We're talking about chromium, and the fact that it in fact does not use system hardware or software decoders. And with semi-recent changes google made to chomium code, you can no longer just drop in the decoders into appropriate folder to make it work.
Nobody wants any meaningful methane leakage on your oil/gas extraction facility. See Deepwater Horizon for reasons why.
As for "carbon tax", it's already in as a punitive taxation regime on the more polluting production systems. Take it too far and you get to Denmark and its catastrophic state of affairs, where spinning reserve is taken offline because it's punished, yet more wind goes up. Resulting in a grid that is wholly dependent on Swedish and Norwegian interconnects and hydro supply and legislation to literally stop coal plants they made unprofitable via those taxation regimes from closing, because they desperately need them to back up wind power.
This is something most people ignore. You can't run a modern grid without spinning reserve and cold reserve and intermittent renewables being intermittent need close to 100% cold reserve and a large amount of spinning one. If you don't have it, you have a third world grid with intermittent, randomly cutting off power supply. If you want to find out what that's like and what that leads to, research Lebanese generator mafia and comprehend that you will have no meaningful industry if that were to occur.
So you don't get to put status quo against Harvey. You get to put Lebanese level of infrastructural disaster against Harvey, because US isn't Denmark, and doesn't have convenient mountainous neighbours with massive surplus of hydro and willing to sell you usage of those at as a spinning reserve at extortionist levels of premium + grid companies that literally tell Denmark to bend over and take it from behind as happened about a year ago. And if you pick Lebanese kind of a grid, but you are indeed anti-humanist.
Google recently crippled chromium pretty badly. For example, h.264 playback is really hard to get in now that "just copy relevant decoders into correct directory" option is no longer available.
They are far ahead over the CCGT/shale revolution duration, because not only did Germany not get on board with it, it actually failed miserably by shutting down the best option to cut CO2 emissions - nuclear power plants.
Also Germany has no shale gas production, nor did it ever have any to my knowledge. The relevant technology has barely existed for a decade in the first place, and Germany's green movement is utterly consumed by anti-humanist tendencies. Which is why it has always driven the anti-nuclear crusade that culminated in Energiewende, which essentially drove Germany off the CO2 reduction track, turning the long term trend of reducing CO2 emission around to stagnation and even increase in emissions.
All while US, without any major Germany-style proclamations had the shale and CCGT revolution, and reduced its CO2 emissions significantly. It's literally a great example of outcomes of green grandstanding vs actual engineering at work.
Cars are increasingly constrained on their end by efficiency requirements, but they're a different beast entirely to power generation.
Regardless, if you want to talk about CO2 as a whole rather than on country level, here's a much better view for you. It's literally irrelevant what we Westerners will do in short to medium term, because the people in developing countries will not allow green activists to forcibly keep then in poverty. In fact, green activism is increasingly treated as terrorism in developing countries with full blessing of the locals, specifically because they tend to try to push policies that are detrimental to rapid rise of masses out of poverty. Which is the primary source as to why energy requirements worldwide are growing rather than shrinking.
So everything we cut, developing countries will add and then some. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep cutting emissions. Does mean that we should in no way undercut our livelihoods in expectations of actually being able to cut them in a meaningful fashion. In the end, the requirements will have to be driven down the throats of masses in developing countries at a barrel of a gun. And that means strong economies that can buy the people with guns to do the dirty work.
You're not the only one. I've seen the stone-faced "green" activists back when the company I was a temp in did a project in Narva, which transformed what was essentially the most polluting power plants in the world into far less wasteful. This is not an exaggeration, those plants burn shale rock, which is essentially 70% various deep underground elements and 30% oil-like mixture. Soviet era plants literally could not work for more than two weeks at a time because it would develop what locals called a "goat", the massive amount of sticky, toxic residue from burn process that would cling to the heat exchangers in the burner. And the stuff that actually burned just spread all that toxic stuff out of the pipe in the form of particulates in well over hundred kilometre radius. Not to even mention the NOx and SO2 related acid rain issues.
