"On the whole, though, costs are lower than expected, enrollment is higher than expected, the number of insurers participating in the exchanges is increasing, and more states are joining the Medicaid expansion. Millions of people have insurance who didn't have it before. The law is working. But a lot of the people who are convinced Obamacare is a disaster will never know that, because the voices they trust will never tell them"
OK, perhaps I should qualify that with "assuming the camera has a decent quality sensor". Although since Apple and Samsung do, that seems a bit redundant for a discussion about spec warriors. If someone is going to claim that their Nogood Phone Ltd QLX8732 with the 897MP sensor that produces images worse than 110 film is competing with the 5S and the S5 then I can't help them.
The fundamental point being that 98% of photos taken today are only ever seen on Facebook or similar, and those services downsample images to 0.25 - 1.2 MP at most. Start with a good quality 8MP image, crop it to 6MP, submit it to Facebook as a "high quality image" and you're down to 1.2MP. But even if you want to make prints 6MP generates an excellent quality 5x7 and a good quality 8x10 for all ordinary people.
- - - - - Cameras are good enough for most people, but some are faster than others and have things like optical stabilization and batter automatic settings / post processing. As far as performance helps this stuff, it matters. - - - - -
That's true, but note that the spec war arguments tend to focus on megapixels. Which beyond 8MP is totally irrelevant to anyone except a professional photographer, but the frothing over "mine has more MP than yours" is intense.
I couldn't help but notice the most adamant spec warriors in my group carefully avoided the topic of Apple's A7 processor when it was released. Whatever one things of Apple's design and pricing schemes the A7 was notable achievement that advanced specs in a direction unexpected by its competitors and which really hasn't been equaled to date. Yet for some reason it wasn't discussed.
Leads me to believe that there is something else involved in the chest pounding contest besides straightforward performance measures...
The first link was to top projects, which is of interest.
The second link claimed "most successful", but was listed in descending amount of dollars raised starting around $12,000,000 (million). If that's the author's definition of 'successful', great. The indie projects I back typically have budgets in the 5-10k range and about 80% of them produce a finished work. Who is to say which is more successful?
- - - - - This is a site to donate money for people to do a cool project. If none of the projects are allowed to fail, it would only be really conservative projects. If you aren't willing to take that risk, don't fund a kickstarter. - - - - -
I'm not complaining. You are: you are asking that the standards applicable to investment banking and venture capital be applied to what is intended to be the donation box at the community art collective where you take your kids for pottery lessons.
- - - - - why can't you get money from a bank or VC? - - - - -
Because not everything in the world is done in expectation of cash ROI? A good indie film will end up being shown at local and regional film festivals (and now, distributed as a DVD to Kickstarter backers). A _really_ good indie film will be invited to national and international film festivals - which will cost the producers money to attend (successful project with negative ROI). How does one obtain a bank loan or VC investment for such an endeavor?
People apparently think Kickstarter and the like are mini Sand Hill Roads, whereas they are much closer to you kicking in $50 to your local community art collective.
- - - - - - You are half way to being scammed. Little guys, indies, whatever they use to help sell you on their trustworthyness, That's part of what they are trying to sell you. Its a noble sentiment. But in investment, nobility has no place. They are there to make money, and that's it. - - - - -
It is not a well-received topic in Chicago-school microeconomics, but there are other human motivations besides desire to accumulate more personal wealth than anyone else (pure greed), and other rewards besides cash ROI. Kickstarter contributions are not "investments" in any meaningful sense and do not operate the same way that venture capital placements do. If you can't see the difference you probably shouldn't be contributing to the former or investing in the latter.
If the project fails due to fraud, yes. Realistically some percentage of all speculative projects (40%-90%), whether funded through Kickstarter or not, are going to fail. That doesn't mean they or their principals were committing fraud.
