How so? Corporate and surveillance capitalism's infrastructure is built on copyleft software. The equivocation of license dogmatism with social good and sustainability that those movements were never actually aligned with is part of what's left socially minded technologies and communities so vulnerable to the predation that led the web to this current mess.
Like all AAA media in the age of supposedly social media, games became hostile to self-organizing communities that sustain themselves, because they want a push model for consumption where the producers decide what you see, when, and whom with. It commodifies media into generic content, emphasizes short lived novelty, naturally structures around subscription (and increasingly fragmented and numerous ones), and as a bonus keeps all of your activity observable so you also do the labor of saleable data creation for them.
Nearly all my worthwhile experiences in multiplayer games were related to permanent server communities (CS clan servers, 2fort2furious, SWG emulator servers, ridiculous minecraft servers that were effectively collaborative volumetric databases for external design tools).
Pipenv quickly becomes unusably slow. As in half hour to change one dependency. Poetry is strictly better, and I say that believing poetry is not a great solution either. There aren't many good, general recommendations to give people regarding Python package management, but "not pipenv" is one of the few I'm confident in.
How long ago did you try pipenv? I don't use it for large projects (just a few dozens dependencies), it is not fast but it works (I expect it to be just a convenience wrapper around corresponding functionality provided by pip/pip-tools (there were substantial changes in pip's dependency resolution).
IF fits my natural appetite and is easy for me to adhere to. My problem with it is I've discovered eating a small breakfast (~250 cal) immediately when I wake up is the single greatest aid to keeping my sleep schedule stable. On IF, when my meals are at ~ 1 PM and ~7 PM, my tendency to sleep in/stay up/go on a >24 schedule is amplified.
If I instead do "morning IF" and just eat breakfast and lunch, I'm lethargic in the morning and afternoon and hungry to distraction in the evening.
At one point in 2020 a majority of insured Americans treated for COVID (>80%) had the majority of their COVID-related treatment waived by the insurer. However, most insurers have been terminating these waivers since January.
Also, to any non-Americans its always important to put this in the context that "waiving" here means you're still paying thousands per month (between employer and individual) in premiums and likely hundreds in various flavors of co-jargons anytime you step the foot in the door of a care provider even for "covered" care. Insurers always like to portray just providing the service you pay more for than you would in most of the rest of the world as altruism on their part. The major insurance companies providing these waivers (Anthem, UnitedHealth, etc.) all saw order $B profit increases over the pandemic.
It is always interesting to me when people claim insurance companies earn a ton of profit when their profit margins are always in the 5% or lower range. How much smaller should their margins be? Even retail businesses like Walmart need a couple percent of profit margin to survive.
Insurance companies have a vested interest in making sure that healthcare costs keep going up. It’s a counterintuitive notion because you would think they want healthcare cost to go down. The reason they want high cost it’s because they’ll be making that small margin on the higher revenue
Insurance companies also have a particular interest in making sure that uninsured healthcare costs are sky-high, while they negotiate better insured costs.
Incidentally, this is also why tobacco manufacturers don't really mind high cigarette taxes: it puts a higher floor on the cost of a pack of cigarettes, which means the overall profit is larger.
Suppose the following price breakdown for a pack of cigarettes:
cost: $3
profit: $1
tax: $1
total price: $5
The government decides to increase the tax by $1, now it's
cost: $3
profit: $1
tax: $2
total price: $6
As you can see, the total price went up $1, but the tobacco company's per-unit profit is the same. They can increase the price by more than the tax (eg. hiking the price by $1.5 rather than $1), but that's equivalent to hiking the price $0.5 without an associated tax increase, which they can do at any time.
So does every business. But just like every other business, they have competitors too, so they cannot expect their profits to rise simply because they keep increasing their cost of goods sold.
Either way, that is not relevant to the claim that was being contested, which was “insurance companies are profiting extra from covid than they normally would”.
Interesting point. I read the original point as contesting the idea that insurers are going to have to eat a loss.