I've read analyses that something like 5-7% of trees within the range of exhaust raining down from those plants literally died standing due to the extreme toxicity of that exhaust. And airways-related illnesses in the region were very high. Said activists were invited to showcase that our tech basically pushed SO2 and NOx exhaust from horrifyingly high to zero, and the post-filter which ensured that the toxic ash would also go to zero in the exhaust.
They sat there stone-faced, and when I listened to them after the lecture was done, it was all about "how this will justify existence of this plant". Basically fuck the people who had to breathe the toxic stuff and were getting their power and livelihood from it. Just fuck them, in the name of the utopia. It disillusioned me with the entire movement.
Main shale byproduct is methane. Methane when burned for energy produces about half CO2 compared to coal. The only other byproduct of the burn is water.
Parent is trying to spin a sarcastic narrative, possibly to mask the fact that main reason why US has been reducing its CO2 output more than for example Germany because of success of fracking and replacement of other burner plants with CCGTs burning methane.
Switch to methane to massively reduce CO2 emissions isn't an element unique to US, as most other Western countries with ready access to methane try to do it as well (example: UK). However methane is notoriously difficult to transport over the sea routes, and is best transported over pipelines as that doesn't require the energy expenditure to compress it into liquid form.
Such infrastructure is only really possible due to shale revolution in US, which made methane basically a free waste product, which states and federal government could mandate to build pipe networks to transport across the country (and now is starting to feed Mexico due to excess availability, likely resulting in solution to many of Mexico's energy and lowering its CO2 emissions). Second best infrastructure in the world after that is methane from Russia being piped to Europe, alongside similar pipes from Norway, Scotland and North Africa.
Methane is the short to medium term solution to getting CO2 emissions under control. Cutting burner emissions to two thirds to a half is a great stepping stone to the solution. Absolutist crazies will of course continue with their "but my solar and wind" mantra, never realizing that the main reason for their proliferation in US in Europe is the proliferation of CCGTs that can in fact function as spinning and cold reserve in economic fashion due to cheap fuel and fast spin-up and load-accepting times.
Shale is literally the primary reason for natgas switch in US. In shale production, methane is the "undesirable consequence of extraction process" which used to do nothing but cause severe risk of catastrophic explosion. Which is why it's generally flared off in a safe fashion.
And now, it's increasingly captured instead, and then transported to CCGTs which are rapidly replacing other burner plants in US, because transport over short to medium distances via infrastructure that is rapidly being built up as we speak is very cheap. And in process, halving CO2 emissions for the same energy produced (look at the emissions per energy produced on methane vs coal for example).
The main reason why US is actually better than countries like Germany in reducing the emissions in spite of vocal declarations of the latter and lack of such declarations on the part of the former is the natgas switch. And this is a trend that is set to continue for quite a while. So if you're an environmentalist who's primary concern is global warming, shale is something you should be championing, not something to fight against.
But modern environmentalism has nothing to do with that. It's now a strange religion that mostly combines elements of primeval nature worship (wasn't it great when people weren't here to destroy the nature?) and plain anti-human tendencies (humans are a blight on this planet and it will be better when they're all gone). Those that are actually working towards goals to reduce emissions, i.e. nuclear power generation industry, are some of the most persecuted by the environmentalist movement because they make a great case against those two tenets.
Do you need non-emergency surgery that destroys your quality of life without waiting for it for months and some cases years? You need insurance.
Do you want your child to get to GP in the morning when he feels ill, and not spend entire day being tossed around from receptionist to nurse to GP appointment at just past midday if you're lucky and "come back tomorrow or go wait five hours in queue at central hospital ER, who will just toss you back to us around 15:00 when you finally get to see the doctor having gone there around 10:00?" You need insurance.
Do you want to have a tooth replaced, rather than just pulled? You need insurance. Want to have your teeth checked by a doctor more often than once every two years, and have to wait for this check for six months after asking for it? You need insurance.