People should identify Kickstarter projects out of interest, enjoyment, or just a sense of fun, and contribute no more money than they would be willing to use as kindling to start a campfire. If you contribute $25 in hopes of seeing an indie film completed - great if it does, sad if it doesn't. If you contribute $100 hoping to get a new piece of hardware, don't expect anything other than some p% chance that you will ever receive that hardware or if you do it will work as dreamed. If you don't have the money to lose, don't contribute.
One innovative and clearly risky hardware project I backed has people complaining that the base product shipped 2 months later than planned (hoped) and the premium product will be 5 months late. Um, guys: it was risky. There were commercial alternatives available at 10x the price. You knew that this was an attempt to create a mini-breakthrough, but you're griping because it was 2 months late and the associated app will need some point revisions? Get real.
It appeared from the transition forward that Mr. Obama was (and presumably is) also deeply impressed by the big-time consulting culture (McKinsey and their ilk). That inclination tends not to go too well with a need to get actual work completed.
Americans who purchased coverage are paying for it (payment rates running a bit higher than privately-placed insurance, so yes "they paid for it"). Americans who could not previously afford any health insurance and therefore were essentially locked out from most health care are now being subsidized at a level about 40% of all the US' G8 peers. With that subsidy they are able to obtain reasonably-priced basic medical service thus greatly enriching their lives and - it is believed by 97.3% of health care economists - lowering the overall cost of medical care to the entire nation.
Can't help but noticing you left the duration out of those Breitbert-ized numbers.
You also ignored the cost of what happens if we _don't_ have 12 million people in reasonably-managed health insurance plans. While people in the US with no insurance plan may not get much care during their lives they usually get pulled into the standard system in their last years and generate huge costs - which could have been managed or avoided with lifelong basic health care. And of course there is the loss of productivity to the economy when people are unable to obtain basic medical care during the productive years of their lives.
Also about 1437 other factors you left out or simply put a hard right wing glibertarian spin on.
- - - - - And nobody liked Obamacare. That is why it was able to be made into a law. - - - - - -
That's a fundamental characteristic of all human endeavors in which diverse viewpoints are summarized into (conceptually) binary action choices. People disagree on stuff. We need to take actions in some areas where we disagree. "Everyone equally unhappy" is just the other half of the Pareto walnut.
I just can't imagine the level of cognitive dissonance involved in Mr. Anti-Government Norquist leading a campaign to have government-built and operated facilities throughout the land named after St. Ronald Reagan.
"CBO and JCT project that 12 million more nonelderly people will have health insurance in 2014 than would have had it in the absence of the ACA. They also project that 19 million more people will be insured in 2015, 25 million more will be insured in 2016, and 26 million more will be insured each year from 2017 through 2024 than would have been the case without the ACA."
"Relative to their previous projections, CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in lower net costs to the federal government: The agencies now project a net cost of $36 billion for 2014, $5 billion less than the previous projection for the year; and $1,383 billion for the 2015–2024 period, $104 billion less than the previous projection. [...] Those estimates address only the insurance coverage pro- visions of the ACA, which do not generate all of the act’s budgetary effects. Many other provisions, on net, are expected to reduce budget deficits. Considering all of the provisions—including the coverage provisions— CBO and JCT estimated in July 2012 (their most recent comprehensive estimate) that the ACA’s overall effect would be to reduce federal deficits."
Can't help but noticing you left the duration out of those Breitbert-ized numbers.
You also ignored the cost of what happens if we _don't_ have 12 million people in reasonably-managed health insurance plans. While people in the US with no insurance plan may not get much care during their lives they usually get pulled into the standard system in their last years and generate huge costs - which could have been managed or avoided with lifelong basic health care. And of course there is the loss of productivity to the economy when people are unable to obtain basic medical care during the productive years of their lives.
Also about 1437 other factors you left out or simply put a hard right wing glibertarian spin on.
