Yeah this whole conversation is interesting to me. Linux was impenetrable to me 10-15 years ago (partially due to age but I wasn’t exactly a kid back then). Now it feels way more polished and usable. I’m hardly a power user but that’s sort of the point! I’ve got machines using bazzite, pop, and elementary. I get tripped up by permissions and stuff here and there but overall pop and Bazzite in particular have proven to be perfectly capable daily drivers.
I’m hardly an expert and maybe I’m not the target audience, but I like where things are and have been going. Now they just need to solve how circuitous installing Linux is…
M series just always perform better than you expect. I don’t know how to explain it tbh. We use them for live streaming at work and they’re just never pushed to their limits (24gb mac minis) even as we run 7 or 8 independent HD sources + iso recordings of each one. They don’t break a sweat.
I have an m1 16gb MBpro in our fleet for editing and it runs probably as fast as the day I got it (first wave of m1’s).
The low power draw is also very impressive. Fraction of my AMD rig at home.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the article you linked.
40% is not “near half” - it’s closer to 33% than it is 50% and I think we would both (rightfully) object to me saying “near 1/3rd.” 50% and 40% are very different numbers.
Also, that 40% figure is based on their own definition, not something that is broadly accepted.
>When is it ok for me to be prejudice towards a group of people?
When a group acts as a coordinated group. A political party for instance. This is not rocket science. You must link the individual(s) directly to the act, or you’re just stereotyping and making assumptions.
You are asking a lot of baiting questions. We know this isn't an attempt at dialogue, so just state your mind and be done with it instead of continuing of this silly bread crumb game man.
> your burger and fries would probably cost $40 delivered, making the whole business model infeasible.
Tough luck? Businesses aren’t entitled to exist. If it’s a bad model it’s a bad model. We can’t just throw our hands up and ignore bad business practices for that reason. It’s not our job to protect DoorDash’s unsustainable business model that only works if they behave particularly unethically. That is squarely their issue
I certainly don't think that OpenAI has behaved defensibly here; I think the "just a tool" framing is bad for understanding the magnitude of the problem, which is that they have developed out of control alien intelligences with opaque decision procedures, and they are continuing to do so despite clear danger
Firefly…didn’t age well. A buddy said that to me and I scoffed. Rewatched a few years ago and kind of regret it.
Some individual moments/episodes are still great but most of it is very cringe inducing and/or didn’t age well as a “joke.” Knowing what we know about Adam Baldwin (and Whedon frankly but Baldwin is a special kind of gross) doesn’t help either.
The anti-hero shtick also really aged poorly. Mal overall just comes across as a narcissistic asshole who cosplays a thief with the heart of gold occasionally. The confederado angle also didn’t register to me back then because I was younger but now I don’t care for it.
It’s overhyped but for a lot of people like me it was pretty fresh and different. Strong banter dialogue too, got a lot of praise for people “talking like people.”
I somehow just recently discovered the whole series - and I did enjoy it, but yes, not because, but despite the main character being a "narcissistic asshole" most of the time. But it probably also helped that I did not took it too serious, nor do I know anything about Baldwin.
I get not taking things seriously but the show does ultimately take itself pretty seriously. Whedon just can’t let emotional beats breathe and breaks them up with wisecracks lol
Baldwin…well, he was one of the reasons gamergate became a thing, which is by itself bad enough but also hardly his only offense. He’s pretty awful. So knowing his “manosphere” proximity makes his act a little too real, like Spacey with American Beauty.
Shame too. Hero of canton (is that the episode name?) was pretty memorable and has a beautiful ending.
"the show does ultimately take itself pretty seriously"
Yeah it does, which is why I was not too sad, that there was not much more (and I did regret watching Serenity the movie), but that Baldwin is awful, well, fit's his character?
Apart from that, judging movies with my own set of ethical standards - there is not much I can watch, if taking things serious and be able to identify with the main characters.
Well let’s start with insurance actually acknowledging preventative care as a worthwhile investment. We have a system that incentivizes waiting until emergency care is necessary and that comes with massive cons.
I can’t even get basic foot stuff covered, they won’t care until my feet and knees land me under “disability,” so people like me - but unlike me they can’t afford to spend hundreds more a year on special inserts and shoes - just keep doing what they’re doing until they’re hurt.
People go to the grocery store and marketing teams are trying to sell them “vitamin water” which is neither of those things, so they have to do tons of research and pay constant attention to literally every food they buy. Then when they get hurt they can’t afford to go to a doctor and the insurance that is sucking up huge amount amounts of their annual pay doesn’t pay for it either.
Meanwhile we have a US administration that is telling everybody, a population that is incredibly predisposed to heart disease already, to go eat more red meat. Also, they have spent a decade telling people that vaccines are shady and maybe they shouldn’t get them. How much damage have we done to preventative care with that one?
I could go on and on, I’m barely covering the breadth and depth of this problem. We can’t just call it “personal responsibility” or whatever
Insurance is already required to cover preventive care services which are justified by a clear cost-benefit analysis at no cost to the patient. The list of those services should probably be expanded but in many cases we lack scientific and economic data to justify to more research is needed.
> Insurance is already required to cover preventive care services which are justified by a clear cost-benefit analysis at no cost to the patient.
I am clearly not saying they literally don’t cover any preventative care. I think most people agree that insurance companies’ idea of what is “justified” is far too narrow. What is “clear” is also often very opaque. That’s the issue I’m pointing to. US health insurance is a terrible experience.
And who cares if the analysis costs me nothing? Why is that something I should be grateful for?
Most people don't understand the system well enough to even have an informed opinion on the subject. Commercial insurance companies get a lot of criticism for denying claims or prior authorization requests, and some of that criticism is well deserved due to errors or artificial friction. But for the most part they make very few decisions about what care is justified.
At a first level the federal government publishes a set of medically unlikely edits used to deny claims when procedure codes don't align with diagnosis codes. It's used by Medicare, and most Medicaid agencies and commercial health plans have also adopted it.
At the next level most commercial health plans have adopted clinical care guidelines published by vendors like MCG. These vendors take publications from specialist medical societies and codify them to determine what's medically justified and set step therapy requirements.
At the final level, providers can appeal denials to human nurses and doctors who do case review at insurance companies (peer-to-peer). In a huge healthcare system there are always patients with unique needs who don't fit the pattern in published care guidelines. Dealing with those appeals is a major administrative burden and often badly managed on both sides of the adversarial interaction.
Most US-based HN users are on commercial self-funded group health plans sponsored by their employers. The Affordable Care Act (ACA / Obamacare) establishes a baseline for what's covered but ultimately the decisions are made by employer HR departments. Insurance companies would be happy to offer custom health plans that paid every claim at 100% with zero denials or prior authorization requirements; it would mean less work and higher profits for them. But no employer wants to pay for that so the insurance companies take measures to hold down costs.
reply