Public healthcare around here works on the same base principle as it does in US. It covers "necessary procedures only" and it covers them "in reasonably timely manner for the entire system". That's what makes system efficient as a whole. It's also what makes you wait for that knee surgery that makes it impossible for you to get a job for over a year, with first six months wait for necessary MRI scan, followed by another six months for actual surgery (actual recent case with 19 year old I know through my sports contacts who graduated as a metal worker the previous year and busted his knee in a football game, and for some weird reason he decided not to have private insurance which is actually required to have a licence to play in terms of license of the local sports federation).
Which is why private healthcare is a massive industry in Scandinavian countries. There are enough wealthy people to afford it, who use it instead of underfunded public system with its (comparatively) horrendous queues and conditions. Additionally insurance isn't that expensive compared to income.
The thing that is different between US and us is not the principle. Principle is actually the exact same. What's different is what is considered "covered by public healthcare vs private sector".
Which is why if you have a child who is insured by the state, your healthcare in US will be far superior compared to public care around here. Which is why private health insurance for children is one of the bigger private medical fields. But if you're an adult and out of work, your healthcare around here will be much better. And if you're elderly, it flips again. Horrendous treatment of elderly in the public system is something of a meme at this point around here, as public sector aims at maximum efficiency of the entire system, at the cost of the individual patients who need something beyond basic care. I've witnessed this idiocy personally when my grandmother spent about six months slowly dying a few years ago. Let's just say that it diminished my view of the purported benefits of the system quite severely, as she was bounced around the system with its wonderful queues for over a year, and when she finally got to a necessary specialist, it was too late.
Essentially, public system serves everyone as a whole better, because it can aim at treating "the average" which is running noses and slight fever and extreme cases that are emergency care with maximum efficiency. And when you need specialist non-emergency care, same prioritisation leads to month-long queues for advanced procedures like MRI and non-emergency surgery. Because in any system where public is also the "care of last resort", emergency care must be prioritised above all. Which means that everything that isn't emergency care and general care, you better hope that condition you have doesn't impact your life severely for a few months. Because that's how long you'll be waiting.
Or you can get it done in private sector with no wait period. Which is why law literally mandates that working people get private healthcare paid by the employer, and why private healthcare for children is such a big profit driver in private me
And btw, our public medical system, to my knowledge, is the most efficient in Nordics. Others have it worse, higher costs and/or worse outcomes. Things like birth tourism from Sweden are very real.
I'm Finnish. We do not have 100% public healthcare. You're grossly misinformed on at least all of the Nordics and China. I do not have sufficient information on Cuba to argue the point.
This species of starfish is native to the region. The predation cycle they function under has been long ongoing.
This modern trend of primeval nature worship that is rising among people who primarily spend their lives in the cities utterly alienated from nature, believing that natural state of things is stable persistence rather than constant cycles of boom and bust is anti-evolutionary to levels that are beyond even creationism.
Do you understand that your statement is literally anti-evolutionary? Everything on this planet "have not been there before" on long enough time scale, because that's how evolution works.
And as far as scientific language works, these are species native to the region.
That is literally the point of aircraft like J-20. They're not fighters per se, so much as they are interceptors. Their mission profile appears to be "avoid detection, get to high value assets like tankers and AWACS aircraft, kill them, avoid defenders and come home".
Notably Soviets/Russians had the same idea, but they have better engine tech for both jets and missiles, so they do it at stand-off range. That's literally what MiG-31 is built for. Stand off range aerial interception of high value targets with minimal dogfighting capability.
That's comparing apples to oranges. In US, government is the provider of security for all its citizens, but it's not provider of healthcare for all its citizens.
Your comparison would make sense in 100% socialized healthcare. I'm not aware of a single country where such healthcare exists.
The difference of that fraction of a percent is often the difference between military grade and civilian hardware. In civilian world, it's typically not an issue of life and death to have a failure. And in civilian life, even a catastrophic loss often means life goes on.
In military world, both are reversed, which is why military leaders are such sticklers for details.