In the end I think both perspectives are insightful: insurers aren’t in the red for 2020, but they’re also profiting from COVID less than they “normally would”
That's my big problem with the healthcare debate. People think that its because of "profit", but if you look at the profit margins of all participants, they're all reasonable. Even if you could shift that profit over to consumer surplus, you're still looking at crazy high health care spending.
Something deeper is wrong with America's healthcare system. I think the third-party payer system and onerous regulations distort the market in costly ways. Just as the simplest example, if you want to open up a health care provider you need a "certificate of need" in most states. This means a board of current health care providers in the are determine whether there is a real "need" in the neighborhood for a competitor.
> Certificate of Need (CON) laws are state regulatory mechanisms for establishing or expanding health care facilities and services in a given area. In a state with a CON program, a state health planning agency must approve major capital expenditures for certain health care facilities. CON programs aim to control health care costs by restricting duplicative services and determining whether new capital expenditures meet a community need.
Ah yeah, lets reduce costs by restricting "duplicative services"
The US wastes $150,000,000,000 a year (the most per capita in the world) in pushing paperwork directly because of our “competing” individual insurance provider model [1]. The US spends the most overall per capita by far on healthcare, while also not even covering all residents. Despite having poor health outcomes and lower life expectancy, the US is the leader in expensive diagnostic imaging and prescription drugs [2]. Its almost like the “competing” private insurance model creates large amounts of wasted effort in trying to extract profit, as well as perverse incentives to push high profit interventions while ignoring actual health outcomes.
> In countries where hospitals receive global, lump-sum budgets, garnering operating funds requires little administrative work. Per-patient billing, on the other hand, requires additional clerical and management staff and special information technology systems. In countries where there are multiple payers, as in the United States, billing is even more complex, since each hospital must negotiate payment rates separately with each payer and conform with a variety of requirements and billing procedures.
> Higher spending appeared to be largely driven by greater use of medical technology and higher health care prices, rather than more frequent doctor visits or hospital admissions…Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions… Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system, it still spends more public dollars on health care than all but two of the other countries…
Ah yes, competition is what causes higher prices. We just need one organization creating the products and services for a given industry and setting prices.
I wonder why no one else thought of this and why we don't apply it to everything we produce
>Ah yes, competition is what causes higher prices.
Since no one said that, I don't know what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with competition being bad or good. The US isn’t the only country with private insurance. The US model competes in a fee-for-service model, instead of based on things like positive health outcomes through global budgeting, like Germany or Canada. The US model has providers negotiate prices which each individual insurer, with the actual costs being hidden and complex, instead of a transparent “all-payer reimbursement rate” for each provider[1]. Maryland, the only state to use global budgeting and all-payer reimbursement, is saving over $100,000,000 per year on healthcare spending compared to the national average[2].
I really do not understand how people can act like quality healthcare at lower prices is some utopian dream, and not the reality in every single high-income country except the US. That people can look at the US spending 3 times more money on paper pushing as the next highest country, while not even cracking the top 10 in spending on preventive or long-term healthcare, and throw their hands up and say “its unsolvable!” [3] How people can look at the American’s barely middle of the road health outcomes and think the out of control spending is somehow actually leading to quality care. The condescending dismissive attitude in the face of mountains of data from working healthcare systems around the world is truly stunning.
>> Since no one said that, I don't know what you are talking about.
> The US wastes $150,000,000,000 a year (the most per capita in the world) in pushing paperwork directly because of our “competing” individual insurance provider model
When you have real competition and the final user pays, as opposed to a third party, you'll naturally have a model in which people pay for outcome as opposed to fee for service. If I take my car to be repaired, I just want the mechanic to fix it at the lowest cost possible. I don't care how many services they have to run. It works in every other aspect of our economy, including safety critical sectors. For instance, I may pay for a safer car as opposed to a cheaper less safe car.
I just want a system in which I can make my own decisions regarding my health.
I don't know why people argue that the US has a free market in health care. It does not, as you have plainly stated. There's a lot of intermediaries and parties involved that are highly regulated and influenced by the state. US spends as much in public spending in health care as other countries. I would prefer to remove the complexity, allow actual competition and remove third party payer as much as possible. Your solution sounds like more of the same but better, which doesn't make sense
My solution: use any tried and tested model from other countries that have better, cheaper healthcare.
