How on earth did someone previously convicted of what sounds like hacking get job access to so many prod government databases? Wild that it took them so long to get caught.
I had the same questions. Apparently discovery of the prior conviction is what lead to them being fired:
> When the company discovered Sohaib Akhter’s felony conviction, it terminated both brothers’ employment during an online remote meeting on Feb. 18, 2025
The company involved here is apparently based in Washington, DC, which has a "Ban the Box" ordinance that limits employment background checks for most kinds of jobs. And apparently DC's version of the law is particularly strict.
The prevents them from asking before extending an offer, but it seems they could (and should) have checked after.[0]
> However, an employer may ask about criminal conviction(s) after extending a conditional offer of employment (the employer can never ask about arrests or criminal acusations that aren't pending). An employer who properly asks about a criminal conviction can only withdraw the offer or take adverse action against the applicant for a legitimate business reason that is reasonable under the six factors* listed in the Act.
One of the six factors is "Fitness or ability of the person to perform one or more job duties or responsibilities
given the offense"[1], which they probably could have invoked after asking (though they never checked or didn't check thoroughly enough, so I guess it's moot).
Shouldn't this force companies that need to pass a SOC2 out of the district? Doesn't SOC2 require background investigation of personnel with access to sensitive systems?
And I recently couldn't get a job through a federal contractor for a federal position (requiring NO security clearance) because they didn't like something on my credit report.
I’m interested in having an alarm for my door and the door to my workshop, which doesn’t have power. It would be great to have one “listening station” mounted on my home that can detect sounds from both devices. It’s not that I don’t have power available somewhere, it’s that I don’t have power available in EVERY place I’d want to use them, and don’t want to bother with a battery for every sensor.
I read the summary thoroughly and scanned the rest, and I don’t think the paper supports the grandparent comment.
The paper says you can produce enough vitamin d to maintain healthy levels from a specific amount of sunlight per day, depending on latitude and skin color.
The original comment suggests that there’s some (very short!) limit beyond which the body is unable to produce more vitamin d, which is very different. I’d be very curious to see sources for that.
UVB synthesizes cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) in the skin, which the liver converts into calcifediol (what blood tests usually measure), which the kidneys convert to calcitriol (the active hormone). Wiki claims the kidneys have a negative feedback loop, converting excess calcifediol into inactive 24,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol. I wish I had better sources (for my vitamin D pdf folder).
The same wiki article says there is a limit to the capacity of synthesis by UVB due to the quantity of reagent 7-dehydrocholesterol produced in the skin, but I don't know the math on what amount of exposure would be required to hit that limit - presumably it (or something like it) is covered in the article above.
Some napkin math, then. About 25–50 μg 7-DHC / cm2 skin (Wiki). About 1.5 m^2 human skin area (google AI summary). About 35% skin exposed (R. Kift, linked earlier). 1.5 * 100 * 100 * 25 * .35 = 131250 μg. Need 50-250 μg of colecalciferol (2000-10000 IU). Anyone would likely get sunburn before running out of 7-DHC (excepting a low 7-DHC condition, or me getting the wrong numbers).
This study says "Findings include that small UV doses on a regular basis are more efficient for vitamin D synthesis than larger sub-erythemal doses", using a logarithmic model for blood calcifediol as a function of exposure.
But it doesn't address colecalciferol production and storage. Fat stores colecalciferol, and I don't know of any way to measure that directly. I would guess that further UVB exposure linearly produces colecalciferol (with linear DNA damage, minus DNA repair with time), but the liver and kidneys logarithmically produce calcifediol and calcitriol. Just a guess. Still more questions :)
All i know is that i feel miserable if i dont get sunlight for extended periods (months) and i feel fantastic (again) after 20-30 minutes of shirt-less sun exposure. It's not the heat, it lasts for days.
The cold doesnt bother me, i sunbath in the winter too. This obviously isnt for everyone.
Even if it is bad for me i dont need anyones help. Let them go shut down Burger King and Jack Daniels and whatever enjoyable bad things people do.
I’m a normal weight, and get asked the same question. More importantly, I can tell them, “I have a regular cycle” and they WILL NOT take that as an answer. I HAVE to give them a date, and they will ask me to make one up if I can’t remember or want to decline giving them that information.
Particularly given the alarming stories of people being prosecuted for having miscarriages, it feels ridiculous.
If anything I hope more automated diagnostics and triage could help women and POC get better care, but only if there’s safeguards against prejudice. There’s studies showing different rates of pain management across races and sexes, for example. A broken bone is a broken bone, regardless of sex or race.
The system doesn't know that you're a smart person who will only say "I have a regular cycle" when you've had something that could reasonably be called a regular cycle. A lot of patients are stupid, and requiring a quantitative answer eliminates one source of stupidity. Yeah, this particular doctor knows you're smart, but I hope you can see what disasters might result if the procedure said "the doctor may skip this step if the patient is smart".
It's the same reason why the doctor will take your temperature, instead of accepting your word that you took your own temperature and it is normal.
> Particularly given the alarming stories of people being prosecuted for having miscarriages
You need to delete your social media accounts and change where you're getting your news from. Nobody is "being prosecuted for having miscarriages". A few people have been investigated for drug abuse during pregnancy which led to the baby's death, which sensationalist news stories twisted into attention-grabbing headlines.
A doctor asking about cycle is just a core piece of diagnostic data like taking blood pressure and temperature, not some conspiracy to harm you.
I’ve observed that animals are pretty good at reading body language and can tell when they’re actually being seen by, rather than just sharing space with, a human.
reply