First of all, when story starts with "A handful of Baltimoreans are willing to try anything to stop their police force from killing them", you know you're looking at the standard far left anti-police hit piece.
Second, the story has all of the far left talking points. Namely utterly ignoring who is committing the crimes, complaints of racial profiling based on the fact that clear majority of criminals in this community fit a certain race profile, accusations of "Hitler, uncle Tom" pointed toward black people who dare to disagree. And really novel and strange beliefs on part of people complaining, such as suggesting that they can't tell race from high above, so it's ok to conduct surveillance from there as opposed to street level, which is apparently racist to do.
The only thing I got from the story is that people behind the complaints are not the sharpest tools in the box, and that far leftist dogma is alive and well in their circles, and crying wolf in old ways apparently got old, they had to invent new talking points, such as the fact that camera surveillance on ground level is just racist and cannot be trusted, because [bigotry and corruption], but camera far in the air can be.
I guess they never looked into resolutions and ability to see colour of those aerial cameras they're looking for.
To have a kind of a criminal record that will follow you everywhere, and that everyone will gossip about in a very negative way.
A rape conviction is perhaps something that could be remotely in the same ballpark, but cultures are too different for there to be significant similarities. Concept of Face is not something that exists in Western cultures, and that's a key aspect of all East Asian cultures, and this problem is clearly linked to loss of Face.
Yes, you already told us about your absurd beliefs many times. It's not getting any more interesting over time. In fact, it was somewhat entertaining at first, but it's just plain sad and boring now how desperately you are grasping to some imaginary infraction you think I made.
You need to invent something new if you want to keep entertaining me.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about chromium, and the fact that it in fact does not use system hardware or software decoders. And with semi-recent changes google made to chomium code, you can no longer just drop in the decoders into appropriate folder to make it work.
Nobody wants any meaningful methane leakage on your oil/gas extraction facility. See Deepwater Horizon for reasons why.
As for "carbon tax", it's already in as a punitive taxation regime on the more polluting production systems. Take it too far and you get to Denmark and its catastrophic state of affairs, where spinning reserve is taken offline because it's punished, yet more wind goes up. Resulting in a grid that is wholly dependent on Swedish and Norwegian interconnects and hydro supply and legislation to literally stop coal plants they made unprofitable via those taxation regimes from closing, because they desperately need them to back up wind power.
This is something most people ignore. You can't run a modern grid without spinning reserve and cold reserve and intermittent renewables being intermittent need close to 100% cold reserve and a large amount of spinning one. If you don't have it, you have a third world grid with intermittent, randomly cutting off power supply. If you want to find out what that's like and what that leads to, research Lebanese generator mafia and comprehend that you will have no meaningful industry if that were to occur.
So you don't get to put status quo against Harvey. You get to put Lebanese level of infrastructural disaster against Harvey, because US isn't Denmark, and doesn't have convenient mountainous neighbours with massive surplus of hydro and willing to sell you usage of those at as a spinning reserve at extortionist levels of premium + grid companies that literally tell Denmark to bend over and take it from behind as happened about a year ago. And if you pick Lebanese kind of a grid, but you are indeed anti-humanist.
Google recently crippled chromium pretty badly. For example, h.264 playback is really hard to get in now that "just copy relevant decoders into correct directory" option is no longer available.
They are far ahead over the CCGT/shale revolution duration, because not only did Germany not get on board with it, it actually failed miserably by shutting down the best option to cut CO2 emissions - nuclear power plants.
Also Germany has no shale gas production, nor did it ever have any to my knowledge. The relevant technology has barely existed for a decade in the first place, and Germany's green movement is utterly consumed by anti-humanist tendencies. Which is why it has always driven the anti-nuclear crusade that culminated in Energiewende, which essentially drove Germany off the CO2 reduction track, turning the long term trend of reducing CO2 emission around to stagnation and even increase in emissions.
All while US, without any major Germany-style proclamations had the shale and CCGT revolution, and reduced its CO2 emissions significantly. It's literally a great example of outcomes of green grandstanding vs actual engineering at work.
