You can also use komf alongside komga/kavita to just scrape metadata automatically upon import. A bit finnicky to get going (a tampermonkey script is required to give it accessible setting on the komga page) but works very well and even has a gui for identifying results and selecting the correct option if the auto scrape fails similar to jellyfin

For the actual reader part I just use komga as a server and read through Mihon (one of the tachiyomi forks) on my ereader mostly. occasionally I’ll use paperback on my iphone (although recently I’ve been trying Tachimanga, which is basically an iOS tachiyomi fork). Loads library, can sort by tag/library/date added, reads most things very well, can sync read status with the komga server (and/or manga updates or whatever), etc.

a virus perpetuates and replicates itself infecting other executables with its code, thus the name “virus”.

this is just shitty code that crashes hard. it’s not even particularly malicious, it doesn’t destroy anything

that’s not what a virus is

It hasn’t seen a release yet, code is here:

https://github.com/arjpar/WebShield-staging/tree/ldev

I’m not endorsing it, never heard of it before this post, but this was literally the second line of the readme

Watch it happen and complain after the fact based on historical precedent. Perhaps they will later appeal to the judicial system that will not care because trump spent his term fairly efficiently jamming it full of shit. Then instead of escalating the issue they will just let it go, because “decorum”

Technically this is necessarily true, for any licensed psychiatrist or psychologist in the USA at least practicing under the scope of the APA ethical framework

The interesting piece is why

In 1964 when Barry Goldwater was running for president a piece was run on him that polled a number of psychiatrists regarding whether he was fit to be president. He was compared to dictators by many of the respondents and described with very unflattering language. He successfully sued the magazine that ran the article, Fact, for the modern equivalent of about $630,000.

In response the APA created the guideline (section 7) which states the need to contribute to improvement of community and betterment of public health. Specifically section 7.3 considers commentary on public figures:

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

Thus, commentary by psychologists and psychiatrists on political candidates and such is generally not okay. Debate on this specific issue was widely renewed over the past 8 years, for obvious reasons

The interesting part is the debate is changed, quite a bit, in the modern era. In goldwaters day there was a more valid argument that his public persona and personal self were very distinct. But now you have trump, who lived on twitter for years and shit out every thought he had relatively unfiltered. Is that the same? Not at all, but at the same time from a clinical perspective it’s still a public persona trump puts forward and not necessarily indicative of who the man actually is

but the other side of the debate is the freedom of speech issue. this becomes interesting in the trump era because new issues become relevant. In the goldwater era the issues were primarily about if the guy was a fucking monster, basically. But now we also have concerns about cognitive capacity. Barry goldwater was 55 when he that article came out. Trump is 78. There are cognitive decline issues that can be observed from video that while not definitive are at least huge red flags for further screening and warning that this man shouldn’t be put in charge of the United States for the next four fucking years as he continues to decline, because unfortunately age and time do not reverse.

Essentially one can argue it is my opinion that trump is a sociopathic narcissist, for example, because I have not met him and cannot actually say for certain that these views are truly his or if this is just pomp that he is using to curry political favor. As such I should not use my licensure and standing to harm his because I cannot be sure that it’s not just an act. But on the other hand I can be pretty sure that I am seeing an increase in repetition in phrases, decreased vocabulary, flight of ideas, tangential speech, and most worrying is a few instances of word salad. I cannot publicly comment on this, ethically.

Biden had similar issues to be fair but he stepped down, thankfully. Biden is also harder to evaluate because he had a known history of speech issues.

The Goldwater rule is not inherently bad though. It’s actually a good rule. It’s a good reminder that we don’t know the person behind the tv. But on the other hand one could argue evaluating the presented persona is still somewhat valid. If John q president comes in to run in 2028 and puts forth a persona of being a total jackass Warhawk narcissist but it turns out they’re a total soft hearted lovable guy in their personal life, does that matter if they run shit like a total jackass Warhawk narcissist? Does it even stop being true if they actually act that way? Etc.

I wouldn’t say it’s common, that’s misleading. some people do it, probably, but I’ve lived in PA for 2 decades and have never met anyone who has claimed to do so nor have I seen any actual statistics on the matter