Your solution: a free market where you as the consumer can make your own health choices, of which you are not qualified to understand unless you went to medical school, and expect to pay the lowest cost for things you may need to prevent your own death (we all know price gouging in life or death situations is never a thing). Good luck with that.
Just so you know, unlike your car, you can’t just go buy a new life when you can’t afford to put in a new transmission.
> Just so you know, unlike your car, you can’t just go buy a new life when you can’t afford to put in a new transmission.
Exactly why I want to make my own healthcare decisions rather than some faceless appointed regulatory body
Maybe you have more faith in politicians to do the right thing on your behalf. I'm sure these systems will still exist and you could follow their guidance (e.g. the food pyramid). I just want more choice
A great deal of service provision in many countries' systems is private. Even here in Canada, "socialist" medicine often boils down to a private clinic billing the public insurer. Though the major hospitals are usually owned and operated by non-profit corporations, or the local government.
That adage is more useful when looking at individual
companies, or maybe new businesses.
For long established, highly regulated operations, I would expect consistent profit margin figures across pretty much all companies in the business to represent a pretty accurate view of the situation, and to show if they are earning extra profit due to COVID.
I didn't say margin, I said profit, and you can click a tab over on any of those pages and see overall gross profit is up in 2020. What kind of rational baseline is assuming that increasing margin is the default neutral state? How is that a stable dynamic for any system?
I have never heard of a business that reaches $x of profit and then switches to pricing everything so that they get $0 of profit.
And why would I be concerned with gross margin? If insurance companies were profiting more than normal from COVID, then it would show up in the profit margin figure.
> I have never heard of a business that reaches $x of profit and then switches to pricing everything so that they get $0 of profit.
Isn't this the business model of tons of huge companies? Amazon famously ran at very deliberately low profits for years. Uber and Lyft have margins so low they're losing tons of money in an attempt to get market share.
> any non-Americans its always important to put this in the context that "waiving" here means you're still paying thousands per month (between employer and individual) in premiums and likely hundreds in various flavors of co-jargons anytime you step the foot in the door of a care provider even for "covered" care.
Where did you come up with “thousands” and “likely hundreds”?
Just so the non-Americans reading this have a data point, I’m a single person with Type 1 diabetes who pays $200 a month for my insurance premium (my employer also pays $200 a month). I also pay about $110 a month out of pocket for insulin, $1500ish a year for my glucose monitor, and pay about $250 total a year in various co-pays to see a primary care physician, endocrinologist, and ophthalmologist (maybe 6-7 visits total. This is on a “Gold” plan (the best offered by my employer).
The average gold plan in the US is $575 premium per person per month. For the average household that would be thousands. The average monthly healthcare cost across all "levels" is about $975 per person.
If anyone wants a more useful comprehensive data point. Between Insurance premiums and out of pocket spending for services, the average American spends $4,516 a year. Oddly enough, the US also spends $4,197 a year in public spending, the third highest in the world, without the “costly” universal healthcare. Combined, the US outspends all other countries by a large margin. But with that spending we have less doctors, less doctor visits, poorer health outcomes, and lower life expectancy. But we do lead the world in prescription drugs and expensive diagnostic imaging.[1] We also waste $150,000,000,000 a year on paperwork (highest per capita in the world) because hospitals have to haggle with a bunch of different insures for every single thing.[2]
>In 2013, the average U.S. resident spent $1,074 out-of-pocket on health care, for things like copayments for doctor’s office visits and prescription drugs and health insurance deductibles. Only the Swiss spent more…As for other private health spending, including on private insurance premiums, U.S. spending towered over that of the other countries at $3,442 per capita—more than five times what was spent in Canada ($654), the second-highest spending country…Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system, it still spends more public dollars on health care than all but two of the other countries…Higher spending appeared to be largely driven by greater use of medical technology and higher health care prices, rather than more frequent doctor visits or hospital admissions…Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions [1]
Your employer is paying the difference for you. As part of their health plan setup, they select what percentage of the plan to cover for their employees and their dependents.