Cars are increasingly constrained on their end by efficiency requirements, but they're a different beast entirely to power generation.
Regardless, if you want to talk about CO2 as a whole rather than on country level, here's a much better view for you. It's literally irrelevant what we Westerners will do in short to medium term, because the people in developing countries will not allow green activists to forcibly keep then in poverty. In fact, green activism is increasingly treated as terrorism in developing countries with full blessing of the locals, specifically because they tend to try to push policies that are detrimental to rapid rise of masses out of poverty. Which is the primary source as to why energy requirements worldwide are growing rather than shrinking.
So everything we cut, developing countries will add and then some. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep cutting emissions. Does mean that we should in no way undercut our livelihoods in expectations of actually being able to cut them in a meaningful fashion. In the end, the requirements will have to be driven down the throats of masses in developing countries at a barrel of a gun. And that means strong economies that can buy the people with guns to do the dirty work.
CCGT revolution started ten years ago or so. I noticed how you doubled the relevant timeline so you could fudge the numbers.
You're not the only one. I've seen the stone-faced "green" activists back when the company I was a temp in did a project in Narva, which transformed what was essentially the most polluting power plants in the world into far less wasteful. This is not an exaggeration, those plants burn shale rock, which is essentially 70% various deep underground elements and 30% oil-like mixture. Soviet era plants literally could not work for more than two weeks at a time because it would develop what locals called a "goat", the massive amount of sticky, toxic residue from burn process that would cling to the heat exchangers in the burner. And the stuff that actually burned just spread all that toxic stuff out of the pipe in the form of particulates in well over hundred kilometre radius. Not to even mention the NOx and SO2 related acid rain issues.
I've read analyses that something like 5-7% of trees within the range of exhaust raining down from those plants literally died standing due to the extreme toxicity of that exhaust. And airways-related illnesses in the region were very high. Said activists were invited to showcase that our tech basically pushed SO2 and NOx exhaust from horrifyingly high to zero, and the post-filter which ensured that the toxic ash would also go to zero in the exhaust.
They sat there stone-faced, and when I listened to them after the lecture was done, it was all about "how this will justify existence of this plant". Basically fuck the people who had to breathe the toxic stuff and were getting their power and livelihood from it. Just fuck them, in the name of the utopia. It disillusioned me with the entire movement.
Main shale byproduct is methane. Methane when burned for energy produces about half CO2 compared to coal. The only other byproduct of the burn is water.
Parent is trying to spin a sarcastic narrative, possibly to mask the fact that main reason why US has been reducing its CO2 output more than for example Germany because of success of fracking and replacement of other burner plants with CCGTs burning methane.
Switch to methane to massively reduce CO2 emissions isn't an element unique to US, as most other Western countries with ready access to methane try to do it as well (example: UK). However methane is notoriously difficult to transport over the sea routes, and is best transported over pipelines as that doesn't require the energy expenditure to compress it into liquid form.
Such infrastructure is only really possible due to shale revolution in US, which made methane basically a free waste product, which states and federal government could mandate to build pipe networks to transport across the country (and now is starting to feed Mexico due to excess availability, likely resulting in solution to many of Mexico's energy and lowering its CO2 emissions). Second best infrastructure in the world after that is methane from Russia being piped to Europe, alongside similar pipes from Norway, Scotland and North Africa.
Methane is the short to medium term solution to getting CO2 emissions under control. Cutting burner emissions to two thirds to a half is a great stepping stone to the solution. Absolutist crazies will of course continue with their "but my solar and wind" mantra, never realizing that the main reason for their proliferation in US in Europe is the proliferation of CCGTs that can in fact function as spinning and cold reserve in economic fashion due to cheap fuel and fast spin-up and load-accepting times.
Shale is literally the primary reason for natgas switch in US. In shale production, methane is the "undesirable consequence of extraction process" which used to do nothing but cause severe risk of catastrophic explosion. Which is why it's generally flared off in a safe fashion.
