julietOscarEcho

Pretty weak analogy. Wikipedia was technologically trivial and did a really good job of avoiding vested interests. Also the hype is orders of magnitude different, noone ever claimed Wikipedia was going to lead to superhuman intelligences or to replacement of swathes of human creative/service workers.

Actually since you mention it, my hot take is that Wikipedia might have been a more significant step forward in AI than openAI/latest generation LLMs. The creation of that corpus is hugely valuable in training and benchmarking models of natural language. Also it actually disrupted an industry (conventional encyclopedias) in a way that I'm struggling to think of anything that LLMs has replaced in the same way thus far.

Good point. Yeah I didn't love how false start/neutral zone was called the whole game. Honestly the whole year it's pissed me off, seems just total chance what the crew notices.

Missing jaire and Preston. Agree, that level of execution would have made for a very un-fun game against the top teams.

Agreed, de facto, budget cuts have been and would be racist.

Fiscal conservatism actually does mean something though. Like you could imagine a left leaning fiscally conservative government that maintained a balanced budget by raising taxes on corps and the wealthy. That would be basically fine (though I think on balance not as good as running a modest deficit to fund nice policy). If you just go, yeah no those words are henceforth no-bueno, aren't you just buying into their doublespeak?

Trumps "platform" was by any measure or definition less fiscally conservative than kamala. Pretty sure the reps left fiscal conservatism in the wasteland with Romney.

The new bullshit dogma for the right wing is "growth". But I don't think the Trump parade really even tried to explain that was the goal, or really any coherent economic policy.

Edit: the article seems to make the same point. That previously at least outwardly normal people have gone off the deep end.

Only has a fraction of the strategy and deck building of the actual TCG. Just seems like the usual mobile garbage to me (stamina mechanics, a million currency types, pay to win), shame.

Quick Google suggests healthcare costs for obese people are <50% higher than non-obese and the US has 15-30% more obesity than these countries. So maybe 15% at most of the 100% higher cost per capita of healthcare is obesity related. The killer for me for that hypothesis is that within the set of countries with normal healthcare costs, there's huge variation in obesity (10% in France to 30%in ireland) with limited variation in cost.

Maybe the life expectancy side does have more to do with obesity?

"As usual with those sorts of memes, the numbers are completely wrong. European nations spend around 11-12% of GDP on healthcare vs about 17% for the US. So you'd likely pay significantly less (about 30% less)"

Dis you?

It must really suck to be a good hearted doctor in that system. When every incentive is to push unnecessary interventions and you must encounter patients that can't or won't accept your help because it would ruin them or their family financially.

Really USA, how does anyone pretend this is OK?

OK cool, well if "someone is wrong on this Internet" is more important to you than making a case for a better health are system (that I note you have spent 0 energy on) I think I'm done. Thanks for the entertainment of "$5k per person is 30% cheaper than $10k" though, that was a good one.

So when the meme was wrong about 5% vs 20% it was "outright lying" but when you were shown to be wrong about your 30% you just continue on your high horse. Cool beans.

Not a political issue for me anymore thank goodness. Lived in the US for a while but very glad that public health is available for everyone where I live now (as is literally everyone else I know).

I mean private healthcare is strictly worse for everyone except business owners (and doctors without morals I guess). So that's my best guess at your motivation, but please correct me. Why?