Why would you allow notifications from most apps? What could the McDonald’s app possibly offer to warrant allowing it to dictate your attention for even a fraction of a second?
A 'modern colloquial usage' that's mildly described as a 'stereotype' on Wikipedia. A more precise description is that it's a revisionist redefinition that represents the disdain towards countries that refused to sacrifice their sovereignty for money, after suffering extended periods of exploitation. And it predictably undermines the historical picture of the socioeconomic realities that existed during the cold war - a picture that doesn't resemble in any way what the US is inflicting upon itself now.
The comment you are replying to was replying to a comment that was more akin to “the ceramic bits on the floor were caused by your parents meeting” though
Saying the civil war was seeded decades earlier is more akin to saying the dish was dropped because you put it away covered in oil the day before. It wasn’t some unforseeable eventuality.
These dosages are off the charts for what most people ever do.
A typical estimate is 15 mg psilocybin per gram of dried mushroom so for a 200 pound person that’s 90 grams of mushrooms. 5 grams is the classic heroic dose.
People like free and the “greedy corporations” found a way to give them what they want.
Google search is trash now (for reasons that aren’t entirely in Google’s control), but for the first decade it was magical how well it could one shot finding relevant data on the web.
> People like free and the “greedy corporations” found a way to give them what they want.
It’s like saying, “People want Fentanyl, so drug dealers just give them what they want.”
Social media causes addiction and depression.
Have you ever tried browsing the web for a couple of months without a Gmail, Facebook, or similar account — and without JavaScript enabled or using only non-standard browsers? The experience is terrible.
Funny you mention Seattle’s light rail. The first part of New York’s subway system was built in 4 years and had more stops than Seattle’s light rail does after 15 years.
We (Americans) absolutely built big public projects in reasonable timeframes a century ago, and we don’t now. Attributing it to the form of government seems to miss the mark.
The idea that it costs nothing somehow is bizarre.
If you divide the NHS budget for 2024 (192 billion) by the UK population (67 million) you’ll find it works out to just under 3000 pounds per person just for 2024.
Assuming your wife’s visit was this year your family paid about 3x what the poster you are responding to did.
I’m also working from the assumption most posters here are in high tax brackets; I understand tech jobs in Europe pay much worse than the US so that may not be true.
I think you're glossing over a few details here which - although understandable - deserve a little clarification.
The poster is referring to cost at the point of care - which under the UK's NHS model is £0. The "£3000" per year should really be viewed as the cost of an insurance policy (in fact, NHS funding comes from a progressive tax called National Insurance - at least in theory). This "£3,000" on average then compares to the average cost per person of a health insurance policy in the US of around $7,700 [0] - plus of course in the USA you generally have point-of-care costs too.
Additionally tax by its nature in the UK is progressive and the income distribution is fairly heavy-tailed, so it's not really a cost of "just under £3,000pp" - the average citizen pays far less than that, and even most high earners will pay less. For example someone on £100,000 (top 1-2% of salaries in UK) will pay just over £4,000 in NI [1] - but NI funds more than just the NHS and also funds social care and state benefits.
Of course in the UK some people choose to supplement NHS care with some form of private insurance - either paid for privately (uncommon) or provided as an in-kind benefit through an employer (still not ubiquitous but recently more common). Private care is typically used for things like skipping waiting lists for certain treatments or access to alternative care not offered by the NHS.
These private policies tend to have a lot less coverage than the NHS, so I would say aren't directly comparable to the NHS - nor are they generally totally adequate as standalone insurance policy so aren't comparable to an insurance policy in the US either.
The model is just very different in the UK and the US, and it's hard to compare them directly. However, what is inarguable is that the NHS provides very good value for money, especially when compared with other G7 nations [2] - on average less than half of the expenditure per capita of the US.
And people I know in the uk, at least those working for large US companies, also have private insurance in addition to NHS.
Probably not a bad idea to get travel insurance if vacationing in the US. The other way around you may want some sort of additional insurance if traveling from the US to Europe.
Plea bargains account for over 90% of convictions in the US. Part of the cause is prosecutors can and do offer deals that rational actors would have a hard time refusing.
As a trivial example: imagine you are charged with a misdemeanor you absolutely didn’t do. Assuming you have no previous criminal record the state offers you a civil penalty (ie an expensive speeding ticket).
Are you going to go to trial knowing you could be sentenced to a year in prison? Keep in mind just paying an attorney to represent you through the trial will cost several times the civil penalty.
As I explained in the other comment - plea bargains are a different issue - and do not impact my argument in the least.
The OP claims that juries can be bullied by a prosecutor into delivering a guilty plea. But if this were so, defendants would choose a bench trial as it would a safer bet. They do not, because juries are not bullied by prosecutors.
Or perhaps you'll prove it from first principles. Although if turns out to be difficult, that's okay. Somebody mentioned something about systems being either complete or consistent but never both. Some things can be true but not proveably so. Can't quite remember who it was though.
Gödel's really was a rather unique mind, and the story of his death is kind of sad.. but I wonder if it takes such a severe kind of paranoia to look for how math can break itself, especially during that time when all the greatest mathematicians were in pursuit of formalizing a complete and consistent mathematics.
No. It merely prevents you from confirming every arbitrarily complex proof. Incompleteness is more like: I give you a convoluted mess of spaghetti code and claim it computes prime numbers and I demand you try to prove me wrong.
There are well-formed statements that can be proved but which assert that its godelized value represents a non-provable theorem.
Therefore, you must accept that it and its contradiction are both provable (leading to an inconsistent system), or not accept it and now there are provable theorems that cannot be expressed in the system.
Furthermore, that this can be constructed from anything with base arithmetic and induction over first-order logic (Gödel's original paper included how broadly it could be applied to basically every logical system).
The important thing to note is that it doesn't have anything to do with truth or truth-values of propositions. It breaks the fundamental operation of the provability of a statement.
And, since many proofs are done by assuming a statement's inverse and trying to prove a contradiction, having a known contradiction in the set of provable statements can effectively allow any statement to be proven. Keeping the contradiction is not actually an option.