The Affordable Care Act is working extremely well, with 12 million Americans who previously had essentially no access to health care having been covered this year alone, so I'm not sure where "blame" comes from in your post. Projection perhaps? The ACA's basic design was the Heritage Foundation plan of 1993 which was claimed at that time by Republicans to be a 'free market-based' alternative to the Clinton health care reform proposals. Between 1993 and 2014 it suddenly stopped being free-market? Huh.
The Roman government (both Republic and Empire) built roads, aqueducts, and sewers some of which are still in use today 2000 years later. But you know, governments never accomplish anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Good summary by Ezra Klein, who has been tracking health care reform since at least 2008:
In conservative media, Obamacare is a disaster. In the real world, it’s working.
"On the whole, though, costs are lower than expected, enrollment is higher than expected, the number of insurers participating in the exchanges is increasing, and more states are joining the Medicaid expansion. Millions of people have insurance who didn't have it before. The law is working. But a lot of the people who are convinced Obamacare is a disaster will never know that, because the voices they trust will never tell them"
But how many paiiiiiiid???
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
7.2 million, a higher conversion percentage than private industry expects. Call the whambulence for the hard radical right.
sPh
OK, perhaps I should qualify that with "assuming the camera has a decent quality sensor". Although since Apple and Samsung do, that seems a bit redundant for a discussion about spec warriors. If someone is going to claim that their Nogood Phone Ltd QLX8732 with the 897MP sensor that produces images worse than 110 film is competing with the 5S and the S5 then I can't help them.
The fundamental point being that 98% of photos taken today are only ever seen on Facebook or similar, and those services downsample images to 0.25 - 1.2 MP at most. Start with a good quality 8MP image, crop it to 6MP, submit it to Facebook as a "high quality image" and you're down to 1.2MP. But even if you want to make prints 6MP generates an excellent quality 5x7 and a good quality 8x10 for all ordinary people.
sPh
That's true, but note that the spec war arguments tend to focus on megapixels. Which beyond 8MP is totally irrelevant to anyone except a professional photographer, but the frothing over "mine has more MP than yours" is intense.
sPh
I couldn't help but notice the most adamant spec warriors in my group carefully avoided the topic of Apple's A7 processor when it was released. Whatever one things of Apple's design and pricing schemes the A7 was notable achievement that advanced specs in a direction unexpected by its competitors and which really hasn't been equaled to date. Yet for some reason it wasn't discussed.
Leads me to believe that there is something else involved in the chest pounding contest besides straightforward performance measures...
sPh
The first link was to top projects, which is of interest.
The second link claimed "most successful", but was listed in descending amount of dollars raised starting around $12,000,000 (million). If that's the author's definition of 'successful', great. The indie projects I back typically have budgets in the 5-10k range and about 80% of them produce a finished work. Who is to say which is more successful?
sPh
I'm not complaining. You are: you are asking that the standards applicable to investment banking and venture capital be applied to what is intended to be the donation box at the community art collective where you take your kids for pottery lessons.
sPh
Because not everything in the world is done in expectation of cash ROI? A good indie film will end up being shown at local and regional film festivals (and now, distributed as a DVD to Kickstarter backers). A _really_ good indie film will be invited to national and international film festivals - which will cost the producers money to attend (successful project with negative ROI). How does one obtain a bank loan or VC investment for such an endeavor?
People apparently think Kickstarter and the like are mini Sand Hill Roads, whereas they are much closer to you kicking in $50 to your local community art collective.
sPh
It is not a well-received topic in Chicago-school microeconomics, but there are other human motivations besides desire to accumulate more personal wealth than anyone else (pure greed), and other rewards besides cash ROI. Kickstarter contributions are not "investments" in any meaningful sense and do not operate the same way that venture capital placements do. If you can't see the difference you probably shouldn't be contributing to the former or investing in the latter.
sPh
If the project fails due to fraud, yes. Realistically some percentage of all speculative projects (40%-90%), whether funded through Kickstarter or not, are going to fail. That doesn't mean they or their principals were committing fraud.
sPh
People should identify Kickstarter projects out of interest, enjoyment, or just a sense of fun, and contribute no more money than they would be willing to use as kindling to start a campfire. If you contribute $25 in hopes of seeing an indie film completed - great if it does, sad if it doesn't. If you contribute $100 hoping to get a new piece of hardware, don't expect anything other than some p% chance that you will ever receive that hardware or if you do it will work as dreamed. If you don't have the money to lose, don't contribute.