And now, it's increasingly captured instead, and then transported to CCGTs which are rapidly replacing other burner plants in US, because transport over short to medium distances via infrastructure that is rapidly being built up as we speak is very cheap. And in process, halving CO2 emissions for the same energy produced (look at the emissions per energy produced on methane vs coal for example).
The main reason why US is actually better than countries like Germany in reducing the emissions in spite of vocal declarations of the latter and lack of such declarations on the part of the former is the natgas switch. And this is a trend that is set to continue for quite a while. So if you're an environmentalist who's primary concern is global warming, shale is something you should be championing, not something to fight against.
But modern environmentalism has nothing to do with that. It's now a strange religion that mostly combines elements of primeval nature worship (wasn't it great when people weren't here to destroy the nature?) and plain anti-human tendencies (humans are a blight on this planet and it will be better when they're all gone). Those that are actually working towards goals to reduce emissions, i.e. nuclear power generation industry, are some of the most persecuted by the environmentalist movement because they make a great case against those two tenets.
False dichotomy could not be more real if you tried to set up one.
Let me help you. The story starts with:
"According to a Microsoft-commissioned survey"
Questions that you should ask:
1. How does "more coding for children" help or hurt Microsoft?
2. How does "having big tech firms involved in helping schools" help or hurt Microsoft?
Answer those two questions, then read the claims again.
Depends on what you qualify as "need".
Do you need non-emergency surgery that destroys your quality of life without waiting for it for months and some cases years? You need insurance.
Do you want your child to get to GP in the morning when he feels ill, and not spend entire day being tossed around from receptionist to nurse to GP appointment at just past midday if you're lucky and "come back tomorrow or go wait five hours in queue at central hospital ER, who will just toss you back to us around 15:00 when you finally get to see the doctor having gone there around 10:00?" You need insurance.
Do you want to have a tooth replaced, rather than just pulled? You need insurance. Want to have your teeth checked by a doctor more often than once every two years, and have to wait for this check for six months after asking for it? You need insurance.
Public healthcare around here works on the same base principle as it does in US. It covers "necessary procedures only" and it covers them "in reasonably timely manner for the entire system". That's what makes system efficient as a whole. It's also what makes you wait for that knee surgery that makes it impossible for you to get a job for over a year, with first six months wait for necessary MRI scan, followed by another six months for actual surgery (actual recent case with 19 year old I know through my sports contacts who graduated as a metal worker the previous year and busted his knee in a football game, and for some weird reason he decided not to have private insurance which is actually required to have a licence to play in terms of license of the local sports federation).
Which is why private healthcare is a massive industry in Scandinavian countries. There are enough wealthy people to afford it, who use it instead of underfunded public system with its (comparatively) horrendous queues and conditions. Additionally insurance isn't that expensive compared to income.
The thing that is different between US and us is not the principle. Principle is actually the exact same. What's different is what is considered "covered by public healthcare vs private sector".
Which is why if you have a child who is insured by the state, your healthcare in US will be far superior compared to public care around here. Which is why private health insurance for children is one of the bigger private medical fields. But if you're an adult and out of work, your healthcare around here will be much better. And if you're elderly, it flips again. Horrendous treatment of elderly in the public system is something of a meme at this point around here, as public sector aims at maximum efficiency of the entire system, at the cost of the individual patients who need something beyond basic care. I've witnessed this idiocy personally when my grandmother spent about six months slowly dying a few years ago. Let's just say that it diminished my view of the purported benefits of the system quite severely, as she was bounced around the system with its wonderful queues for over a year, and when she finally got to a necessary specialist, it was too late.
Essentially, public system serves everyone as a whole better, because it can aim at treating "the average" which is running noses and slight fever and extreme cases that are emergency care with maximum efficiency. And when you need specialist non-emergency care, same prioritisation leads to month-long queues for advanced procedures like MRI and non-emergency surgery. Because in any system where public is also the "care of last resort", emergency care must be prioritised above all. Which means that everything that isn't emergency care and general care, you better hope that condition you have doesn't impact your life severely for a few months. Because that's how long you'll be waiting.
