follow the same pattern and revolve around statistics.
Take the financial articles that NS writes for Forbes, as considered a little later in the article:
Don’t miss the irony here: Automated platforms are now “writing” news reports about companies that make their money from automated trading. These reports are eventually fed back into the financial system, helping the algorithms to spot even more lucrative deals. Essentially, this is journalism done by robots and for robots. The only upside here is that humans get to keep all the cash.
Following the diplomatic/commodity trail that influences stock prices, or tracking stats and numbers in sports to find stories, may eventually become an obsolete task for us humans as robots begin to cover them more efficiently, and faster. And, having begun to crawl through Twitter for election coverage, Narrative Science’s scope may (soon! soon!) slowly grow.
FJP: But as for what this post covers, the concern is a lot like other problems people have with today’s journalism. In the same way that programmers or bloggers won’t replace columnists and reporters, but will instead facilitate, complement, and in all sorts of ways share the new workload, so too might Narrative Science-esque algorithms cover some of the responsibilities that future journalism expects, but which are difficult/unreasonable/impossible for, say, a journalist from ten years ago to handle.
Photo courtesy of Narrative Science.
Maria Popova (via nedhepburn)
Oh hey! We had this exact conversation yesterday, over kombucha and Kate Beaton comics.
(via rachelfershleiser)
Ra-men.
Not just newspapers, obviously. It’s why I will continue to yearn for the next Ragtime while scorning 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight.
(via the-sunny-side)
Marines Moving Women Toward the Front Lines
I don’t want to harp on the negative—a small step forward is a still a step. But this is baloney. If they pass the course developed to prepare infantry officers, then why can’t they serve as infantry officers?
And another thing: what the hell does Gen. Amos mean when he says: “I’m not one bit afraid of the results of [an anonymous online survey on issues relating to women in the Marine Corps. I’m very bullish on women.” ??