> Also, to any non-Americans its always important to put this in the context that "waiving" here means you're still paying thousands per month
Also important to remember the "take home" pay in the USA vs other countries. For many software engineers from the USA it would be significantly more than in other countries, for example due to the fact that there are a number of opportunities to earn good 6 figure salaries
Do also take into account that the median wage in the US is only around 35K per year. Clearly most americans are not in line for a 6 figure salary, nor will they ever be.
That's one of my biggest arguments (see my post history). I am super fortunate I am a software developer and earn a decent salary in the US. I pay $700/m for the highest plan my employer offer.
I know I am lucky. I've met many, many people who aren't as fortunate. I worked for 204 days from my little girl's ICU room. I was able to make ends meet. My fight is for the average American, the $30-45k earners, who don't WFH, and have sick kids in hospitals - and are forced to work to keep their benefits, while their kid is alone in the ICU.
Most people in the US aren’t tech workers though. And the pay disparity for many other roles, especially in the middle-low ends of the spectrum, are not very competitive compared to other countries with nationalised healthcare.
My understanding is that it's mainly only software development that has such a disparity though. Doesn't help much if you're not a software dev (or you lose you job due to ill health).
Yeah, I think another field(though I could be wrong on this one) that pays much better in the USA VS other countries is finance. Outside of these field the situation is very different
The problem is not necessarily lunatics who deny the reality of AGW, but energy companies, industry, and their political agents who have known the reality for over half a century. Lunacy was purposefully propagandized and indoctrinated to protect their power.
We are past the window for incentives -- we have sufficient observation of how individual incentive-guided action plays out in a finite world built of externalities. We are in the window for action: nationalization/collectivization of the offenders, forfeiture of their assets, and redirection into massive creation of renewables, sustainable industry, carbon capture/mitigation, and global relief for the people displaced and impoverished by climate and food disruption.
IDK, I like it, I would be one of those people that would complain about the 90's look if they didn't do this every now and then. But, people like you are ok with desktops like XFCE I guess, I like trying new paradigms, see what works, change what doesn't. I enjoy the occasional refresh in look and feel. Actually I think people like you are a minority, the majority just continues to enjoy evolutionary steps in design and never complains.
Yea, I fucking love Xfce. Its been the SAME for over a decade. I can't remember the last time they did some crazy/stupid UI/UX shit.
The most recent change was GTK driven, where the buttons on common-file dialog moved to the top. But, it hit every app at once so the relearn was abrupt but short. And it was only one thing. Not a frustrating batch of a dozen inconsistent half-baked "tweaks"
The number one complaint I get from non-technical people using computers is "This doesn't look like it used to, I don't know how to do anything anymore."
This is what happens when you have UX designers as full-time employees. They need some sort of grand project to work on. Same thing happened with reddit.
I would point out that "the UX community" is no more a monolith than "the developer community" -- many UX designers do not spend their time chasing the latest UI fads and adding novelty for its own sake.
UX and designers don’t initiate changes. That is driven by product managers who define features, ask for new designs, review options and choose the final design.
The same can be said for developers. Few devs can just make arbitrary changes to an application. They take requirements, produce implementations, and go through review and revision.
I'm also very sensitive to UI lag, but flagship phones are more a cause than a solution.
If you're on Android, enable developer options and disable animations. Not only is your phone now many orders of magnitude more useable because it's responsive to your actions instead of being in store demo mode with UIs built for videos in marketing banners, you can also use an old phone very comfortably.
I use a five year old mid tier phone quite comfortably. There is the occasional app that stutters because it bakes in its own pointless animations or NIH smooth scrolling, but this is easily solved by not using broken software.
Rust has plenty of momentum and non-Mozilla core team members and contributors, and has been in the process of finding or creating a foundation to organize under for some time. Of course this will slow the pace of development because so many talented and passionate people will have to move on, but it won't kill Rust.