Or you can get it done in private sector with no wait period. Which is why law literally mandates that working people get private healthcare paid by the employer, and why private healthcare for children is such a big profit driver in private me
And btw, our public medical system, to my knowledge, is the most efficient in Nordics. Others have it worse, higher costs and/or worse outcomes. Things like birth tourism from Sweden are very real.
We do, just like US. Just like in US, the coverage offered by public healthcare isn't anywhere close to 100%.
I'm Finnish. We do not have 100% public healthcare. You're grossly misinformed on at least all of the Nordics and China. I do not have sufficient information on Cuba to argue the point.
This species of starfish is native to the region. The predation cycle they function under has been long ongoing.
This modern trend of primeval nature worship that is rising among people who primarily spend their lives in the cities utterly alienated from nature, believing that natural state of things is stable persistence rather than constant cycles of boom and bust is anti-evolutionary to levels that are beyond even creationism.
Do you understand that your statement is literally anti-evolutionary? Everything on this planet "have not been there before" on long enough time scale, because that's how evolution works.
And as far as scientific language works, these are species native to the region.
She wasn't "controversial". She was straight up bigoted and consistently lied and extorted people as a matter of policy. On reddit and off reddit.
That is literally the point of aircraft like J-20. They're not fighters per se, so much as they are interceptors. Their mission profile appears to be "avoid detection, get to high value assets like tankers and AWACS aircraft, kill them, avoid defenders and come home".
Notably Soviets/Russians had the same idea, but they have better engine tech for both jets and missiles, so they do it at stand-off range. That's literally what MiG-31 is built for. Stand off range aerial interception of high value targets with minimal dogfighting capability.
That's comparing apples to oranges. In US, government is the provider of security for all its citizens, but it's not provider of healthcare for all its citizens.
Your comparison would make sense in 100% socialized healthcare. I'm not aware of a single country where such healthcare exists.
"You need security, because without security, everything else will be taken from you".
Citation: pretty much every country which US decided to use warfare against.
The difference of that fraction of a percent is often the difference between military grade and civilian hardware. In civilian world, it's typically not an issue of life and death to have a failure. And in civilian life, even a catastrophic loss often means life goes on.
In military world, both are reversed, which is why military leaders are such sticklers for details.
First of all, when story starts with "A handful of Baltimoreans are willing to try anything to stop their police force from killing them", you know you're looking at the standard far left anti-police hit piece.
Second, the story has all of the far left talking points. Namely utterly ignoring who is committing the crimes, complaints of racial profiling based on the fact that clear majority of criminals in this community fit a certain race profile, accusations of "Hitler, uncle Tom" pointed toward black people who dare to disagree. And really novel and strange beliefs on part of people complaining, such as suggesting that they can't tell race from high above, so it's ok to conduct surveillance from there as opposed to street level, which is apparently racist to do.
The only thing I got from the story is that people behind the complaints are not the sharpest tools in the box, and that far leftist dogma is alive and well in their circles, and crying wolf in old ways apparently got old, they had to invent new talking points, such as the fact that camera surveillance on ground level is just racist and cannot be trusted, because [bigotry and corruption], but camera far in the air can be.
I guess they never looked into resolutions and ability to see colour of those aerial cameras they're looking for.
To have a kind of a criminal record that will follow you everywhere, and that everyone will gossip about in a very negative way.
A rape conviction is perhaps something that could be remotely in the same ballpark, but cultures are too different for there to be significant similarities. Concept of Face is not something that exists in Western cultures, and that's a key aspect of all East Asian cultures, and this problem is clearly linked to loss of Face.
Yes, you already told us about your absurd beliefs many times. It's not getting any more interesting over time. In fact, it was somewhat entertaining at first, but it's just plain sad and boring now how desperately you are grasping to some imaginary infraction you think I made.
You need to invent something new if you want to keep entertaining me.