One innovative and clearly risky hardware project I backed has people complaining that the base product shipped 2 months later than planned (hoped) and the premium product will be 5 months late. Um, guys: it was risky. There were commercial alternatives available at 10x the price. You knew that this was an attempt to create a mini-breakthrough, but you're griping because it was 2 months late and the associated app will need some point revisions? Get real.
sPh
It appeared from the transition forward that Mr. Obama was (and presumably is) also deeply impressed by the big-time consulting culture (McKinsey and their ilk). That inclination tends not to go too well with a need to get actual work completed.
sPh
Comity. Cloture.
Wow - a very large attack of hard right wing hide raters today.
http://www.vox.com/cards/obama...
Americans who purchased coverage are paying for it (payment rates running a bit higher than privately-placed insurance, so yes "they paid for it"). Americans who could not previously afford any health insurance and therefore were essentially locked out from most health care are now being subsidized at a level about 40% of all the US' G8 peers. With that subsidy they are able to obtain reasonably-priced basic medical service thus greatly enriching their lives and - it is believed by 97.3% of health care economists - lowering the overall cost of medical care to the entire nation.
Your complaint is?
sPh
Can't help but noticing you left the duration out of those Breitbert-ized numbers.
You also ignored the cost of what happens if we _don't_ have 12 million people in reasonably-managed health insurance plans. While people in the US with no insurance plan may not get much care during their lives they usually get pulled into the standard system in their last years and generate huge costs - which could have been managed or avoided with lifelong basic health care. And of course there is the loss of productivity to the economy when people are unable to obtain basic medical care during the productive years of their lives.
Also about 1437 other factors you left out or simply put a hard right wing glibertarian spin on.
sPh
You really don't understand how the Senate works, do you?
sPh
Read 'em and weep. Then look up epistemic closure.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau...
That's a fundamental characteristic of all human endeavors in which diverse viewpoints are summarized into (conceptually) binary action choices. People disagree on stuff. We need to take actions in some areas where we disagree. "Everyone equally unhappy" is just the other half of the Pareto walnut.
sPh
I just can't imagine the level of cognitive dissonance involved in Mr. Anti-Government Norquist leading a campaign to have government-built and operated facilities throughout the land named after St. Ronald Reagan.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau...
Forbes? Really? REALLY?
sPh
Can't help but noticing you left the duration out of those Breitbert-ized numbers.
You also ignored the cost of what happens if we _don't_ have 12 million people in reasonably-managed health insurance plans. While people in the US with no insurance plan may not get much care during their lives they usually get pulled into the standard system in their last years and generate huge costs - which could have been managed or avoided with lifelong basic health care. And of course there is the loss of productivity to the economy when people are unable to obtain basic medical care during the productive years of their lives.
Also about 1437 other factors you left out or simply put a hard right wing glibertarian spin on.
sPh
Google broken for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
http://council.brandeis.edu/
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hsrinfo...
The Affordable Care Act is working extremely well, with 12 million Americans who previously had essentially no access to health care having been covered this year alone, so I'm not sure where "blame" comes from in your post. Projection perhaps? The ACA's basic design was the Heritage Foundation plan of 1993 which was claimed at that time by Republicans to be a 'free market-based' alternative to the Clinton health care reform proposals. Between 1993 and 2014 it suddenly stopped being free-market? Huh.
sPh
The Roman government (both Republic and Empire) built roads, aqueducts, and sewers some of which are still in use today 2000 years later. But you know, governments never accomplish anything.
sPh